The Armond White Thread

[Mr Sausage]

I already had a banning hung over my head like the Sword of Damocles today via a PM by a mod who has now taken on the role of burly protector of the worst posters on this forum; I think that before I point out that James just said the complete opposite of what he originally said and accused me of taking his post out of context (and get into a macabre game of tug of war in the process), I am just going to walk away. But I'm not coming back. I don't want to sound dramatic, but: bye guys. I have had several posts deleted lately, and the ban warning today and the fact that I now feel that I need to tiptoe around here all of a sudden isn't comfortable for me.

It was nice while it lasted, but I'm done posting here.

Well this ruins my day, mfunk sorry to see you go, always enjoyed your posts. forever

Hmm. I actually told mfunk at several instances that I had no intention of banning him. He did threaten to leave if another one of his posts was ever deleted, but since as far as I know no posts by him have been deleted since, I have no idea why he's making this decision.

[matrixschmatrix]

I totally hear this and have debated this process with friends, but hear me out real quick: films are subjective, right? If you see a film and find a handful of things that personally irk you (but may not irk another viewer), is there really anything the other person can say to change your mind to the point that you do indeed think it is a good film? If I dislike a film for a bunch of reasons, the film is a bad film to me, and I don't think I need to sugarcoat that. I don't mean to imply that anyone who likes the film has bad taste, but rather that in my world (and my world alone) it is a bad film. I feel like saying simply "Well, it didn't work for me because so and so" is understating my actual opinions, if that makes sense?

Perhaps its my own theoretical search for totality in film or simply my own immaturity/egocentrism/insecurity, but that's honestly how I feel. Whatever the reason, if I really don't like something for a number of arguably tangible reasons, I feel uncomfortable not stating that I thought the film was terrible. As a corollary, I don't take it personal if someone is equally passionate against something I like. I enjoy the discourse and then think "Well, they're wrong, but good to know "

Understating your actual opinions- as long as you aren't actually obscuring them or lying about them- is part of civilized discourse, and sometimes the only way to have a meaningful conversation. Look at how well we're communicating- I'm making a really specific effort not to be a jerk, and to practice as I'm preaching, and I feel like it's resulting in a conversation much more constructive than it would have been if I just said "Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.", even if that were honestly how I felt (not saying that it is.)

Basically, the reason it's valuable to go evidence-first into an argument is that you are correct, ultimately your opinion of what that evidence means is totally subjective. However, I have absolutely no reason to care about your opinion. The support you can draw for it, however, can be interesting, and lead to a different view on the film (or book, or song, or political issue.) The point is not necessarily to convince someone a movie they like is bad, or vice versa- although I have had arguments so compelling presented to me that I did reverse my overall feeling on a film before- but to present your view of the film in a way they might actually be able to imagine, rather than reducing it to a simple attack. It goes both ways, too- honestly, when's the last time you thought someone was being interesting about a movie you did like when all they could say about it was 'it was good!'?

I think being passionate about a movie means being able to talk about it in terms more complex than "I liked it!" or "I hated it!", and if you have that complexity to offer, it's by no means deceptive to present that first, especially if you have the impression that you have a view that most people will have trouble swallowing. It's not sugarcoating, it's the essence of discussion.

[Brian C]

Did you also take what I wrote the same way as mfunk? Do you really think I was implying that only my opinion on film can help other people learn about something (if anything, as my response to domino is trying to argue for) when they disagree with me? How else can I argue that this obviously is not what I meant? I fail to see how this misinterpretation is not absurd.

No, I don't think that's what you meant, but it's not what you wrote, either. And though I think he didn't explain his POV all that clearly, I don't think that's what the late mfunk was accusing you of.

Here's the thing: you clearly think it's important that YOU - as in, you personally - aid people's learning processes by expressing your opinion no matter what the cost in diplomatic terms. That what you say is so important it's worth pissing people off over it, and that, furthermore, if they're pissed off about it, it's their fault for being so oversensitive. You've said this repeatedly. And this is, indeed, quite egotistical.

This does not necessarily mean that you think that ONLY you are capable of educating people. But that's a straw man; I don't know where you got that. And at any rate, it's not what makes your attitude egotistical.

[Mr Sausage]

This does not necessarily mean that you think that ONLY you are capable of educating people. But that's a straw man; I don't know where you got that.

Probably from this:

That's the most egotistical thought I've ever heard on this forum - the idea that your opinion of a film is so much more valid that when discussing it with someone else, you have to make sure you hit every point of your opinion of said film to make sure that they learn from your masterful film knowledge.

[Brian C]

That's not the same thing, dude. Mfunk did not say, in that excerpt or anywhere else, that James thought that ONLY he was capable of being so brilliant, which is the dodge that James consequently made.

[Mr Sausage]

Well, he is accusing James Mills of saying his own opinion is "so much more valid" than the people with whom he discusses film, and that the only reason James Mills tells other people why he liked or disliked a film was to educate the less knowledgeable. Is James Mills really making a Straw Man, or just making an inexact paraphrase? I mean, he's not likely to be any more impressed with mfunk's criticism knowing his paraphrase isn't exactly correct.

[domino harvey]

James Mills, since it doesn't look like you're going anywhere, the best advice I can offer is to tone down the arrogance of youth thing you're cultivating here. As matrix..., mfunk, and Brian C have explained, your comments on the necessity of expressing your opinion comes across as egotistical, and it seemingly comes from such an offhand and real place that you probably don't even realize it. It is hard to gauge the value of your opinion without the benefit of your existent tastes-- many of us have been posting here for some time, about many kinds of movies, and there's a shorthand that does eventually develop. Until that point, and it takes a lot of participation to get there if you ever get there, you'll find more support here by offering evidence and interesting/insightful theories, rather than "Look at me"-isms. I can tell by the quality of your writing that your intelligence isn't forced or masked, but there are better ways to get noticed than picking fights (and we're not always playing fair back either, admittedly)

[Brian C]

Well, he is accusing James Mills of saying his own opinion is "so much more valid" than the people with whom he discusses film, and that the only reason James Mills tells other people why he liked or disliked a film was to educate the less knowledgeable. Is James Mills really making a Straw Man, or just making an inexact paraphrase? I mean, he's not likely to be any more impressed with mfunk's criticism knowing his paraphrase isn't exactly correct.

Ultimately, what difference does it make? He asked if I took his argument a certain way, I said no and explained how I did take it. You don't seem to have any issue with my explanation save to quibble over my paraphrase of mfunk's comment which is tangential to what I was saying anyway. So why the fuss?

[Mr Sausage]

I didn't realize I was making a fuss. I just think James Mills was right that his statement had been taken out of context (indeed, only one sentence was hit upon and called egotistical, despite a clarifying second sentence). As for your explanation, I have no idea if it's right or not. I'll let James Mills figure that one out.

I have to admit, I find the sheer level of backlash against this guy puzzling. It's making me place an odd amount of attention on a poster I would otherwise be indifferent to. However, I am much in agreement with Domino's post above. Carry on.

[Brian C]

Puzzling? Really? There's only been a week's worth of posts detailing the guy's bull-in-a-china-shop act. You honestly don't see it?

I agree that he's occasionally constructive and that he's not worthless (and I don't feel I have any standing here to say he's worthless anyway), and I'd even agree that the tendency to pile on leans towards the overdramatic, but people have been very specific about what rubs them the wrong way. If you don't agree, that's of course your privilege, but don't stroke your chin and wonder what people are on about when they've been pointing it out constantly.

[Mr Sausage]

If you don't agree, that's of course your privilege, but don't stroke your chin and wonder what people are on about when they've been pointing it out constantly.

Excuse me, but I did clearly say I was puzzled by the "sheer level of backlash." I am well aware of the substance of people's complaints and never said otherwise.

[Brian C]

OK, so ... arrogant attitude + lots of posts = lots of backlash. Glad to clear that up for you. Like this, for instance; if I kept this up for a week, lots of people would hate me, too.

[cdnchris]

I must admit I'm a little bewildered by the backlash against Mills. I missed his intro during the holidays, true, but I don't see why his posts are creating such furor, even if I don't agree with him, but he's at least trying to explain his opinions, even if it's after he's already made a blanket statement. I would attribute that to maybe simply not knowing the best way to post on a film forum (or at least this forum.) Domino pretty much hit the nail on the head. The bullying and trolling in this case is pretty ridiculous and I don't think it accomplishes much of anything.

[Mr Sausage]

OK, so ... arrogant attitude + lots of posts = lots of backlash. Glad to clear that up for you. Like this, for instance: if I kept this up for a week, lots of people would hate me, too.

Let's speak about attitude. Let me arrange a collection of phrases you've used towards me just now:

"So why the fuss"
"...but don't stroke your chin..."
"Glad to clear that up for you."

Now, in the context of your posts as well as outside them, these come off as snide. I don't know why you think my posts deserve that tone, but I have to wonder about your anger towards Mr Mills if it's misdirected so easily.

Everyone: Mr Mills has stuff to work on. But the level of insults and rudeness directed at him these last few days is unacceptable. If he irritates you that much, please, put him in your foes list, ignore his posts, and ignore his threads.

[swo17]

If he irritates you that much, please, put him in your foes list, ignore his posts, and ignore his threads.

He says on page 30 of the Armond White thread.

[Mr Sausage]

That's the thing about Armond-hate, it actually brings us together as a forum.

[knives]

So, this is catnip for the forum? Maybe the next time things go haywire somebody should just post that photo.

Also come back Mfunk.

[Grand Illusion]

I should definitely be less of a film snob in real life. It's a bad thing, and I know I can personally be abrasive on occasion.

Sometimes, restraint can be so soul-draining though. I was at an event, and one of the people in the conversation did development on the Green Lantern movie. I think that was it. Anyway, without being sycophantic, and being completely genuine, another person in the conversation began praising the development guy's work on Green Lantern. First, I'm ethically opposed to studio "development" procedures anyway, but then I had to keep my mouth shut while this guy went off on how great the Green Lantern movie was going to be and how wonderful its fidelity to the source material was. I swear, I wanted to blow my fucking head off my shoulders. So restraint is possible, but not fun.

Also, I would be fascinated to learn why a five-year-old didn't enjoy Cries and Whispers, my favorite film.

And mfunk should come back. Or maybe we should just have a forum member "better than" list and get it over with.

[James Mills]

Here's the thing: you clearly think it's important that YOU - as in, you personally - aid people's learning processes by expressing your opinion no matter what the cost in diplomatic terms. That what you say is so important it's worth pissing people off over it, and that, furthermore, if they're pissed off about it, it's their fault for being so oversensitive. You've said this repeatedly. And this is, indeed, quite egotistical.

This is such hyperbole that it's somewhat upsetting. I never said that "it was important that I aid someone's learning process by expressing my opinion." Never did I write this or imply this, nor did I ever say anything about someone being at fault for being oversensitive.

I said that I prefer to share my opinion rather than omit it, no matter how brusque, and that I think it's ok if some people are detracted by this stance because we probably wouldn't get along anyways.

And for the last time, this has nothing to do with me or you or whoever being "brilliant", but rather simply having a different opinion and expressing it to each other. Through this kind of discourse, BOTH learn from each other. I'm not saying anything different than Matrix, other than accentuating the point that we should do our best to inform people of our honest opinions in hopes that they will return the favor.

[James Mills]

Until that point, and it takes a lot of participation to get there if you ever get there, you'll find more support here by offering evidence and interesting/insightful theories, rather than "Look at me"-isms. I can tell by the quality of your writing that your intelligence isn't forced or masked, but there are better ways to get noticed than picking fights (and we're not always playing fair back either, admittedly)

I mean, seriously, what are you talking about? I was having a discussion with matrix that was invoked by my own admittance of insecurely downsizing my friends' film tastes sometimes. How exactly could I have "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about this admittance? Please explain how it is a "'Look at me'ism"? Had I "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about my own seeming insecurities, would mfunk not have completely reworded my thoughts on the matter? I'm not sure how one "picks fights" with outsiders of conversations that only come in to insult you in every thread (to which I've only responded about 20% of the time).

[colinr0380]

Surely Everyone Knows that Come and See > Saving Private Ryan?

What are you talking about? This is Armond White here - [null set] > Spielberg.

A more likely formulation:

The Jewel of the Nile > Come and See
Elem Klimov gave do-gooder liberals something to gawk at and justify their self-loathing, but Lewis Teague looks forward instead of backwards, and expands on Zemeckis's masterpiece Romancing the Stone with his visionary fable of international relations in our turbulent world.

Well, you have me convinced now!

[domino harvey]

Until that point, and it takes a lot of participation to get there if you ever get there, you'll find more support here by offering evidence and interesting/insightful theories, rather than "Look at me"-isms. I can tell by the quality of your writing that your intelligence isn't forced or masked, but there are better ways to get noticed than picking fights (and we're not always playing fair back either, admittedly)

I mean, seriously, what are you talking about? I was having a discussion with matrix that was invoked by my own admittance of insecurely downsizing my friends' film tastes sometimes. How exactly could I have "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about this admittance? Please explain how it is a "'Look at me'ism"? Had I "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about my own seeming insecurities, would mfunk not have completely reworded my thoughts on the matter? I'm not sure how one "picks fights" with outsiders of conversations that only come in to insult you in every thread (to which I've only responded about 20% of the time).

Jesus Christ, I throw you some rope and you hang yourself with it. Forget niceties, you're on your own

[matrixschmatrix]

Until that point, and it takes a lot of participation to get there if you ever get there, you'll find more support here by offering evidence and interesting/insightful theories, rather than "Look at me"-isms. I can tell by the quality of your writing that your intelligence isn't forced or masked, but there are better ways to get noticed than picking fights (and we're not always playing fair back either, admittedly)

I mean, seriously, what are you talking about? I was having a discussion with matrix that was invoked by my own admittance of insecurely downsizing my friends' film tastes sometimes. How exactly could I have "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about this admittance? Please explain how it is a "'Look at me'ism"? Had I "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about my own seeming insecurities, would mfunk not have completely reworded my thoughts on the matter? I'm not sure how one "picks fights" with outsiders of conversations that only come in to insult you in every thread (to which I've only responded about 20% of the time).

I don't think they're talking specifically about our discussion here, so much as (for instance) the situation where you went into the True Grit thread and, after telling everyone your take, said

I find it hard to believe that I'm really the only person on this board that had serious problems with this movie.

that comes off as pretty specifically trying to pick a fight- perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but the implication is "I can't believe you all liked this movie."

It relates to this conversation because I think a number of people saw this as a situation where you were talking about exactly the movie-discussing habit that they found irritating or frustrating elsewhere on the board, and wanted very badly to get you to recognize why that behavior was irritating and frustrating.

[MichaelB]

I have to admit, I find the sheer level of backlash against this guy puzzling. It's making me place an odd amount of attention on a poster I would otherwise be indifferent to. However, I am much in agreement with Domino's post above. Carry on.

I know no-one will believe me, but can I just say that I genuinely wasn't leaping on any kind of backlash bandwagon when I ripped one of James' reviews to shreds in another thread? I hadn't read the Armond White thread in ages and don't often hang around the New Films forum as a general rule (on account of seeing relatively few new films), so had no idea that he'd already gained some measure of notoriety.

Anyway, back on topic, the last sentence of Armond's review of The King's Speech is a laugh-out-loud classic. All my charitable impulses assumed that he must have intended sarcasm, but I can't for the life of me see how that would work.

[matrixschmatrix]

Anyway, back on topic, the last sentence of Armond's review of The King's Speech is a laugh-out-loud classic. All my charitable impulses assumed that he must have intended sarcasm, but I can't for the life of me see how that would work.

Oh my Lord, I think I just literally did the 'ahahhah *wheeze* *try to laugh but can't breathe*' thing about that, that is unbelievable.

I really, really hope that's deliberate trolling, like Ebert's whole videogames aren't art thing.