http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/01/11/armond-white-darren-aronofsky-nyfcc-awards/

Fuck that bitch!!!

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

It was during their Inception episode.
He called Ebert the downfall of real film criticism and essentially shat on the heads of the /filmcasters by saying they were boys in an adult game...that was no game.

If you look for it, it's part 2 of that episode.

It happened around the same time we started AFOP, which I find amusing.

I have a 400 year old chip on my shoulder.

David Chen and Adam Quigley in particular.

They pretty much scoffed and laughed at him during most of the interview. They (like a lot of people) take his opinions too seriously. These dudes were bewildered and upset at the fact that he had problems with Inception (and liked Transformers).

I figured people would just realize that he's just doing his thing, and kinda just brush it off.

I guess not.

His mad making abilities are powerful.

>It was during their Inception episode.
>He called Ebert the downfall of real film criticism and
>essentially shat on the heads of the /filmcasters by saying
>they were boys in an adult game...that was no game.

>I figured people would just realize that he's just doing his
>thing

...and started saying, essentially, that his opinion is better than your opinion and what you did for fun was beneath him or any reasonable person and THEN proceed to extol the virtues of Transformers 2 - and not draw so much as a chuckle, I would figure it was because your shock hadn't worn off yet.

Bottom line (to me) is that he's a guy with an opinion who's trying to say that other opinions that haven't been vetted by him are without merit.

He took some classes and claimed a pedigree.
Why are his attempts at criticism in high school a fertile training ground while everyone else is tarnishing the game?

Now he's drawing attention to himself by acting out.
Is this in the good name of film criticism?
Or is it self-serving?
If the former, how? If the latter, again, why is his Iron Sheiking any better than anyone else?
(yo Darren Aronofsky, I'mma let you finish, but lemme shit on Greenberg)

I have a 400 year old chip on my shoulder.

that Mr. White is very obsessed with the term and title "critic", in particular its current usage. I believe he views this title in a more classical(?) sense. You know the...

"any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism...blah blah blah"

...thing.

His defensiveness over this title is a little silly, I think.

You mentioned AFOP, and perhaps you think that he's turning his nose up at people like you. Maybe -- but I also recall him saying that podcasts, blogs and the like are valuable because they encourage discussion.

Whether he finds much value in joe podcaster's opinion on certain films -- that's another story. But then I'm sure many of us have people whose opinion we value more than others.

No biggie. Maybe I'm just simplifying it, but I kinda just see it as a "aight, Armond...you do your thang, imma do mine"

It was clearly a stunt to get more traffic (and it worked tremendously). They refused to even mention White's name during the Toy Story 3 review a few weeks prior to the Inception episode.

Then they spent what seemed like the next two months defending themselves and that birthed the uber-defensive Dave Chen. It is a bit grating listening to him constantly fight the bits of negative feedback that have accompanied the huge success of his show.

Those few weeks with the Armond crap and any time a Twilight movie comes out we get the worst of the Slashfilmcast. Otherwise it is appointment listening.

I didn't know a whole lot about Armond White before listening to the episode. The buildup and buzz around this "stunt" (it clearly was) had me believing dude was a major villain.

I came away from this interview very impressed with him (and a little less impressed with /filmcast hosts). I don't agree with everything he said (or says), but he's well learned in the "cinema thing", and as Longo pointed out, quite capable (skilled even) at sharing his thoughts.

I don't mind him being part of the discourse. I wish that particular episode found a better balance between a mature discussion, and their apparent contempt and mockery.


>It was clearly a stunt to get more traffic (and it worked
>tremendously). They refused to even mention White's name
>during the Toy Story 3 review a few weeks prior to the
>Inception episode.
>
>Then they spent what seemed like the next two months defending
>themselves and that birthed the uber-defensive Dave Chen. It
>is a bit grating listening to him constantly fight the bits of
>negative feedback that have accompanied the huge success of
>his show.
>
>Those few weeks with the Armond crap and any time a Twilight
>movie comes out we get the worst of the Slashfilmcast.
>Otherwise it is appointment listening.

Because he can write, even when his ideas are out of left field, and his voice is very clear. And on occasion, he can really really nail why a film doesn't work. His reviews of The Kids Are All Right and Greenberg (when he's actually talking about Greenberg) perfectly articulate why I hated those movies.

But then later he'll call Jonah Hex "genius" and say it's better than True Grit. And while I actually didn't mind Jonah Hex one bit (it's nowhere near my worst ten movies of the year), this is utter lunacy and contrarianism.

And apparently he acted like a dick-- fine. While I'm surprised he's maintained such a high-profile critic job, people pay attention and read his work, and he is capable of writing good reviews. So while I often laugh at the predictability of his opinions (him calling Roger Ebert the death of film criticism is comically obvious), I don't despise him nearly as much as the majority of the internet does. Unlike 90% of the mainstream film critics, he's consistently interesting.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

To say your opinion doesn't matter unless you get some magic seal of approval?
He negates the entirety of www.thepasswordisswordfish.com and denies your sharing your opinion until you pass his film boot camp.
He would mock your emotion and tell you that "Toy Story 3 is a full-length commercial for dupes who mistake merchandizing (sic) for culture."

He's raising his voice (acting out) because so many people are talking (crowding his lane).

He can make his wild claims, but he can't discount anyone else's opinion because that's all we're doing is sharing ours.

He wants us to watch a film, listen to his qualified opinion as fact and whisper amongst ourselves.
He's lumping his ragged opinion in with the film as the collective work to be discussed, when he's the same as us...but with a check and a bigger audience.

I have a 400 year old chip on my shoulder.

Ebert was one of the first to kind of take the "common man" approach, always honest about why personally he relates to films. He's as much a character in his reviews as the movie is, which very often is how it should be.

White is from a school of criticism that takes his film history education-- the fact that he's seen more movies than you-- and then wields the "informed" nature of his opinions as a billy club of fact to beat people who enjoy movies he doesn't down with. Which I vehemently disagree with. It's what makes his movie reviews unreadable when it's a film I enjoy, because I feel belittled.

However, this widespread internet opinion that he's an "idiot" or is someone who doesn't actually believe the things he believes is equally concerning. I think he honestly is just a contrarian at his core, and he gets more and more so as the years pass, but that he truly hated Toy Story 3 and was truly bored by The King's Speech and shared his feelings regarding them in an articulate manner.

But he's not what I think a movie critic should be, nor do I agree with many of his opinions. I don't think there's anything wrong with liking a film that everyone else liked.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

mainly because Black Swan is way overrated and he's right about it
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

with one exception:

http://www.nypress.com/article-22020-better-than-list-2010.html

Better-Than List 2010
The Social Network is unfriended, Annette Bening is the best mother and Todd Solondz's dark satire trumps a king's stutter in ARMOND WHITE's annual reassessment of the year's top films.

By Armond White
.......

Mainstream Consensus names The Social Network the film of the year but everybody knows it lacks the power and popularity of true consensus-making films like On the Waterfront, The Godfather, E.T. and Saving Private Ryan. The questionable unanimity around TSN proves the disconnect between pundits and the public and exposes how so-called critics' tendency to flatter their own caste fails to grasp genuine film art.

This year's Better-Than List provides an opportunity to see how a great year for movies, highlighted by a renaissance of cinema's Old Masters—from Resnais and Bellocchio to Chabrol and Haile Gerima—has been obscured by the media preference for slick new images of its own noxious, select kind. The Social Network rewards immorality, but this list knows better.

Wild Grass > The Social Network

Alain Resnais concocted one of the year's two best films with a constantly inventive fantasia on our common idiosyncrasynot polarized like the high-tech bullying that David Fincher burnishes and sentimentalizes.

Vincere > Carlos

Marco Bellocchio, still vital, still relevant, explores the neuroses of mass hysteria via film, opera and sexual magnetism. One of the year's two best films, this political psychological drama embarrasses Olivier Assayas' terrorist chic commitment to nothing.

Mother and Child > The Kids Are All Right

Rodrigo Garcia delves into the meaning of community though basic female experience (Naomi Watts, Annette Bening and Kerry Washington, all brilliant). He digs deeper into sex, community and local politics than Lisa Cholodenko's facile, P.C., button-pushing lesbian sitcom.

Life During Wartime > The King's Speech

Todd Solondz, America's toughest satirist, posits post-9/11 forgiveness and takes the temperature of the zeitgeist; it is the year's most provocative film, but the Anglophiliac celebration of England's George VI on the brink of WWII is the year's tiredest.

Another Year > The Social Network

Mike Leigh looks at the middle-aged need to connect sympathetically, exquisitely, while Fincher and Aaron Sorkin's TV-glib script reduces human relations to a sophomoric power grab.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World > Inception

Edgar Wright finds a funny, sexy, visually exciting way to illustrate the mind while Christopher Nolan bends the frame—and fanboys—into mindlessness.

The Girl on the Train > Winter's Bone

André Téchiné transposes the Tawana Brawley incident to France for a global tale of adolescent need vs. a pandering hillbilly Precious.

Ondine > Black Swan

Neil Jordan shows the importance of myth and faith in an Irish romantic epic so visually ravishing (shot by Christopher Doyle) it feels absolutely new, but Aronofsky rips-off Repulsion and The Red Shoes to terrify and excite the ignorant, faithless and over-cultured.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole > Toy Story 3

Zack Snyder's such a compelling visionary he can credibly turn owls into human surrogates while resurrecting the moral meaning of narrative; Toy Story 3 is a full-length commercial for dupes who mistake merchandizing for culture.

Teza > White Material

Haile Gerima dramatizes a young Ethiopian's awakening conscience while tracing the modern history of Europe's impact on colonial political thought. Gerima's deep feeling contrasts Claire Denis' wacky white guilt and death wish.

Takers & The Fighter > The Town

David O. Russell and John Luessenhop find ethnic vitality in street history and genre heroics, but Ben Affleck's trite condescension only finds degrading ethnic and genre stereotypes.

Easier With Practice > Easy A

Kyle Patrick Alvarez sensitively depicts young adult sexual pressure but Easy A reduces the legacy of The Scarlet Letter to an insipid teen flick that cheers dishonesty and greed.

Please Give > Greenberg

Nicole Holofcener's best-yet film understands it's not all about "me," but Noah Baumbach advertises his own repugnant egotism, striking a chord with evil critics everywhere—but thankfully, not the public.

I Love You Phillip Morris > I Am Love

Directing team Glenn Ficarra and John Requa boldly assert gay love—truly progressive sexual and cultural politics featuring the performance of Jim Carrey's career—while Tilda Swinton showboats epicene, gay special pleading disguised in ersatz melodrama.

Jonah Hex > True Grit

Jimmy Hayward's neo-Western—written by unsung geniuses Neveldine-Taylor—is more stirring than even the Coen Brothers' very-good remake.

Inspector Bellamy > Blue Valentine

Claude Chabrol's sensibility—and epitaph—finds the full range of life experience in a detective's duty to wife, family and the world. It corrects Blue Valentine's immature sex obsession.

City Island > The Social Network

Gotta have at the Facebook movie once again, if only to counter the fallacious consensus that no other movie dealt with the Internet phenomenon. Ray De Felitta's emotionally large family comedy and Andy Garcia's warm comeback performance epitomized timeless, non-cyber interfacing.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

... as a club to beat people with. There are serious people floating thoughtful, careful opinions into the world and there are unserious people who spoil it with their lack of rigor. It's actually kind of a neat trick, because it pretends to evade the usual thoughtless ways that we divide people into you vs. me by presenting a kind of strength-of-character alternative. You can be conservative and unserious or liberal and unserious in this system, and both are deserve a kind of sneering disgust. The problem for people who do this is that you have to remain thoughtful and careful and that's really, like, difficult. The distinction becomes a weapon when you get tired of trying and decide to substitute a kind of credentialism-of-one whereby you've already proven your serious chops and the people that disagree are therefore unserious. Throwing around the word "genius", particularly in eccentric constructions like "has genius", without bothering to explain what you think that word means is a useful tip off that you've given up on the work required to be thoughtful or careful and would just rather everybody defer to your opinion.

I don't want to go into too much more detail, since this is pretty much my playbook for arguing with people on the internet. But the point is that I recognize the move. Though I read the Village Voice article where they posted his late-90s review of Baumbach's "Mr. Jealousy" and concluded that the film was a sign that the director's mother should have had an abortion and didn't recognize that. That was not serious. Or classy.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>... as a club to beat people with.

^^^ this here is exactly what he does

>There are serious people
>floating thoughtful, careful opinions into the world and there
>are unserious people who spoil it with their lack of rigor.
>It's actually kind of a neat trick, because it pretends to
>evade the usual thoughtless ways that we divide people into
>you vs. me by presenting a kind of strength-of-character
>alternative. You can be conservative and unserious or liberal
>and unserious in this system, and both are deserve a kind of
>sneering disgust. The problem for people who do this is that
>you have to remain thoughtful and careful and that's really,
>like, difficult. The distinction becomes a weapon when you
>get tired of trying and decide to substitute a kind of
>credentialism-of-one whereby you've already proven your
>serious chops and the people that disagree are therefore
>unserious. Throwing around the word "genius", particularly in
>eccentric constructions like "has genius", without bothering
>to explain what you think that word means is a useful tip off
>that you've given up on the work required to be thoughtful or
>careful and would just rather everybody defer to your opinion.

That's the most troubling fact of what he does, the lack of explanation of some of his opinions. I remember reading the actual review of Jonah Hex, where the same thing occurs. Do I believe he didn't actually like Jonah Hex? No, and I can actually see why Jonah Hex merited some sort of feeling of defense, because it wasn't nearly as bad as people said it was. Yet instead of articulately stating why the film works, he uses sentences like this:

"N&T adapt the 1975 DC comic book to fit their timely sense of disquiet and cultural confusion—that post 9/11 dread that Bruce Springsteen aptly described as “a fairy tale so tragic.”"

He throws 9/11 and a Bruce Springsteen quote to try to make the film seem more relevant than it's even trying to be.

(Although I did think the following sentence was funny: "Jonah Hex does for the western what the Crank movies do for the urban action film; simultaneously commenting on genre practice. (Film scholars should explore the coincidence of this villain’s initials and how he viciously brands Q.T. into the side of Jonah’s face, eternally scarring his identity.)")

When he mentions the writing as much as he does in the Jonah Hex review, and he references previous reviews of movies he likes, he puts himself in danger of looking like he liked the film before he stepped foot in the theater-- which may or may not be the case, but if it's not, he really needs to find a better way to express his love of the movie, if he cared to.

>I don't want to go into too much more detail, since this is
>pretty much my playbook for arguing with people on the
>internet. But the point is that I recognize the move. Though
>I read the Village Voice article where they posted his
>late-90s review of Baumbach's "Mr. Jealousy" and concluded
>that the film was a sign that the director's mother should
>have had an abortion and didn't recognize that. That was not
>serious. Or classy.

Well, and then when he dedicated the entire review of Greenberg to showcase how the main character of Greenberg, who is unlikable and deplorable in every way, is exactly like both Baumbach and Holbermann (who wrote that VV article), it used film criticism as revenge for a personal vendetta. Which, while interesting to read, serves to both discredit him as a serious critic and discredits his very valid criticisms of Greenberg which emerge in the few sentences he's not spewing venom at those two gentlemen.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

With the exception of a couple of these, I don't have a problem with the opinions. It's the concept of the article, which is aimed primarily at pissing people off, that is more troubling.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

i may have actually preferred it a smidge more

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World > Inception

but no...
much as yes i sadly liked the guardians
just no
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole > Toy Story 3

and wahlaa i'm cured
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

I don't have much of a problem with his writing myself, but yeah, it does sound like his MC'ing of that event was pretty rude, but from what I understand, he's only the chairman of the committee because no one else stepped up for the job but him, and the article says that is who gets to MC the event, so maybe some other critic can step up next time so he/or she gets to MC instead.

... He might be a good writer and a smart guy, but when everyone knows your opinion is simply going to go against whatever the general feelings toward a film happens to be, then you've failed as a critic because no one takes you seriously. That's why Roger Ebert is the best film critic around -- people trust him because he comes across as someone who loves movies and communicates his opinion from a visceral rather than purely intellectual point of view, which is the way most of the public watches movies.

___

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v318/75/122/810420595/n810420595_3955028_32.jpg

"You can't imbue awesomeness into something that actually sucks." - Steve Albini

http://www.mpsinger.com
http://twitter.com/mpsinger

According to Rotten Tomatoes: "Agrees with the Tomatometer 53% of the time."

That doesn't indicate to me that he is "simply going to go against
whatever the general feelings toward a film happens to be." Sure, many times his opinion goes counter to the hype of whatever the much-hyped film of the moment is, but I wouldn't say that that is "simply" what he does.

An article at Slate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2009/08/17/can-a-film-critic-be-too-contrarian.aspx) says this about him: "He's neither conformist nor contrarian."

Also I don't know how you measure if "no one" really takes him seriously, but that's most likely a false statement. And I wouldn't call popularity, which is what you might really be indicating here (especially when you mention Ebert, and all the stuff you say about him, which sounds mostly like subjective opinion to me), a measure of whether one fails as a critic.