The Armond White Discussion Thread

[Matt]

At the risk of sounding elitist and arrogance (I risk this everytime I post anyway, right?)  I spent a lot of time in my twenties hanging out with academic circles and I've been lucky enough to go down t'pub with some of the best literature academics in the country.  The level of knowledge and detail coupled with an ability to form cogent and powerful articles about their areas of interest.. and their knowledge of theory always deeply intimidated me.  I like to think I learned something from it though - maybe I did, maybe I didn't.

A lot of film studies academic work simply isn't on this level... but personally, when I compare it to what I read in newspapers it's on another level again.  I simply don't think that the suppsoed "best" newspaper critics like Ebert and White have ever engaged with films in a way that I personally find fascinating or engaging.  To put it simply, I think that you and I could bat on an intellectual level with Armond White quite easily... in fact I'm fully confident that the both of us generally say more interesting things about movies than he does.  Obviously, it goes without saying that I'm kind of in awe of Kiera's intellectual prowess and honestly, I find a 5 minute conversation with her and thoughts on her opinion about a movie 100x more rewarding than reading an Armond White review.  But it's just my opinion - she has a doctorate and worked intellectually to earn it....(as have many of her friends) I don't feel that newpaper journalists intellectually work to earn their status as arbiters of taste.  I think they just happen to be pushy arrogant people who are good at getting jobs.

This is getting weird, because it seems like we're disagreeing when I think we are actually agreeing from different perspectives.  Maybe there's just a different value judgment operating here about so-called professionals?  I do tend to get so much more out of discussion with you, Kiera, or pretty much anyone on Playtime than I get out of most film reviews by critics.  I'm more reticent to downplay the intellectual rigor of White or his contemporaries outside of their writings, though.  This may not be what you're doing; I may be misreading you.

I suspect that talking with White in conversation might be very rewarding.  Or, to frame it another way, if White was a regular poster on this forum, or a real life acquaintance with whom I could converse and with whom I could develop a rapport, that could conceivably be as awesome as this right here.  To me, a big difficulty in film criticism, especially with the advent of the Internet, is the fact that a printed review generally seems rather static compared to the possibility of a lively back-and-forth conversation.  Writing on the Internet is sort of a middle-ground between the rigor of crafting a really solid piece of film criticism for publishing, and the sort of let-the-hair-down, energetic discussion you could have with some mates at the local restaurant after a screening.  Because so much of it is contingent upon writing ability, putting a thought out there makes it available for scrutiny and dissection, as well as some semblance of having it "out there" for posterity or wider readership.  But because it can be a conversation, there is allowance for rephrasing, correcting, restating, expanding, or generally just evolving one's own understanding and perspective on a film (or films).  In real-life conversation, a discussion can be a lot messier and less specific, often branching off into much more random points.  A review is just a very different piece of work, and it's much more of a one-way relationship.

In terms of earning his status as an intellectual arbiter of taste, White does hold a MFA from Columbia University.  He's been writing criticism professionally for more than twenty years.  By any standard, he's paid his dues to hold the job that he has.  This in itself doesn't justify his opinions or even his ability as a writer.  But it's clear to me that he's seen way more movies than I have, read far more than I have, and written far more and far longer than I have.  Even if we'd be essentially on the same intellectual level, he still has more raw experience -- which I don't mistake for wisdom.  But experience is experience, and it's something that earns the benefit of the doubt.

Right - I agree with most of this.  There's simply no guarantee that von Trier is or is not a great film-maker.  All I'm saying is that his current status and visibility makes him an interesting one.  I also personally find his movies interesting on an intellectual level, as do a lot of people.... and that's enough to make them worth writing about in an intelligent way rather than in a "OMG I hate these moviez they make my cryyyy!" kind of way that White does.  Besides, when he does that he's only playing into Trier's hands anyway, so why does he bother?

I think that's a really reductive way to characterize White's response, and I think that one of the problems with von Trier is that he positions himself in such a way that, no matter how you respond to him, you play into his hands.  White seems to reject the notion that, as an artist, von Trier has the mandate to frame the way he's received, and that's something I agree with.  I don't agree with White on von Trier as a whole, but the core idea underlining why he calls out von Trier as a "hoaxer" is one that I think has merit.

But... White is writing for an audience and we shouldn't forget that I suppose, just as I was when I wrote a lot of reviews for RT.  I mean, I knew that slagging off Back to the Future at full throttle would get more people reading than if I was considered and interesting.  The assertions that I was being disingenuous were false... I never write a piece that I didn't agree with, but I didn't have to do it in a way that insulted people who disagreed with me.  I think reverse psychologywise that was a way of weeding out people I personally found interesting who were going to debate with what me about the arguments that I threw in there, rather than those that would just get upset because I disliked their favourite movie. (Also, I've just grown up a bit and have less time for pointless discourse now )  In White's case, however, I don't seem to agree with him much... I love Pulp Fiction, I love Fight Club, I love von Trier... I hate Spike Jones, I hate Spielberg.  So I don't have the joy of reading the musings of someone who agrees with me either.

If you simply disagree with him right down the line, and don't like his style, those are perfectly valid reasons not to follow him on a regular basis.  Obviously, White isn't writing to weed out those readers that he would find personally interesting, because there's just no way he'd be able to maintain a relationship with all of them.  But I'm glad that you pointed out that being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean disingenuousness.

A lot of people rag on White for being so assaultive in his reviews, characterizing that propensity simply as "trolling" for the sake of drawing attention to himself.  I think he is trying to draw attention to himself, but not purely for the sake of the attention.  It seems to me that he is desperately trying to draw attention to his viewpoint, because he thinks what he has to say is necessary and important.  That is arrogant, but it's also a little refreshing that a critic would be honest enough simply to admit that he thinks his writing is worth your time to read, and that what he writes should be taken seriously.  I think that's implicit in all critical writing, but the way White does it, it can't be mistaken for academic wankery.  He really seems to believe that something is on the line each time he sits down to punch out an article.

[Matt]

Just to get a point of reference, I think it would be worth naming some of the critics we do read regularly. Obviously, most of you don't read White.  But who do you like?  Who exemplifies the form for you?

[Juss]

Actually Matt, I think of Armond were a forum poster I'd find him rather irritating.  Here are a couple of extracts from an interview that just make me feel that me and him are on a totally different wavelength

AW: Partly, it's that old fashioned problem of people thinking movies about issues are more important than movies about feeling. Andrew Sarris pointed out this problem many years ago. Spielberg is often the victim of that. When he makes movies about World War II, many think that is serious and profound. When he makes movies about family life or childhood life, they deride it and think it's inconsequential. I guess you could say that's a philistine response to art, that art's only important when it's about issues.

Films about issues are bad.  Films about emotions are good.  Obviously, personally I'd say that both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses but I don't think it's trivial to talk about issues in a movie or wrong to berate Spielberg for making a bad movie that does nothing but tug on the heartstrings repeatedly.  As A.I does (and I suspect E.T does too from what I remember of it).  People don't like Spielberg because he's often trite, not because they don't understand emotion....

or

Certainly, one of the instigators has been Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994) and the Tarantino phenomenon, where the interest in pop culture has lost its seriousness. People simply enjoy pop culture for its hipness, reducing film noir to violence and attitude, never understanding that the film noir movement was a moral one, expressing a real disenchantment with the world, expressing the existential condition. David Denby symbolized the problem very well when he praised Pulp Fiction, saying Tarantino understands French New Wave conventions. What he doesn't say is that Tarantino does not understand New Wave conviction. He may be quoting Jean-Luc Godard and Breathless (Godard, 1960) all over the place, but he doesn't understand what they were doing, or that those movies were moral inquiries! Tarantino doesn't understand it, his generation doesn't understand it, and critics like Denby don't understand it! But we've got to bring the light.

Puhhlease.  Godard's movies were "moral enquiries" whereas Pulp Fiction is just hipster cool.  This just strikes me as the thinking of someone scrabbling around to justify his own inconsistent positions because he took a stupid negative stance towards Pulp Fiction to try and look cool.  A bit like Ebert with his atrocious Blue Velvet review and follow up defense.  A good reason why these writers need to keep their personal idiosyncrasies out of their writing IMO.  For all his claims that film viewers don't understand film history, White seems pretty keen to decontextualise the movie's he likes and just praise them as great moral, emotional masterpieces.

I think this section of White's review of Transporter 3 speaks for itself really. 

The old thrill-ride phrase is obsolete, it denotes passive movie watching; Transporter 3 is a thrill drive. It demands audiences intellectually appreciate its construction.

Sequences where Statham cycles down a rail across a sweatshop work table, plays piano with a man’s head and drives a car kitty-corner between trucks are all applause worthy. These intricately edited movie jousts aren’t about speed but narrative, capturing instantaneous action, rescuing a moment and imprinting it. Movement is given comic-book efficacy and cubist energy.

It’s true visual wit. These are not stunts; they’re objets d’art. Somewhere, Buster Keaton is smiling and Spielberg should take notes.

Let's just pick a random movie and try and convince people it's great by using academic aesthetic terminology.  Cubist energy?  objets d'art?  I mean, I haven't seen Transporter 3 - it may really be that much aesthetically pleasing than Transporter 2 was but somehow I doubt it.  Strikes me that White just knows feck about action cinema.... but every review clearly has to be a "statement"  so by jove we're getting one.

[Matt]

Actually Matt, I think of Armond were a forum poster I'd find him rather irritating.  Here are a couple of extracts from an interview that just make me feel that me and him are on a totally different wavelengthp.

True enough.  I respect that.

Films about issues are bad.  Films about emotions are good.  Obviously, personally I'd say that both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses but I don't think it's trivial to talk about issues in a movie or wrong to berate Spielberg for making a bad movie that does nothing but tug on the heartstrings repeatedly.  As A.I does (and I suspect E.T does too from what I remember of it).  People don't like Spielberg because he's often trite, not because they don't understand emotion....

or

Let's be fair here.  That's not at all what White was saying.  He's not at all dismissing "issues" movies.  He's just saying that movies that rely more on pathos are just as valid and important as those that are overtly political or issue-oriented.

Puhhlease.  Godard's movies were "moral enquiries" whereas Pulp Fiction is just hipster cool.  This just strikes me as the thinking of someone scrabbling around to justify his own inconsistent positions because he took a stupid negative stance towards Pulp Fiction to try and look cool.  A bit like Ebert with his atrocious Blue Velvet review and follow up defense.  A good reason why these writers need to keep their personal idiosyncrasies out of their writing IMO.  For all his claims that film viewers don't understand film history, White seems pretty keen to decontextualise the movie's he likes and just praise them as great moral, emotional masterpieces.

How does a critic keep personal idiosyncrasies out of his writing?  I mean, opinion-writing is defined by personal perspective.  A big part of the push-pull of critical writing (to me) is trying to figure out how a broader, perhaps-yet-undefined personal philosophy informs the gut reaction to a film.  I also don't think it's a non-debatable point that Pulp Fiction may not be any good.  I mean, I love it, but someone hating it isn't reason enough for me to dismiss them.  Especially since observing that Godard was concerned with morality and politics from day one, whereas Tarantino's early films -- and certainly most everything he's said in interviews, especially about the early movies; maybe not IG -- are pretty apolitical, and more about his sheer love for cinema.  If White sees that as invalid, I don't think that's an automatically invalid viewpoint.  And I don't see that in itself as evidence of personal idiosyncrasy.  He has, after all, been consistently harsh on QT, and with nearly every film he loves, he seems to go out of his way to contextualize it as not only good but important.

I think this section of White's review of Transporter 3 speaks for itself really. 
Let's just pick a random movie and try and convince people it's great by using academic aesthetic terminology.  Cubist energy?  objets d'art?  I mean, I haven't seen Transporter 3 - it may really be that much aesthetically pleasing than Transporter 2 was but somehow I doubt it.  Strikes me that White just knows feck about action cinema.... but every review clearly has to be a "statement"  so by jove we're getting one.

Yeah, I don't know what the hell White was doing with that review.  I have no doubt that he genuinely enjoyed the movie, and somehow thought it was the freshest thing he'd seen in years, but he really inflated it way beyond any reasonable level.  The only thing I can figure is that his huge crush on Statham and his huge crush on anything Besson finally collapsed upon each other, resulting in the nonsensical supernova that was his Transporter 3 review.  I actually did a point-by-point deconstruction of it on RT a few months ago, a la Alex Weitzman's Up review takedown.

Every critic is entitled to some bad pieces of writing, or opinions that are just lunatic fringe.  Of course, I think that the biggest problem with this review is simply bad writing.  He just doesn't string his thoughts together in a constructive way.  Not in this review, anyway.

[Juss]

Let's be fair here.  That's not at all what White was saying.  He's not at all dismissing "issues" movies.  He's just saying that movies that rely more on pathos are just as valid and important as those that are overtly political or issue-oriented.

I think that there's that assumption behind what he's saying but fair enough he doesn't actually say that issues movies are bad.  I suppose I'm reading in there a lot of what I'm reading in his reviews and his style that he does fall down very heavily on the "movies are about eliciting an emotional reaction" side of the fence  - a side which too often IMO justifies mediocre moviemaking precisely because it was able to elicit an emotional response.  As I've said before in Spielberg conversations.... doing that is like moviemaking basics, not pinnacle of craft stuff.

How does a critic keep personal idiosyncrasies out of his writing?  I mean, opinion-writing is defined by personal perspective.  A big part of the push-pull of critical writing (to me) is trying to figure out how a broader, perhaps-yet-undefined personal philosophy informs the gut reaction to a film.  I also don't think it's a non-debatable point that Pulp Fiction may not be any good.  I mean, I love it, but someone hating it isn't reason enough for me to dismiss them.  Especially since observing that Godard was concerned with morality and politics from day one, whereas Tarantino's early films -- and certainly most everything he's said in interviews, especially about the early movies; maybe not IG -- are pretty apolitical, and more about his sheer love for cinema.  If White sees that as invalid, I don't think that's an automatically invalid viewpoint.  And I don't see that in itself as evidence of personal idiosyncrasy.  He has, after all, been consistently harsh on QT, and with nearly every film he loves, he seems to go out of his way to contextualize it as not only good but important.

No, it's fine to hate Tarantino and to give White his dues, he hated Tarantino right from the start... he didn't just get on this post(pre?) Jackie Brown gravy train of dissing him for being all about pop culture shallowness.  He said that from the beginning.  It does highlight one of the main reasons I find film critics so tiresome though... it's so often about the latest trend or vogue and all too often they follow each other like sheep, condemning someone's movies they clearly haven't even bothered to sit through properly (Peter Bradshaw wrote the most ludicrously scathing review of IB clearly for no other reason that he thought it'd make him look good.  I mean, seriously, 1 star for IB?  You cannot but give it 2 for craftmanship and yeah, if you don't I reserve my right to call you an ignorant prick no matter how many movies you've seen or how much I agree with subjectivity...).  If I'm expected to be interested in the "opinion" of these writers, then I'd not only expect them to spend more time watching movies but also "thinking " about them, not just spouting.  As with von Trier, I don't care if ultimately you liked the movie or not.... but give the man his dues and try and find something interesting to say about it, don't just recycle the "pop culture criticism" that everyone else has for the past x years.

Back to White.  I wouldn't have thought it took a genius to see the link between Godard being a postmodern icon and Tarantino trying to reinvent postmodernist moviemaking in his own work in the 90s.  I would, personally see it as a stretch to see Breathless as a "morality" play (my interpretation, not White's words...) - It's as plain as day to me that Pulp Fiction is drawing on Breathless as a major influence as Reservoir Dogs is drawing on City on Fire.  Breathless is a movie all about surface image and surface cool, commenting on the shallowness but also the attractiveness of Hollywood Noir cinema,and simultaneously deconstructing the idea of cinematic genre bound up with the Hollywood studio system.  The lead characters, like those in so many of Godard's movies are tough for us to relate to on a personal and "moral" level and I was a bit staggered that White felt that we were even remotely supposed to.  Or does he think Godard is so much greater because he deals with political issues sometimes    Not in Breathless he doesn't.

Pulp Fiction, it always seemed to me had similar aims and intention - fine if you find that shallow and boring, but as I said above I'm just not going to take the comment of someone seriously who isn't going to make the effort to even try to relate to the material he's watching... I don't really have the time for it    I can't find the review online anymore, but from reading his review of Pulp Fiction sometimes ago I recall his biggest problem then was Tarantino's use of the word "nigger" and his treatment of black people in general.  Again, I'd say that an academic would discuss this broadly in the context of 90s Hollywood cinema and maybe look a little wider too, maybe ultimately condemning the movie but probably not dismissing all of it's aesthetic qualities on that one point (I actually think that Pulp Fiction is politically a little dubious, too).  A critic would generally just see red and rant... probably missing context and other aims of the movie completely

Every critic is entitled to some bad pieces of writing, or opinions that are just lunatic fringe.  Of course, I think that the biggest problem with this review is simply bad writing.  He just doesn't string his thoughts together in a constructive way.  Not in this review, anyway.

You think I'm going to let you off your Hudson Hawk recommendation so easily?  Lunatic Fringe indeed..    I hope your review is more cogent in interesting.  Actually, I've no doubt at all that it will be.

[Matt]

I think that there's that assumption behind what he's saying but fair enough he doesn't actually say that issues movies are bad.  I suppose I'm reading in there a lot of what I'm reading in his reviews and his style that he does fall down very heavily on the "movies are about eliciting an emotional reaction" side of the fence  - a side which too often IMO justifies mediocre moviemaking precisely because it was able to elicit an emotional response.  As I've said before in Spielberg conversations.... doing that is like moviemaking basics, not pinnacle of craft stuff.

I don't think it'd be right to say that all movies should be all about evoking an emotional response -- that's a very prescriptive approach.  I don't think mediocre moviemaking should be praised as great moviemaking, but neither do I think that movies that go for the gut can be dismissed as "moviemaking basics."  There's a lot of craft that goes into successfully emotional films.  I think White tends to favor films that balance pathos, ethos, and logos -- emotion, politics, and intellect.  Obviously, it's his prerogative to like any film that favors one over the others, but there are a number of levels on which anyone can enjoy a film.  I just have a hard time picturing White, based on what I've read, as a guy who spends all his time advocating bad or mediocre movies just because they're able to elicit an emotional response. At the same time, I think he gives due credit to any film that is able to elicit a genuine response, rather than bullying or shamelessly manipulating us into it.

No, it's fine to hate Tarantino and to give White his dues, he hated Tarantino right from the start... he didn't just get on this post(pre?) Jackie Brown gravy train of dissing him for being all about pop culture shallowness.  He said that from the beginning.  It does highlight one of the main reasons I find film critics so tiresome though... it's so often about the latest trend or vogue and all too often they follow each other like sheep, condemning someone's movies they clearly haven't even bothered to sit through properly (Peter Bradshaw wrote the most ludicrously scathing review of IB clearly for no other reason that he thought it'd make him look good.  I mean, seriously, 1 star for IB?  You cannot but give it 2 for craftmanship and yeah, if you don't I reserve my right to call you an ignorant prick no matter how many movies you've seen or how much I agree with subjectivity...).  If I'm expected to be interested in the "opinion" of these writers, then I'd not only expect them to spend more time watching movies but also "thinking " about them, not just spouting.  As with von Trier, I don't care if ultimately you liked the movie or not.... but give the man his dues and try and find something interesting to say about it, don't just recycle the "pop culture criticism" that everyone else has for the past x years.

I've never heard of Peter Bradshaw, or if I've read him, I never took note of his byline.  You did lose me again with the generalities, though.  Do a lot of mainstream critics tend to fall back on the / method of criticism?  Yes, they do.  At least, from what I've read.  Even star or grade ratings tend to lead to a more evaluative than thoughtfully critical approach.  But it's the writing, not the grade, that matters.  I genuinely think that a one-star of Inglourious Basterds review would be worth reading and considering if the writing (and thought evident in the writing) was good enough.  I mean, there are a lot of technically competent films out there that you and I both loathe.  I gave Silent Hill a no star review when I reviewed it for my school paper.  (Star ratings were mandated. I would've preferred not using them.)  Obviously, there's some solid technical craft there, but it was still a wretched film.

I did just Google Bradshaw's IG review, and it's clear that he found the film exceedingly boring.  The dialogue did nothing for him, and obviously didn't inspire him to look any deeper than the utter lack of visceral pleasure the film gave him.  I don't think his review was terribly thoughtful, and it's obvious that he's not just a Tarantino-hater, since he gives shout-outs to QT films he liked.  I'm not sure why you're assigning him the motive of wanting to "look good," when the more reasonable -- and blindingly obvious -- explanation for his review is that he simply didn't like the film.  And as far as White/Antichrist is concerned, I assume that you read the entire review, right?  White spends the last paragraph talking about how much talent von Trier has, if only he'd wield it in the service of cinema.  Bradshaw seems like a typical, albeit slightly more erudite, newspaper critic.  Nothing in his IG review indicts his intelligence, education, or authenticity.  It just seems like a typical star-rating review, where he talks about how the film made him feel, and leaves it at that.

Back to White.  I wouldn't have thought it took a genius to see the link between Godard being a postmodern icon and Tarantino trying to reinvent postmodernist moviemaking in his own work in the 90s.  I would, personally see it as a stretch to see Breathless as a "morality" play (my interpretation, not White's words...) - It's as plain as day to me that Pulp Fiction is drawing on Breathless as a major influence as Reservoir Dogs is drawing on City on Fire.  Breathless is a movie all about surface image and surface cool, commenting on the shallowness but also the attractiveness of Hollywood Noir cinema,and simultaneously deconstructing the idea of cinematic genre bound up with the Hollywood studio system.  The lead characters, like those in so many of Godard's movies are tough for us to relate to on a personal and "moral" level and I was a bit staggered that White felt that we were even remotely supposed to.  Or does he think Godard is so much greater because he deals with political issues sometimes    Not in Breathless he doesn't.

Pulp Fiction, it always seemed to me had similar aims and intention - fine if you find that shallow and boring, but as I said above I'm just not going to take the comment of someone seriously who isn't going to make the effort to even try to relate to the material he's watching... I don't really have the time for it    I can't find the review online anymore, but from reading his review of Pulp Fiction sometimes ago I recall his biggest problem then was Tarantino's use of the word "nigger" and his treatment of black people in general.  Again, I'd say that an academic would discuss this broadly in the context of 90s Hollywood cinema and maybe look a little wider too, maybe ultimately condemning the movie but probably not dismissing all of it's aesthetic qualities on that one point (I actually think that Pulp Fiction is politically a little dubious, too).  A critic would generally just see red and rant... probably missing context and other aims of the movie completely

I've read White's Pulp Fiction review -- only once, and I plan to re-read it more carefully.  I don't know why you assume that White wouldn't try to relate to the material.  It seems to me that anyone who loves film would at least start a film with an open, earnest mind.  The fact that White reacted strongly against it doesn't mean that he didn't want it to be good.  My own take on White's Pulp Fiction review is that he kind of missed the point, but I think that, as a piece of racial theory, his perspective on the film is a little more on the mark.  The problem wasn't just the use of "nigger," it was mostly Tarantino's treatment of black characters, and the way that he funneled what White saw as the artifacts of black pop culture into his white film.  The fact that White doesn't spend time extolling the aesthetic virtues of the film may not be evidence that he didn't note them, but evidence that White didn't think they mattered.  To put it another way, it seems that White didn't think that they mitigated the serious political problem the film posed, so why waste words on them if his ultimate conclusion would remain the same?  Besides, my guess would be that a gazillion other critics had already blown their wads over Tarantino's visual approach, so White belaboring a conceded point would be kind of... pointless.  That's just a guess, but '94 did have an awful lot of ink devoted to this film and its maker.  White specifically addressing the film's racial issues was probably a choice of focus, not an ignorance of the film's visual merits.

I would say that if Breathless is about the project image of entertainment, shallowness, and amorality in youth culture, that is a political and moral issue.  I think the reason White points up a contrast between QT and JLG is that QT's earlier films attempt to come across as apolitical, even though race and sexuality are at the heart of a lot of the relationships.  Tarantino actually seems to come down more on the side of pathos, related emotionally first and politically second -- which doesn't ignore politics, but backgrounds it, focusing much more on broader thematic ideas and the ways in which pop culture play into them.  But I don't think that's entirely conscious the way Godard worked with those themes.  Tarantino, by his own account, seems to be a much more instinctual writer and filmmaker, whereas Godard was overtly politically motivated.  White seems to take offense at Tarantino using inherently political ideas for aesthetic impact more than political impact.  This may or may not be a correct assessment, but I certainly don't think it's an assessment worth dismissing out of hand simply because the writer's perspective differs greatly from your own.  As I said, addressing the points White raises is one thing.  Saying, "Pff, he hated Pulp Fiction, so fuck 'im," is another.  It's your right to do either, but I think one mischaracterizes what White's doing, or ignores potentially valid points out of disdain.

You think I'm going to let you off your Hudson Hawk recommendation so easily?  Lunatic Fringe indeed..    I hope your review is more cogent in interesting.  Actually, I've no doubt at all that it will be.

In all honesty, I think my review of Hudson Hawn is one of the better things I've written for Playtime.  And even if it's not, Liles's annotations will totally put it over the top.

I would like to know, though, who you do read.  I mean, the critics you do enjoy, whether they're weekly mainstream critics or academics.  Whatever.  I'm just looking for a point of comparison here.

[D_Davis]

I gave Silent Hill a no star review when I reviewed it for my school paper.  (Star ratings were mandated. I would've preferred not using them.) 

Never in my life have I seen so much ire and hatred towards a reviewer than I did with our reviews of Silent Hill. 

[Matt]

Never in my life have I seen so much ire and hatred towards a reviewer than I did with our reviews of Silent Hill. 

BUT IT'S PAYING HOMAGE TO ITALIAN HORROR, FUCKTARD!  GOSH!

Yeah, that was a revelatory experience.  I'm pretty sure that was the genesis of my identification with Armond White.  Here I thought I was just giving an honest, informed opinion, but in actuality I was just an ignorant, thoughtless contrarian who DIDN'T APPRECIATE ITALIAN HORROR OR MOVIES IN GENERAL!!!1!

[Juss]

I would like to know, though, who you do read.  I mean, the critics you do enjoy, whether they're weekly mainstream critics or academics.  Whatever.  I'm just looking for a point of comparison here.

I read Sight and Sound Magazine when I have time.  By and large the longer articles are written by genuine film enthusiasts rather than egotists and most of the pieces start with the assumption that if a film has a dedicated article devoted to it, then it's worth talking about.  They do try and offer some negative comment from time to time, their piece on Inglorious Basterds also came down negatively, but it was long, in-depth and much more thoughtful than anything I've read from White.  Their worst moment was a dire review of Volver - the only time I've seen the magazine so determined to take a contrary viewpoint for its own sake.  You can read it here
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3381

...but they've never done this kind of thing again that I've noticed.  They review every cinematic release but don't assign star ratings or  / ratings.  They simply talk about the movie  - the text generally makes it clear when there's not a lot going on but mostly it's not a "this film is crap" rant, but an attempt (even if it often fails) to situate movies within current trends or find something else interesting to say about it's aesthetics 

I don't have any critics that I do like especially that I follow on a regular basis.  I guess the egotistical mode is not a style of writing that really grabs me.  I don't really enjoy the classic essayists of the 19th C that Kiera always rants and raves about, Hazlitt, De Quincey, Lamb etc  I do quite like George Orwell as a writer but I suppose that's because he's a strong politically minded Socialist.

[~B~]

Here's the link to White's review of Where the Wild Things Are.  An excerpt:

Terrible proofing aside (a perennial curse at the NYP, it seems), I think this is really a great paragraph.  Lots of force and evocative imagery borrowed/described from the film. I get the impression that White liked the film a lot more than most of his peers, who mostly gave it positive ratings, but who had slightly more mixed feelings.  I'd be really interested to know what Dayz thinks of White's review, having written his own for us.

White has a real respect for Jonze as a director, name-checking some of his music video work (White loves pop music, so he seems to always try to keep up on what's on MTV), and while I can't testify myself to how "innovative" WTWTA is, White is firmly on the side of the majority with this one, praising first and foremost the energy of Jonze's approach as a director, and taking time to pick apart the travails of making a successful, personal adaptation of a book that was probably insidiously difficult to adapt.

Some typical White sticking points show up.  The biggest one is probably his dismissive snipe at Adaptation, widely regarded as one of the finest mainstream films of the decade, saying in so many words that Jonze is better off without Charlie Kaufman... even though, just moments before, White highly praised Being John Malkovich as being so original that "it has no serious imitators."  Arguably, at least half that originality (if not more) belongs rightly to Kaufman for conceiving the story and screenplay.  The taken-for-granted reference to Cat in the Hat as a premium example of fine children's entertainment is another WTF bon mot, since very few people have even seen the film, and virtually none of them thought it was any good.  Which isn't to say that he isn't right, it's just that his propensity to make these contemporary comparisons as points of received wisdom is often ridiculed.

An iffy point was the Popeye reference. I haven't even seen Popeye, but I know that it has attracted something of a cult following since its initial release and failure.  Putting Jonze in the company of Robert Altman is an interesting comparison, and perhaps not unjustified, since both took exaggerated naturalism and used it as an authorial signature.  The reference may be considered a little obscure, but apart from its (again) received wisdom tenor, the comparison may be apt.

This guy pisses me off daily, but I will have to admit he saw the same film I did, in terms of what I got out of it and what caught my eye about the film.

that said White reminds me of the good old days of Juss on RT..

[Juss]

that said White reminds me of the good old days of Juss on RT..

Thing is, I wrote my reviews in 20 minutes usually... and they were still better than his dross 

[~B~]

Thing is, I wrote my reviews in 20 minutes usually... and they were still better than his dross 

you knew how to fire someone up.

But if you take the time to get to know Juss you can figure him out.

[Witless]

What makes one an expert on film, when the appreciation of film is subjective? What's enjoyable to one is rejectable to another. I read different things in movies than you, or Davis or Kagan or Juss. The only difference between us and White is that he's "credentialled". And in this internet age, with its overabundance of blogs, "credentials" are over-rated. 

I would beg to differ with this on a number of grounds. If film criticism and reviewing were limited to simply voicing a "I like it/I don't like it" type of statement, then you might have a point. A good reviewer will, in my view, explain why he/she thinks a film is good or bad. There have been negative reviews of films that convinced me that I'd like it because it was informative on the film itself and I knew that the themes in it would jibe with me better than it did with the reviewer.

A second point related point I'd raise is an understanding of why a film works or why it doesn't. There have been many reviews of films I thought were poor that pretty much went: "OMG dis films amazin!" or "This film is boreing" (and these are the ones that are still somewhat legible). What information does one have on the film itself other than the person's appreciation of it? None whatsoever, because they simply don't have the ability or willingness to delve deeper and understand what in the film made them like or dislike it.

And appreciation or failure to appreciate a film is not just a matter of taste. Some people actively dislike thoughtful cinema and enjoy mindless fare immensely. Is their non-appreciation of thoughtful films a failure of the film itself, or rather a failure/refusal on their part to engage in thought? And isn't it symptomatic of a broader anti-intellectual trend in the person?

So he has an opinion. Well so have I, and since I'm me and I love me (cuz I'm, y'know'great) my opinion takes precedence.

*pat, pat*

Good boy.

Opinion.

Noted. hug

And dismissed.

*pat, pat*

I have opinions too, but I'm not enamoured with them just because they're my opinions. If someone comes along and raises valid points, my opinion is certainly open to review. Opinions that come from the near absence of thought hold certainly less weight in my view than those that are the result of thoughtful examination and that take into account multiple perspectives rather than dismissing them simply because they don't agree with them.

[Matt]

I read Sight and Sound Magazine when I have time.  By and large the longer articles are written by genuine film enthusiasts rather than egotists and most of the pieces start with the assumption that if a film has a dedicated article devoted to it, then it's worth talking about.  They do try and offer some negative comment from time to time, their piece on Inglorious Basterds also came down negatively, but it was long, in-depth and much more thoughtful than anything I've read from White.  Their worst moment was a dire review of Volver - the only time I've seen the magazine so determined to take a contrary viewpoint for its own sake.  You can read it here
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3381

...but they've never done this kind of thing again that I've noticed.  They review every cinematic release but don't assign star ratings or  / ratings.  They simply talk about the movie  - the text generally makes it clear when there's not a lot going on but mostly it's not a "this film is crap" rant, but an attempt (even if it often fails) to situate movies within current trends or find something else interesting to say about it's aesthetics 

I don't have any critics that I do like especially that I follow on a regular basis.  I guess the egotistical mode is not a style of writing that really grabs me.  I don't really enjoy the classic essayists of the 19th C that Kiera always rants and raves about, Hazlitt, De Quincey, Lamb etc  I do quite like George Orwell as a writer but I suppose that's because he's a strong politically minded Socialist.

I think I've only read one issue of S&S -- not because I dislike it, but because it's just hard to come by over here.  I suppose this university library may have a subscription, so I'll see if I can find it.  (Or I could just read what they offer online, I guess, but I'm an old-fashioned type who loves sitting and reading an actual magazine if it's possible.)

I'll have to see if I can track down that IG review you're talking about (which issue was it in?).  The Volver review was kind of depressing, because I think it's kind of spot-on... but in a way that describes everything I liked about the film.  It's curious that the reviewer didn't address the main point of the film, that these women prefer to handle their own affairs, and are strong enough to do it.  I mean, the film really is rather relaxed in a lot of ways, and I found that constructively subversive to my own expectations.  A plot that should have had more of a noir bent was just another women's picture -- a post-Sirkian, post-Fassbinder melodrama.  It did feel a bit like Almodovar was cycling through familiar themes, but I think he did it with clarity and assurance.  The fact that he didn't do any overt envelope-pushing was kind of a change. I like that it was more in the mode of All About My Mother.

I've only seen a handful, but Volver is probably my favorite Almodovar movie that I've seen thus far.  I was lucky to have caught it on the big screen.

This guy pisses me off daily, but I will have to admit he saw the same film I did, in terms of what I got out of it and what caught my eye about the film.

Daily?    Where do you find Armond White on a daily basis?  I must have links, B.  Now.

I would beg to differ with this on a number of grounds. If film criticism and reviewing were limited to simply voicing a "I like it/I don't like it" type of statement, then you might have a point. A good reviewer will, in my view, explain why he/she thinks a film is good or bad. There have been negative reviews of films that convinced me that I'd like it because it was informative on the film itself and I knew that the themes in it would jibe with me better than it did with the reviewer.

A second point related point I'd raise is an understanding of why a film works or why it doesn't. There have been many reviews of films I thought were poor that pretty much went: "OMG dis films amazin!" or "This film is boreing" (and these are the ones that are still somewhat legible). What information does one have on the film itself other than the person's appreciation of it? None whatsoever, because they simply don't have the ability or willingness to delve deeper and understand what in the film made them like or dislike it.

And appreciation or failure to appreciate a film is not just a matter of taste. Some people actively dislike thoughtful cinema and enjoy mindless fare immensely. Is their non-appreciation of thoughtful films a failure of the film itself, or rather a failure/refusal on their part to engage in thought? And isn't it symptomatic of a broader anti-intellectual trend in the person?

I have opinions too, but I'm not enamoured with them just because they're my opinions. If someone comes along and raises valid points, my opinion is certainly open to review. Opinions that come from the near absence of thought hold certainly less weight in my view than those that are the result of thoughtful examination and that take into account multiple perspectives rather than dismissing them simply because they don't agree with them.

This is a great post, and I especially like the bolded graph.  I think there's a lot more there than you even address, though.  Anti-intellectualism is sort of a crime, but one thing that I've come to appreciate over the last couple of years is how much craft can go into a film that isn't particularly intellectual -- a lot of this stemming from getting a little more into Hong Kong cinema, but the same goes for generic Hollywood programmers, too.  A point that I think we all take for granted is that a response to any kind of film (whether it actively courts intelligence or panders to the lowbrow) can be highly intellectual, which demonstrates a commitment to critical thought.  It's always a kind of highwire act.  I mean, writing a mini-essay on Hudson Hawk or The Spirit rather strains the form (and the head; I blame nobody but myself on that front); there may be such a thing as over-intellectualizing.  I'm not sure if that's a notion I agree with or not, but since different films hit you on different levels, and in different ways, I think a multiplicity of potential responses is somewhat valid.  Sometimes the only possible response is, "Yeah, it sucked," because there just isn't that much more to say.  At least, not that you can think of, but that doesn't mean you're closed to the idea of there being more to say.  For some people (probably not the majority), it may just mean acknowledging one's own inability or disinterest in giving a film the time dedicated to serious thought when there are other, more worthwhile mental activities.  I think it's also worth acknowledging the line you draw for yourself at which your gut reaction just won't allow for immensely disparate perspectives.

I don't think any of this fundamentally disagrees with what you said; I was just trying to expand on it a little.

[Juss]

I think I've only read one issue of S&S -- not because I dislike it, but because it's just hard to come by over here.  I suppose this university library may have a subscription, so I'll see if I can find it.  (Or I could just read what they offer online, I guess, but I'm an old-fashioned type who loves sitting and reading an actual magazine if it's possible.)

I imagine in a big city it’ll probably be fairly easy to find.  I usually notice copies of Film Review/Comment in bigger stores like Borders or at high traffic rail stations but less so on your average high street in your average town.  I like those American mags but don’t generally buy them because a) I think S&S would probably slightly have the edge for me in design and coverage anyway and b) the shift in focus between US and U.K markets is pretty relevant and it makes sense to buy a magazine that’s covering what’s in UK theatres right now.  For that reason I wouldn’t suggest going out of your way to track down S&S – the features are very good and I’d definitely recommend a monthly look through if your local library were to stock it … the shorter reviews are hit and miss in terms of quality but I find them unpatronising and mostly non judgmental and quite good at picking out where and why a movie is interesting even if they rarely get to the bottom of it.

I'll have to see if I can track down that IG review you're talking about (which issue was it in?).  The Volver review was kind of depressing, because I think it's kind of spot-on... but in a way that describes everything I liked about the film.  It's curious that the reviewer didn't address the main point of the film, that these women prefer to handle their own affairs, and are strong enough to do it.  I mean, the film really is rather relaxed in a lot of ways, and I found that constructively subversive to my own expectations.  A plot that should have had more of a noir bent was just another women's picture -- a post-Sirkian, post-Fassbinder melodrama.  It did feel a bit like Almodovar was cycling through familiar themes, but I think he did it with clarity and assurance.  The fact that he didn't do any overt envelope-pushing was kind of a change. I like that it was more in the mode of All About My Mother. I've only seen a handful, but Volver is probably my favorite Almodovar movie that I've seen thus far.  I was lucky to have caught it on the big screen.

I’ll scan it for you if you’re interested – I can scan any article from it you’re interested in if you ever see that there’s something you’d like to read….  Remind me though as I won’t be able to do until Sunday night and I may have forgotten!!

What I’m increasingly starting to dislike – and I dislike this about Tarantino comment too – is this emergence of the idea that every single film has to be a complete and original statement in and of itself in order to be worthwhile.  Of course, I love it when a film just randomly does something so new and inventive that you get the woah factor, but it’s unrealistic to think that any great director has more than one of those in their lifetime or at least every ten years or so.  It’s much more interesting to me to look at what a director is doing over the course of their careers in a broader sense and one of the things I like about Almodovar is that he’s in it for the long-term, constantly re-working his themes and ideas but looking for new ways to express them… it’s not always going to work and it doesn’t always work.  I loved Broken Embraces especially because it’s very self-conscious about this approach and comments quite directly on how a director approaches his material over time and how audiences respond to the material over time etc  Some of the great director’s reuse the same actors/actresses in their movies not because they are uninspired without them, but because they’re capable of embodying something about what they’re trying to express and BE comments on that too.

So, in short, I loved the non-envelope pushing nature of Volver.  Like you I found it very refreshing and rewarding and I saw no necessity for the movie to make such a grand statement that this reviewer seemed to be looking for.  Incidentally I feel that Armond White is always searching for the “profound” moment too, every time he sits down to a movie.  So much so that he finds it in the strangest places!!

[Witless]

This is a great post, and I especially like the bolded graph.  I think there's a lot more there than you even address, though.  Anti-intellectualism is sort of a crime, but one thing that I've come to appreciate over the last couple of years is how much craft can go into a film that isn't particularly intellectual -- a lot of this stemming from getting a little more into Hong Kong cinema, but the same goes for generic Hollywood programmers, too.  A point that I think we all take for granted is that a response to any kind of film (whether it actively courts intelligence or panders to the lowbrow) can be highly intellectual, which demonstrates a commitment to critical thought.  It's always a kind of highwire act.  I mean, writing a mini-essay on Hudson Hawk or The Spirit rather strains the form (and the head; I blame nobody but myself on that front); there may be such a thing as over-intellectualizing.  I'm not sure if that's a notion I agree with or not, but since different films hit you on different levels, and in different ways, I think a multiplicity of potential responses is somewhat valid.  Sometimes the only possible response is, "Yeah, it sucked," because there just isn't that much more to say.  At least, not that you can think of, but that doesn't mean you're closed to the idea of there being more to say.  For some people (probably not the majority), it may just mean acknowledging one's own inability or disinterest in giving a film the time dedicated to serious thought when there are other, more worthwhile mental activities.  I think it's also worth acknowledging the line you draw for yourself at which your gut reaction just won't allow for immensely disparate perspectives.

I don't think any of this fundamentally disagrees with what you said; I was just trying to expand on it a little.

I pretty much agree with this. However, when I read movie reviews and critiques, I expect something more substantial than "It sucked". You're quite right that at times, it's pretty much the only comment one can be bothered to make, but I always thought that this was reflective of my own failures at reviewing films. Oddly enough, I find it more difficult to praise films than finding its faults.

But I digress. Yes, it's quite possible for not-so-intellectually engaging films to nevertheless be tremendously inventive. However, what I was referring to was more along the lines of generic films that look like they were written, shot, and acted on autopilot, or worse, films that are actively anti-intellectual. That being said, I've been told that I think too much. I've always been of the opinion that the problem is that we live in a time and place where critical thought is actively discouraged when it might be the more needed than any other time and place in history. Hence, I see reviews of the "this film is ghey" variety as symptomatic of a broader trend.

[Rob]

I don't know who Armond White is, but I'm comfortable with that. From the sound of it here I'm probably best not knowing.

Top Gun - 10/10
Mr Deeds - four stars
My cred in films - shot
 

[Matt]

I imagine in a big city it’ll probably be fairly easy to find.  I usually notice copies of Film Review/Comment in bigger stores like Borders or at high traffic rail stations but less so on your average high street in your average town.  I like those American mags but don’t generally buy them because a) I think S&S would probably slightly have the edge for me in design and coverage anyway and b) the shift in focus between US and U.K markets is pretty relevant and it makes sense to buy a magazine that’s covering what’s in UK theatres right now.  For that reason I wouldn’t suggest going out of your way to track down S&S – the features are very good and I’d definitely recommend a monthly look through if your local library were to stock it … the shorter reviews are hit and miss in terms of quality but I find them unpatronising and mostly non judgmental and quite good at picking out where and why a movie is interesting even if they rarely get to the bottom of it.

If the writing is good, I'll find it interesting. A lot of the film criticism I read is about films I haven't yet seen, or that aren't even available to me at the moment.  Even so, I just like knowing what people are thinking about film.

I’ll scan it for you if you’re interested – I can scan any article from it you’re interested in if you ever see that there’s something you’d like to read….  Remind me though as I won’t be able to do until Sunday night and I may have forgotten!!

Thanks for the offer!  Hopefully I'll be able to find a copy at either Borders or the library.  I believe the graduate English library does have a subscription to S&S, so we'll see when I can find time to look for it.

What I’m increasingly starting to dislike – and I dislike this about Tarantino comment too – is this emergence of the idea that every single film has to be a complete and original statement in and of itself in order to be worthwhile.  Of course, I love it when a film just randomly does something so new and inventive that you get the woah factor, but it’s unrealistic to think that any great director has more than one of those in their lifetime or at least every ten years or so.  It’s much more interesting to me to look at what a director is doing over the course of their careers in a broader sense and one of the things I like about Almodovar is that he’s in it for the long-term, constantly re-working his themes and ideas but looking for new ways to express them… it’s not always going to work and it doesn’t always work.  I loved Broken Embraces especially because it’s very self-conscious about this approach and comments quite directly on how a director approaches his material over time and how audiences respond to the material over time etc  Some of the great director’s reuse the same actors/actresses in their movies not because they are uninspired without them, but because they’re capable of embodying something about what they’re trying to express and BE comments on that too.

So, in short, I loved the non-envelope pushing nature of Volver.  Like you I found it very refreshing and rewarding and I saw no necessity for the movie to make such a grand statement that this reviewer seemed to be looking for.  Incidentally I feel that Armond White is always searching for the “profound” moment too, every time he sits down to a movie.  So much so that he finds it in the strangest places!!

I'm inclined to agree that White finds profundity is some odd places.  I think that's because he very self-consciously takes films seriously -- even those films that aren't really "serious films."  But I do like the idea that one can find something serious and interesting to say when talking about even the most idiotic or slight films, and White almost always attempts to bring something relevant to bear when reviewing anything, even if it's a point that's really off the wall.  I just read his review of The Fabulous Baker Boys, where he essentially beats on the film for casting Michelle Pfeiffer as the lead actress.  Not just because he perceives her as a dubious talent at best, but because the film extols the beauty of whiteness.  I haven't seen the film, but criticizing a film for telling the story of a love triangle between three white people, on principle, because they're white, seems rather hinky.

I don't personally think that every film has to be totally original and unprecedented, but I think the big gripe with Tarantino (and this isn't really White's gripe specifically) is that he has been so self-conscious for the last couple films about stealing from other films, and almost going out of his way not to be totally original.  This complaint wouldn't have nearly as much traction if it weren't for the fact that Tarantino is such a gifted filmmaker, and it's clear that he could probably come up with some stuff that's even more fascinating (if flawed, which is a huge risk with experimentation) because it would be more than a spot-the-homage guessing game.  If I can get all psychoanalytical for a moment here (which is to say, wholly speculative and presumptuous), I think a lot of critics look at Tarantino and see a filmmaker with a ton of raw potential.  He could do so much -- and he already has.  The thing is, he's making movies that self-reflexively echo and rework older movies.  The basic defense of Tarantino is that cinema has so much power, and as an art form it's so well-established, that by making movies that draw their power and inspiration mostly from other movies, he's reinforcing the power and potential of cinema as a singular art form.  On the flip side, the fact that this talented guy is making movies that are collages of other film could also suggest that cinema has reached an end point.  If a filmmaker of his caliber can't even be bothered to attempt making a totally original and unprecedented aesthetic statement, then it would seem that cinema is stuck on a feedback loop.  It's said all there is to say, and all that's left is to mine the genius of the old masters.  Critics may instinctually recoil at that because it suggests that the medium they love so much is at the beginning of the end.  Tarantino's films may feel fresh, but that's only because it's not common to steal so overtly.  The downward slide indicated by Tarantinoesque filmmaking may mean that once cinema is finished feeding upon itself to the point of exhaustion, the medium will die -- or, even if films keep getting made, they will have lost all vitality.  There's nothing new to discover apart from what has come before.  I can sympathize with that gut reaction (if that's what it is -- remember, I'm armchair analyzing here), and in a lot of ways, I share it.

But I also think there's a place for filmmakers like Tarantino as long as there is always a vanguard that's willing to push the mainstream in slightly newer directions.  For QT, that time is come and gone.  It's pretty clear at this point that he's retreated into his own hermetic corner of the cinema universe, and his films may still be interesting and good, but he's not going to give us anything truly new.  The potential he had when he burst upon the scene in the early nineties, when his homages and use of tropes were hip and exciting (not that he was revolutionary, he was just truly adept at integrating them in a way that the mainstream hadn't previously endorsed with such success).  By now, every time he announces a project, it's always, "It's going to be in the style of such and such old genre that's sort of dead, but I had a blast watching those films when I was younger."  It's sort of a "golden past" kind of thinking -- rather "reactionary," if you will (although I hate the term).  The idea that we can and should only do things like they were done before, because things were better "back then."  I don't personally disapprove of this kind of thinking in all cases, if it's applied right.  I'm just trying to illustrate that I think reacting against it is a valid response on the part of critics who think that it signals the stagnation of cinema.

As you said, there's great value in refining tradition, and reworking it in variations to find just the right one, or to find a perspective on it that hasn't yet been explored.  To me, it demonstrates a strong sense of history, and the value of that history, which is something radical avant-garde is tempted to ignore at its own peril.

[Matt]

I pretty much agree with this. However, when I read movie reviews and critiques, I expect something more substantial than "It sucked". You're quite right that at times, it's pretty much the only comment one can be bothered to make, but I always thought that this was reflective of my own failures at reviewing films. Oddly enough, I find it more difficult to praise films than finding its faults.

I do, too.  Although I think that's partly because it's so rare to find true greatness -- it's almost like we're still developing a language to express it, whereas we have countless ways to articulate what doesn't work, because that's what we experience on a far more regular basis.  Then there's the fact that the mindset of praise is often associated with putting oneself out on a limb, where the burden of proof (so to speak) is on you.  When you decry a film, the mindset puts its supporters on the defensive while simultaneously (somehow) shifting the burden of proof to them.  One is so much more of an uphill battle, and I'm not sure why that is.  If there's one thing White does well, it's that when he praises a film, he automatically dares you to dislike it.  Usually when describing beauty, our language tends towards the ineffable, but ugliness is far more earthy and substantive.  When you eat great food, you smile and swoon; when you eat awful food, you projectile vomit all over the place.

But I digress. Yes, it's quite possible for not-so-intellectually engaging films to nevertheless be tremendously inventive. However, what I was referring to was more along the lines of generic films that look like they were written, shot, and acted on autopilot, or worse, films that are actively anti-intellectual. That being said, I've been told that I think too much. I've always been of the opinion that the problem is that we live in a time and place where critical thought is actively discouraged when it might be the more needed than any other time and place in history. Hence, I see reviews of the "this film is ghey" variety as symptomatic of a broader trend.

I don't think "thinking too much" is a bad thing -- at least, not the way that most people seem to use that term.  And I agree that "this film sux" is usually indicative of an unwillingness or chronic inability to be thoughtful.  A lot of entertainment courts this laziness, and that is offensive to me -- but it's more offensive when a film like, I dunno, The Cove (or something), with serious pretension, courts this laziness by attempting to fool us into thinking that it's sophisticated and thoughtful, than a film like, say, Paul Blart, which is just silly, and doesn't pretend to be otherwise.  I think the silly film does less harm overall than a malicious attempt to destroy critical thought through pretension.

[Ellen]

I never heard of Armond White prior to being with Matt. Growing up the only reviewer I would ever exert myself to read in my parents newspaper or online was Roger Ebert. I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert and a film scholar who hosted the PBS film festival every Saturday night--I can't remember his name but I remember his face and I loved watching the movies. That's it. A paltry background, I know, but it is what it is and I like to think that even though I guess not much has changed in terms of what I actively read (if anything, I read less, I don't even read Ebert consistently), I do know what I do and do not respect, appreciate, and enjoy in a good film review.

To me, a good review doesn't just give a thumbs up or thumbs down and a good review certainly doesn't just replay the film on paper in excruciating detail (heavens but I hate that), rather, a well written review talks about the movie's strengths, weaknesses, and perhaps its influences in such a way that I can decide if sitting through 1+ hours and paying X$$$ will add anything to my life. I want to know how movies make a person think and feel. I want to know if it is a story worth seeing. As Witless said, sometimes all the reasons someone uses for why they hate a movie might just show me that it is worth seeing and vice versa.

As for Armond White himself, I guess I just don't get the big deal.  I have read six of his reviews and I thought they were okay, nothing in them particularly won me over but neither did it fill me with loathing. I actually found his recent piece on movies from 1969 quite educational, well-written, and overall enjoyable. It is perfectly reasonable to say I'm a novice and that if I were to have read everything you've cited I'd think differently--such is probable. Six reviews isn't perhaps a strong foundation but so far I guess I don't see him as being that bad. Like Matt, I think I find the response he has stirred up as interesting (in my case, more interesting) than his writing in and of itself.