The Armond White Thread

[MichaelB]

All that matters to the true critic is the 90 minutes of images, flashing before the eyes at 24 frames per second.

This explains why Armond always focuses exclusively on the film, and never once mentions its reception with other critics or audiences.

[tavernier]

Armond on Halle Berry's new film

Excerpt:

Berry slips instantly into fashionable pathology—the kind that worked Oscar wonders for Charlize Theron in Monster, Melissa Leo in Frozen River and Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone. In Hollywood today, female destitution has taken the place of self-actualization.

[knives]

Can't a destitute person also come to a self-actualization. If anything I think his own example of Jennifer Lawrence is the perfect example of that.

[gokinsmen]

"He had won the victory over himself. He loved Armond White."

[domino harvey]

I know h8ing on Armond White is soo last year, but this offhand Vincente Minnelli praise made me lol, mainly because he clearly has just praised a film he hasn't actually seen. The Reluctant Debutante is far from the melodrama label White has affixed, and is, in fact, a rather mean-spirited and negative comic satire of social class arrogance that actually bolsters classist sentiments!

Oh, and this is super classy too

[Mr Sausage]

All this makes The Adjustment Bureau Damon’s biggest boondoggle yet. He uses Nolfi’s hipster taste to challenge religious tradition, the bugaboo of the secular Left.

Boondoggle? Bugaboo?

I could maybe forgive using one of them. Hell, I might even be convinced to forgive the use of two of them in the same piece. But both in the space of two sentences? Ugh. It's times like this I wish you could fire people from the English language.

[Thomas Dukenfield]

All this makes The Adjustment Bureau Damon’s biggest boondoggle yet. He uses Nolfi’s hipster taste to challenge religious tradition, the bugaboo of the secular Left.

Boondoggle? Bugaboo?

I could maybe forgive using one of them. Hell, I might even be convinced to forgive the use of two of them in the same piece. But both in the space of two sentences? Ugh. It's times like this I wish you could fire people from the English language.

A boondoggle is typically a plan for profit that backfires horribly, but it sounds like he means to say "yet another big piece of shit starring Matt Damon". I think half of Armond's "criticism" is just using synonyms for "bad" ("hipster" would be another). I picture that he has a list of about 50,000 negative words, and he pulled these two out because they were near each other.

Or, to put it another way, wait until he reviews Breakin' 2 - Electric Boogaloo. Your head will explode.

[Brian C]

The unconscious, behind-the-scenes manipulation of human thought and motive (through Norris’ political ideology and Elise’s bohemian instincts) gets tricked-up with misleading cynicism about our political process and exaggerated film-noir tropes. Nolfi shows zero aptitude for either.

I'll mostly ignore his obvious flamebait "seditious Green Zone" comment, and focus on this sentence, of which I have two questions:

1) What does this mean? I mean, seriously. Elise's bohemian instincts are a manifestation of the film's manipulation of human thought and motive? Nolfi shows no aptitude for exagerrated film noir tropes? What? Are his tropes too subtle, and therefore not appropriately exaggerated?

2) What "political ideology" does Norris even have? As is usually the case, the film's political characters seem to have no ideology at all. It's been a couple weeks now since I saw the film, but I don't remember Norris expressing a single political viewpoint at all. He is as harmlessly generic as could possibly be.

At least the requisite Spielberg reference is somewhat appropriate this time. And while I don't know why WWI would be part of a "Liberal's litany" of anything (or why we're capitalizing Liberal), he's right about the film's obnoxious history lesson.

[domino harvey]

Damon's politician is from a working class neighborhood = liberal
She's a modern dancer = liberal

Funny that he's taking such a lame ideological stance when the film is so blatantly Christian that a friend of mine redubbed it Angels in the Outdoor

[knives]

Funny that he's taking such a lame ideological stance when the film is so blatantly Christian that a friend of mine redubbed it Angels in the Outdoor

So they completely fucked over the original story? Well that's an other reason not to see it.

[Brian C]

Except that it paints a very ugly picture of God for a "blatantly Christian" movie. Which is one of the reasons I was willing to give it more or less a pass - whether intentionally or not, the movie had a lot of disturbing religious implications.

For example, at one point there's a throwaway line where Norris is told that he has greatness within him, and so did his father and brother, the latter of whom died of drug addiction (don't recall what became of the father). But they were denied that greatness because "it wasn't in the plan." And I find myself thinking, what kind of shitty world do these people live in that the "Chairman" just throws these peoples' lives away so wastefully? What kind of stupid plan does he have if denies people control over their own lives but has no way of developing their potential and leaves them to suffer?

I mean, if I'm religiously inclined, and wanted to believe in God's plan every time something bad happens in the world ... this movie's not helping me with that. At all.

[domino harvey]

I just meant "blatantly" in that the plot hinges on there actually being a God and angels

[Brian C]

OK, understood. I thought you meant it in the Kirk Cameron sense.

[domino harvey]

Yeah, it was poorly expressed on my part, but in my defense, so was the film! (I say while still half-admiring how absolutely ridic the pic is)

[HistoryProf]

Mr. Predictable surprises no one w/ his pan of HP7.2 (one of 6 splats vs. 218 fresh reviews on Rotten Tomatoes). the bold stood out to me as so beautifully Armond that they should be framed....it is his exegesis of how terribly boring the entire series has been. Of course, he never actually reviews the film itself, he just calls it boring and derides humanity for being mindless sucking at the teet of hollywood. I.e. the same review he regurgitates for every popular film. The fact that he threw in the "anti-Christian" bit makes this an altogether wondrous example of Armond's profound borderline personality disorder.

The precedent was already set by Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings debacle—unintelligible fantasy epics that people went to out of consumerist habit and left unable to recount or fondly recall. Jackson's fantasy overload laid the groundwork for mistaking F/X for content. Yates' relentlessly pedestrian visual choices allow the franchise to emphasize F/X—the "magic" is in other peoples' hands—so that crucial connecting dramatic scenes remain visually banal and feel hastily executed. The addition of 3D only makes Yates' poor compositions more noticeable—the imbalance juts out. It doesn't help that audiences are so accustomed to TV banality that they no longer watch or read movies visually; they simply follow dialogue and extol the CGI. They're as helpless as Yates at discovering Harry Potter's mythic roots. Part 7 finds Harry in his own Gethsemane, but Yates, Rowling or somebody lost that cultural, spiritual thread.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody—just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. (Sadly, Stephenie Meyer and Twilight's producers seem to be following this model.) The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it's certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

[matrixschmatrix]

It doesn't help that audiences are so accustomed to TV banality that they no longer watch or read movies visually; they simply follow dialogue and extol the CGI.

I love Mr. Populist's endless hatred of the actual people who watch movies. Plus, the "people expect shit because they're used to shitty TV" is a recycled criticism of Pauline Kael's from like 30 years ago which he tossed CGI into in a way that doesn't make sense, and which wouldn't make sense in any case given how visually inventive TV has become.

[Mr Sausage]

Is Lord of the Rings really that unintelligible? Tiny guy inherits magic ring, discovers it's evil, travels to enemy territory to throw it in a volcano. Has adventures along the way. Pretty straightforward.

[domino harvey]

There are adventures?! SPOILER ALERT, DUDE

[matrixschmatrix]

Ugh, you're listening to dialogue, you consumerist

[Brian C]

Much as I hate to defend Armond, I'll say the following about that excerpt:

1) I don't disagree that Jackson "mis[took] F/X for content," and at any rate, this is hardly an uncommon view of the LOTR films.
2) I haven't seen the new Potter, but based on the previous three, I'd readily agree that Spielberg > Yates.
3) Though it's hard to say for sure because he's a shitty writer, I think the "anti-Christian" bit is simply an allusion to the controversy that some fundamentalist Christian groups have tried to gin up since the series first became popular. I don't take it as a statement of his own personal beliefs.

[HistoryProf]

Is there any actual truth to the Spielberg comment - or any evidence at all the Steven would have even wanted to do it? I don't recall ever hearing such a thing, and it doesn't seem like anything he'd be interested in at all. Of course he's better than Yates, but that's like saying "this mafia movie sucks because Scorsese didn't direct it!" it's a completely meaningless critique.

As for LOTR: there's nothing remotely "unintelligible" about the series - though I suppose if you refuse to listen to any dialog when you go to a movie, it will probably be tough to follow what's happening. Again, just a bizarre complaint that makes no rational sense whatsoever. As for F/X - that was kind of the point....it was only with f/x advances that the stories could truly be brought to life as they were written. They were steeped in FANTASY. So of course they are f/x heavy...the CGI was incredibly well done....I don't see how that's something to whine about. Unless, of course, you just want to whine and deride something popular because it's popular.

[antnield]

Is their any actual truth to the Spielberg comment - or any evidence at all the Steven would have even wanted to do it? I don't recall ever hearing such a thing, and it doesn't seem like anything he'd be interested in at all. Of course he's better than Yates, but that's like saying "this mafia movie sucks because Scorsese didn't direct it!" it's a completely meaningless critique.

From the LA Times.

[Brian C]

the CGI was incredibly well done....I don't see how that's something to whine about. Unless, of course, you just want to whine and deride something popular because it's popular.

Apropos to the most recent infighting thread, I actually think this does come very close to stating opinion as if it were fact. Get a grip, dude - it ought to be possible to think the f/x work was cheesy (e.g., when Legolas takes down the oliphaunt in the third movie) without having motives questioned.

[knives]

I actually find even the practical effects of that movie to not work very well.

[Mr Sausage]

What's unintelligible to me is the statement that Jackson "mis[took] F/X for content." Has anyone actually read the books? A. there is no way to film them without without using the level of special effects Jackson did. B. it's a story of heroes walking around killing trolls and goblins. I don't know how much content was expected, but the movies incorporate all the content you're ever going to get out of those books. Unless you blithely make things up as you go along, mountains of mythical creatures being slain is what you're going to get when you film this story. The criticism makes as much sense for LOTR as it would for the 7th Voyage of Sinbad or Jason and the Argonauts.