The Armond White Thread

[Gregory]

Armond denies the whole thing:

The comments that I supposedly made were never uttered by me or anyone within my earshot. I have been libeled by publications that recklessly quoted unnamed sources that made up what I said and to whom I was speaking. Someone on the podium talked about critics' "passion." Does "passion" only run one-way toward subservience?

The press has accustomed itself to treating me as a bete noir--so much so that eavesdroppers at the event continually misrepresent my behavior, even to the point of repeating such lies as distorting my cheer for Robert De Niro's The Good Shepherd into "heckling" and that I "made Annette Bening cry"--both false allegations. Among some Circle members and media folk, there is personal, petty interest in seeing me maligned. I guess the awards themselves don't matter. It's a shameless attempt to squelch the strongest voice that exists in contemporary criticism.

Right now former NYFCC Chairman Joshua Rothkopf, acting Chairman Stephen Whitty, Karen Durbin, David Denby, Rex Reed, Dana Stevens and others have arranged a Communist-style special "Emergency Meeting" supposedly in the interest of legislating "decorum"--a meeting based entirely upon something that none of them actually heard and one that is really intended to purge me from the Circle. Only David Edelstein, with whom I've had past public disputes, showed the common courtesy to inquire if the rumors were true.

Did I make sotto voce comments to entertain my five guests? Sure, but nothing intended for others to hear and none correctly "reported." I don't even know what it means to call Steve McQueen a "garbage man" or "doorman" even though the racist implications are obvious. None of this makes sense which is what happens when online journalism reports a malicious lie.

As for the group's craven "Emergency Meeting." I dont care what they decide. It's not a meeting I plan to attend. --Armond White

Ah, I had a feeling this might just turn out to be nothing more than a vaguely racist/communist plot by people who can't stand his brilliance and need to hush up his dangerously truthful stances on movies. No one can predict what these people will resort to, so we can only hope Armond has a food taster and knows how to check his car for severed brake lines and explosive devices.

[Perkins Cobb]

Update: Armond blah blah blah and here's a cute pic of Adele Exarchopoulos in a trucker hat.

[Jeff]

I'm certain the dozen or so people who were sitting around White and independently reported on his behavior are lying, and he is speaking "truth to power" as usual.

At 6:38 into Harry Belafonte's speech, it sure sounds like someone screaming "Doorman...garbage man...fuck you!" but it was probably someone else. Just because White has a history of abusive heckling at these functions and lots of people saw and heard him, that doesn't mean that he's guilty.

Why isn't everyone outraged that these racist, socialist, fascist, communists (who probably should have all been aborted) are disparaging the name of a perfectly reasonable even-keeled guy like Armond White?

[zedz]

these racist, socialist, fascist, communists. . .

For some reason I initially read that as "factist", which is oddly appropriate!

[dx23]

Well, I used to think that Armond was a contrarian just looking for attention but after reading his defense, I just think that he is just fucking delusional and batshit crazy, ala Dennis Rodman kinda crazy. Ban him from the group and let him fade to obscurity. He'll probably get himself arrested for launching stupid tirades on Central Park and that would be the end of him.

[Perkins Cobb]

Wa-POW: Armond has been voted off the island, er, out of the Circle.

[mfunk9786]

Why does it seem impolite to me to have to accompany that announcement with an essay essentially backhandedly insulting White's criticism? Isn't kicking him out of the Circle enough without shoving him out the door and essentially writing a "review" of a fellow critic, however polarizing and unlikable?

[domino harvey]

I have no earthly idea. He's a menace and an attention whoring contrarian whose occasional good points were drowned in a sea of useless gallivanting of at-times intentionally bad taste masquerading as "Getting it." Anyone struggling to defend this joker is exerting more effort than necessary

[domino harvey]

There's also the problematic reality that he is not alone is hating the film.

Absolutely. As I've said too many times on the board already, I don't think much of McQueen's film, but Armond White isn't someone I can align myself to even when we share a common taste, popular or not-- I am reminded of his praise for Scott Pilgrim. Now that's a divisive film that I love with all of my being, but I can't use his "defense" of the film to add to my own because it's "Us vs Them" nonsense, and he's given those with a differing opinion even less to hang their hat on. His basic function as critic is moot: he's incapable of discussing any film in a way similar to how any rational human being would be able to process it. It's like reading alien language, or an article-length YouTube comment

[ianthemovie]

Were Tina Fey and Amy Poehler's jokes last night at the Golden Globes about Matt Damon being a garbage man--which got referenced again when Damon came on-stage to present something--supposed to be in reference to this scandal? That's immediately what I thought of, though it surprised me that they would make jokes on broadcast TV about something that many viewers probably wouldn't be clued into.

[Jack Phillips]

I have no earthly idea. He's a menace and an attention whoring contrarian whose occasional good points were drowned in a sea of useless gallivanting of at-times intentionally bad taste masquerading as "Getting it." Anyone struggling to defend this joker is exerting more effort than necessary

No doubt. And yet here we are on page 48 of this thread.

[domino harvey]

Any Internet community needs a common enemy to stop users from turning on each other. AW serves a function for us, but it's not his intended one

[Perkins Cobb]

Actually I thought the Owen Gleiberman piece I linked to above was very insightful on the subject of why White is/was worth reading in spite (or because) of his evident lunacy, although if may have been overly generous in conflating the Armond of 10-15 years ago with the Armond of today.

It is profoundly disappointing that White's boorishness was rewarded with attention on the Golden Globes, even if it was of the veiled insider variety. "Mission accomplished!" in his mind, I'm sure.

[mfunk9786]

I just always think it's a bit more polite to just say "Due to recent actions, we've decided to ban Armond White from the NYCC." and leave it at that rather than feeling like you need to somehow validate and invalidate parts of the man's personality. He's an exhausting troll, but he's still a human being and not a science project for a fellow critic to dissect on his way out the door, right? Or am I just reacting too sensitively?

[Jack Phillips]

Any Internet community needs a common enemy to stop users from turning on each other. AW serves a function for us, but it's not his intended one

Our own Emmanuel Goldstein, eh O'Brien?

[HistoryProf]

Ah, I had a feeling this might just turn out to be nothing more than a vaguely racist/communist plot by people who can't stand his brilliance and need to hush up his dangerously truthful stances on movies. No one can predict what these people will resort to, so we can only hope Armond has a food taster and knows how to check his car for severed brake lines and explosive devices.

Even worse! "It’s a shameless attempt to squelch the strongest voice that exists in contemporary criticism."

Were i not so smiley averse, there'd be several rolling lol heads below this sentence. My god the delusion is strong in this one. It's really hard to imagine how he's managed to maintain this level of self-importance and martyrdom for so many years - only to finally elevate himself to the absolute pinnacle of film criticism and America's last hope for seeing the truth in Hollywood. I'm pretty sure he'd be writing for something other than a website were that true.

[HistoryProf]

I just always think it's a bit more polite to just say "Due to recent actions, we've decided to ban Armond White from the NYCC." and leave it at that rather than feeling like you need to somehow validate and invalidate parts of the man's personality. He's an exhausting troll, but he's still a human being and not a science project for a fellow critic to dissect on his way out the door, right? Or am I just reacting too sensitively?

he's brought it on himself, and is using it himself to portray the Great Armond as the arbiter of all that is true in film criticism and it's just that no one else can handle the truth. he IS a science project. an endlessly fascinating, albeit a mind-numbingly insufferable one, at that.

[domino harvey]

Any Internet community needs a common enemy to stop users from turning on each other. AW serves a function for us, but it's not his intended one

Our own Emmanuel Goldstein, eh O'Brien?

Work Is Freedom
Contrarianism Is Criticism

[Perkins Cobb]

I just always think it's a bit more polite to just say "Due to recent actions, we've decided to ban Armond White from the NYCC." and leave it at that rather than feeling like you need to somehow validate and invalidate parts of the man's personality. He's an exhausting troll, but he's still a human being and not a science project for a fellow critic to dissect on his way out the door, right? Or am I just reacting too sensitively?

Under the circumstances, Gleiberman's essay was probably a far more gracious adieu than White had any reason to expect from a member of the NYFCC.

[Numero Trois]

Isn't he a conservative? Why doesn't he write for a place like the Daily Caller or Breitbart? Not exactly arts-friendly places, but at least he'd share space with plenty of cranks.

[Perkins Cobb]

SO tempted to ask Lou Lumenick on Twitter what the vote tally to expel Armond was.

[Mr Sausage]

I just always think it's a bit more polite to just say "Due to recent actions, we've decided to ban Armond White from the NYCC." and leave it at that rather than feeling like you need to somehow validate and invalidate parts of the man's personality. He's an exhausting troll, but he's still a human being and not a science project for a fellow critic to dissect on his way out the door, right? Or am I just reacting too sensitively?

That piece isn't a press release from the organization, it's an individual's reflection on the reputation and the public behaviour of a public figure. And it's a mundane example of that kind of thing, too. I don't understand your own post, by the way: considering the piece devotes a whole paragraph to describing White's personality in warm terms and takes a uncommonly generous view of White's work as a critic, I don't understand why it would occur to you to call the piece aloof and impersonal and unaware of its subject's humanity.

[Perkins Cobb]

Well, this'll stir up some shit! Just when you thought it'd all blown over, the NY Times runs a generally pro-Armond piece.

Oh, and Armond does not own any plants. Just in case you didn't know that, and needed to.

[Numero Trois]

That NYT piece didn't seem pro-Armond to me. The reporter was just doing her job in being as even-handed as her job requires.

[Numero Trois]

This one is probably old news for some. Old Arnold is as good as New Arnold:

As for The Passion of the Christ, having spent the year outnumbered—because it seems no mainstream publication will hire a Christian movie critic (and I'm not talking about me)—I have found the discussion too oppressively lopsided, if not totalitarian. I can only "discuss" this movie on home turf. And that enrages me, because I have not read a single mainstream review that sought to appreciate Gibson's basic, powerful imagery on its own terms. Does atheism rule? Does blindness rule criticism? To have this movie reviewed only by nonbelievers and half-thinkers is tantamount to fascism. Linking Gibson's film with Michael Moore's also avoids the film's aesthetics. Many critics choose to do just that, but I can tell you there are millions of readers who, understandably, feel the lack. They aren't getting from criticism what they want/need to know about art, mythology, spirituality. They're only getting objections, recriminations, and remonstrations.

Emphasis mine. I really don't want to see his therapist bill.