The Armond White Discussion Thread

[Juss]

Why is so much made of the thumbs up/down thing?  For a TV show asking the question "should I go see this movie or not" it seems kinda appropriate....

[Tycho]

Wait a minute...is LEAVES really lwilson85?

[Juss]

Wait a minute...is LEAVES really lwilson85?

I wouldn't have thought so, no.  Their style is not the same at all.

[Matt]

Off Kagan's link/the Ebert thing -

I find it interesting that the headline sets up a false dichotomy, as if we ought to choose sides at all.  All told, though, I think that the author has a good point that this whole incident should be treated as an inroad to analyzing different schools of criticism.  The way he sums up White's elitism and Ebert's populism is really apt.  I especially appreciate that he categorizes White's outlook more as purist naivete than trollishness.  That, too, seems very apt.  Good link, Rob.

[Witless]

White's major bone of contention is that the rabbit-quick proliferation of amateur critics on the Internet, something Ebert has praised and encouraged, has created a critical white noise so loud it drowns out the voices of the professionals still grinding out thoughtful analysis at newspapers and magazines.

The rather obvious point that White seems to miss is that every professional started off as an amateur. And while I wish more reviews included a critical analysis in their discussions of film (it certainly would change the appreciation of certain films a whole lot, IMHO), I certainly wouldn't turn to White to fill this void.

[Kagan]

The rather obvious point that White seems to miss is that every professional started off as an amateur.

I'm willing to speculate that White's thinks no film critic should have a voice or express himself until they've met the benchmarks White sets for the profession -- coincidentally enough, those benchmarks being the same sensibilities, career path and amount of research as White himself.

Least charitable read FTW!

[Rob]

I find it interesting that the headline sets up a false dichotomy, as if we ought to choose sides at all.  All told, though, I think that the author has a good point that this whole incident should be treated as an inroad to analyzing different schools of criticism.  The way he sums up White's elitism and Ebert's populism is really apt.  I especially appreciate that he categorizes White's outlook more as purist naivete than trollishness.  That, too, seems very apt.  Good link, Rob.

Thanks, Matt. It was a nice article, I liked its approach from that kind of ideological perspective, and it does make White seem more approachable and thoughtful. (I was a bit turned off by that under-30 comment.)

Sometime I'm going to have to check some of White's reviews just to get a proper analysis of his style, it's really all word-of-mouth and things like this (his criticism with Ebert).

[Matt]

I'm willing to speculate that White's thinks no film critic should have a voice or express himself until they've met the benchmarks White sets for the profession -- coincidentally enough, those benchmarks being the same sensibilities, career path and amount of research as White himself.

Least charitable read FTW!

Least charitable, perhaps.  Also, in all likelihood, the most accurate.

But I could be wrong.  After all, I won't be 30 until March 2012.

[Matt]

I don't know how interested any of you are in reading more of White's thinking about film, but I just re-read Part 1 of this interview for pleasure, and as usual, I find White incredibly engaging.  Sometimes infuriating, but engaging.  I especially love this quote:

Well, I love writing about both [music and film]. But film is a very powerful industry. To write about film somehow you seem to address something that almost everybody is interested in, that everybody takes personally in some way. So to write about film is really a very powerful privilege.

I don't know how music isn't a powerful industry that markets product that almost everyone is interested in and that everybody takes personally in some way.  In most respects, it's an even more popular art form than cinema.  But I like the clarity of the statement.  It's nothing new.  It's just cool that he respects and recognizes the place that cinema holds in our culture, and he recognizes that writing about film is something important, with its own responsibilities.  That's a cornerstone value to him, as is made abundantly clear by his sniping at most other critics.  But the way he phrases it here is leavened with a humility that is kind of rare for him.  The whole interview has a lot of choice quotes.  It's especially fascinating to see him wholly dismiss Blade Runner as TV-level hackwork.

[Matt]

All right... I've had a chance at long last to listen to the "After Dark" portion of the podcast, and I have to say that while White's generalizations about Ebert are still unfair, the "under 30" comment didn't particularly rankle me.  White's basic point was that the older you get, the more experience you accrue.  He allows for exceptions, but the underlying idea is that it's almost impossible to have a firm grasp on the enormity of cinema before you're 30.  He's not saying that people under 30 shouldn't love film, or promote film discussion, or be critical.  He's just saying that he doesn't really need to read them as professional critics.  One of the /Film guys observes that maybe part of White's denigration of Internet film "criticism" is borne of the fact that White simply didn't have the opportunity to grow up with it like the current generation, that if White had had an opportunity to contribute to the larger film discussion when he was in his teens and 20s by writing criticism on the Internet, he would have done so.  White's reaction to this observation?  "Sure."

As always, I come away increasingly more convinced that there's no way White is just an attention-seeking troll.  He takes film criticism seriously, and he's only interested in practicing it and engaging it on a level that takes into account its history and cultural context.  Anything else simply isn't criticism to him.

The discussion with White on the After Dark portion is only about twenty minutes.  I'd recommend it.

[Juss]

I don't know how music isn't a powerful industry that markets product that almost everyone is interested in and that everybody takes personally in some way.  In most respects, it's an even more popular art form than cinema.  But I like the clarity of the statement.  It's nothing new.  It's just cool that he respects and recognizes the place that cinema holds in our culture, and he recognizes that writing about film is something important, with its own responsibilities.  That's a cornerstone value to him, as is made abundantly clear by his sniping at most other critics.  But the way he phrases it here is leavened with a humility that is kind of rare for him.  The whole interview has a lot of choice quotes.  It's especially fascinating to see him wholly dismiss Blade Runner as TV-level hackwork.

Fascinating but not inspiring.  Of course, I don't mind him dismissing Blade Runner for a reason, but here we get nothing more than "Scott is an easily imitated hack"  In the /film podcast he was talking about Michael Bay's talent behind the camera and how he elevates Transformers 2 through his ability etc  yet he doesn't see this in Ridley Scott?  Seriously.  the guy who made Alien, one of the most cinematically impressive genre movies of all time, he thinks is a hack and for no reason other than he says so.  Because he's easily imitated.  So it's hard to imitate Michael Bay, is it?

Sorry Matt, yes White does have a right to his opinion and maybe he's being honest or maybe he's not but you're failing to show me anything he's saying that I genuinely find interesting.  This guy has no more insight into film than anyone else +30 or -30.  At least Roger Ebert wrote a film script for a hugely successful film director, for a hugely succesful film.  White just bitches and whines and contradicts himself.

He talks big, is all 

[Juss]

Just to clarify on this a little bit, as I think it looks a little bit like I’m OMG I hate White because he doesn’t like Ridley Scott.  That’s not it at all.  The problem is that I really don’t care whether White likes Ridley Scott or not.  I don’t feel very persuaded by the things that he says and writes that I really need to read him as a critic, or take his opinions as worthwhile.  As I’ve said before, I have this problem with most critics.  They’re not academics, they don’t write and say interesting things, they say things that attempt to look interesting on the surface but don’t ever dig very deep.  I don’t like the way White talks as if he’s transcended this somehow because I don’t feel that he has.  There’s nothing special about his writing and his opinion beyond the platform he presents it from.  I find his comments like needing to be over 30 to be a good critic laughable, like newspaper columnists are some kind of filmic God?  I don’t respect your age and experience I respect what you say and do.  Mozart was just over 30 when he died and anything Mozart achieved was so much more profound and interesting to me that anything Armond White achieved and there are so many examples of under 30s being good achievers that all that comment smacks of is the same old “I’m older and wiser” argument I’ve heard so many times before.

Ok, Mozart wasn’t a film critic, but he apparently managed to develop the experience and maturity to handle things which you could argue are every bit as complex and demanding than film criticism on White’s level.  Actually, you don’t need to bother arguing that because they were.  The guy composed marriage of Figaro for chrissakes!!

In short, White keeps giving me reasons to not care about his opinion but he doesn’t seem to offer up a lot that backs up the idea that he’s as great as he says he is… other than his repeated saying of it.  I don’t know, has he written any academic masterworks or theses that is highly

[Kagan]

Just to clarify on this a little bit, as I think it looks a little bit like I’m OMG I hate White because he doesn’t like Ridley Scott.  That’s not it at all.  The problem is that I really don’t care whether White likes Ridley Scott or not.  I don’t feel very persuaded by the things that he says and writes that I really need to read him as a critic, or take his opinions as worthwhile.  As I’ve said before, I have this problem with most critics.  They’re not academics, they don’t write and say interesting things, they say things that attempt to look interesting on the surface but don’t ever dig very deep.  I don’t like the way White talks as if he’s transcended this somehow because I don’t feel that he has.  There’s nothing special about his writing and his opinion beyond the platform he presents it from.  I find his comments like needing to be over 30 to be a good critic laughable, like newspaper columnists are some kind of filmic God?  I don’t respect your age and experience I respect what you say and do.  Mozart was just over 30 when he died and anything Mozart achieved was so much more profound and interesting to me that anything Armond White achieved and there are so many examples of under 30s being good achievers that all that comment smacks of is the same old “I’m older and wiser” argument I’ve heard so many times before.

I agree with all of this.

White's reviews make me laugh -- I still enjoy reading his vitriolic Precious review, in which he holds up Norbit as its more worthy rival -- but I can't find it in me to take him seriously, despite how seriously he clearly takes himself.