WTF! Yeah - I'm sure "Where the Wild Things Are! is a response to the self indulgence of Nirvana. Has to be. Sorry, the self indulgence "as ushered in by" Nirvana.
I think this kind of throwaway nonsense is a case in point as to why I don't really take broadsheet critics very seriously.
It may be fair to cite this as an example of why you don't like White, but I don't think his writing is at all typical of mainstream critics (I'd group a lot of the big slicks like Rolling Stone, New Yorker, etc. with the "broadsheets"). One of the reasons so many people hate him is
because of connections like this. And given Jonze's career, which has its origins in the height of the Nirvana/grunge era, and which is largely built upon his earlier work as a music video director, that might not be such a stretch. It's just a stretch beyond what you normally read. I don't think dismissing all print publication critics in general is really fair. It's something Armond White would do, actually. I read an interview with him where he couldn't name one single contemporary critic that he thinks is any good. He said something vague about there being maybe a handful of decent ones, but none came to mind (and this was including critics in general, I think -- not just broadsheet critics). That struck me as really arrogant.
Honestly and seriously, he's just another film critic to me. and to be honest, I'm not all that interested in the opinions of film journalists who write weekly reviews for broadsheets - they don't go in depth enough into a movie to really get under a movie's skin for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm curious as to what the general vibe is likely to be and where there's a reviewer I consistently agree with, I'm more likely to be curious as to whether they liked a particular film or not, but I've rarely read anything in a broadsheet that interested me enough to hold on to it or dissect it. I'm as curious as to the cult of Armond White as I am Roger Ebert as neither of them write stuff that interests me.
The only thing I'd add to this is that it seems that you haven't read a lot of White's stuff. I really wouldn't say that you'd like it any better, but saying that neither he nor Roger Ebert writes stuff that interests you seems prematurely dismissive, doesn't it?
Not that I have the time but I'd be far more interested in reading an academic textboox on Von Trier written by someone who is interested in his movies and takes them seriously. I mean, fine, White has written a couple of hundred words saying that he hates von Trier, that his movies suck and that people who like them are dupes. Clearly, the fact that he has a prestigious career that takes in Cannes winning movies, spawning a cinematic movement and legions of critics, academics and laypeople as fans I'd think that there's more interesting things to be said about his work other than "he's a hoaxter and he's crap". Curiously he seems to take the line that only he has discovered this and the rest of the world is blind to it, but I've heard the same line from countless critics over pretty much every one of his movies - in particular Antichrist - so that's getting a little boring too.
That's typical of White, as I noted earlier. But I think in what you just said here, you're sort of glossing over an interesting division in critical consensus. I mean, yeah, von Trier has a lot of fans and critical apologists, but that in itself doesn't really mean that his work is any good. It's what those apologists have to say that matters -- and ultimately, what really matters if how much you agree with it, or how much insight you can glean from it that enhances your appreciation of the films, right? At the same time, von Trier has always deliberately tried to be controversial, going out of his way to piss people off. That's, like, his M.O. White does a little more than just call von Trier a hoaxer, and he does give him some credit -- he just hates the way that von Trier has put his talent to use. Which isn't out of line with a lot of other critics. If you decide to read a textbook or extended analysis of von Trier, would you rather read one that just supports everything you already thought, or one that takes into account von Trier's foibles and failings as well? Getting tired of hearing that von Trier isn't that great, or that he's kind of a poser... Well, if these comments are as ubiquitous as the praise, then shouldn't you be interested in hearing them, too?
So yeah - reading his work does nothing for me I'm afraid. I'm not even remotely offended or provoked by the fact that he hates von Trier or Tarantino. Popular media can say whatever it likes about films that I find interesting and that's fine.. generally these movies receive a lot of attention because there's something interesting about them anyway and for better or worse their legacies are likely to live on. I'm more concerned about these people's power to cast death sentences on excellent movies by generally ignoring them. (How much critical publicity did, say, Howl's Moving Castle or Ghost in the Shell 2 receive).
I haven't read enough of Armond White to work out what his politics are. I read a piece he wrote on Pulp Fiction, I read something else I forget and now this one. He strikes me as slightly reactionary and/or someone who is keen to make it clear that he does not follow the current voguey trends in cinema.
I think his approach to film writing is explicitly reactionary, although I'm not sure that's descriptive of his politics. And White does write about smaller films as well as bigger ones. I mean, just in the last couple weeks, he gave ink to
Bronson and
Good Hair (the latter of which he did not like, but he did at least cover it). I recall reading a particularly gorgeous review of Claire Denis's
35 Shots of Rum, which certainly is not a mainstream film, and White was just in raptures over it -- as were most critics, including those denizens of the despicable broadsheets. It's my impression that White writes about movies when he feels he has something to say about them, and like most critics, there's just no way that he can see every movie, but I think he writes about what speaks to him and what he thinks is important, whether it's because a movie is great, terrible, or somewhere in between.
He reminds me of the Zero Punctuation reviews on the Escapist. This guy Yatzee makes these videos where he goes out of his way to nitpick videogames. Sometimes they are funny, but they got old, fast. They purposefully rip to shreds the uber popular games with humor for web hits, and it works. The Internet eats that kind of stuff up. It's not genuine - it's entertainment. I got tired of it quickly.
I feel White is similar. He's an entertainer. People turn to him because his opinion is almost always in direct opposition to the consensus. He's garnished this shtick which has given him a following, and eventually I had to ask myself if I though he was being genuine or not. I don't think he is. He's created a character that gets a reaction out of people, kind of like ZP, or one of those extreme right-wing talk show hosts who say things just to get a rise out of liberals.
If you go by the Tomatometer, he's in opposition 50% of the time. So at least half the time, he's with the consensus. I'm just curious to know how you know he's disingenuous. It just seems very easy to label someone as a troll when they have a very eccentric viewpoint that they choose to express in borderline hostile terms. Which doesn't make it fair that they are so aggressive, but it doesn't mean they don't mean every word they say.
And I think there can even be some truth in a rant-y style. Have you seen that video of the guy who dissects everything that's wrong with DVD packaging? It's really nitpicky, but very funny, because it touches on pretty much everything that is annoying about DVDs.
