White noise

My friend (well, he was my friend, and then he does this) Aaron Aradillas points me to New York Press critic Armond White's latest "everybody in the world sucks but me" screed, "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies," which he kicks off by flexing his disdain for the "opinionated throng" of internet critics who emulate the "Vachel Lindsay-Manny Farber tradition." That's a great start, given that only a person who has read either Farber, or Lindsay, but by no means both, could possibly conceive of yoking the two together in this way.

White then goes on to piss all over the recently-grievously-ailing Roger Ebert...after which he wishes him "nothing but health." That's awfully sweet of him. Gets in a few swats at A.O. Scott. Praises the praiseworthy Shotgun Stories and pillories all the critics who either ignored it or don't love it as much as he did, because it "should have rocked film culture." Although he admits that in the case of that film, he was part of the problem: "Even I, shamefacedly, only caught up after it had opened."

White takes a little stab at Premiere, the print publication, too:

This sea change in media attitude was typified by the American launch of Premiere magazine (finally trimmed away two years ago), which perverted movie journalism from criticism to production news.

As a there's-nothing-new-under-the-sun person, I'm always amused by this kind of analysis as applied to, well, anything. The American edition of Premiere that launched in 1987—adapted from the French magazine that had began about a decade before—had a lineage. Noble or not is open to debate, but I always felt the book had strong roots in Photoplay, the American movie magazine founded in 1911. One of my favorite bits in P.G. Wodehouse's 1936 Laughing Gas is when the English-Earl-in-the-body-of-a-child-star (it's complicated) is kidnapped by gangsters who...sit around a table and discuss screenplay structure. Inside baseball's always had the appeal of, well, inside baseball; Premiere "perverted" precisely nothing.

But here's the thing, finally. White's wrong about the demise of the print publication; it went down one year, a month and two and a half weeks ago. And when Premiere magazine was "trimmed away," as White so charmingly puts it, a lot of close friends of mine—good and talented people—lost their jobs. Now, White's known for spewing bile at his peers in print, and then turning around and being quite affable to said peers in person—I've experienced it. And I've had it. So: screw you, Armond. Don't say "hi" next time you see me at a screening because you won't get a "hi" back. You think you're applying some form of moral rigor to your work, but the fact is that you're a bully and a hypocrite, and I don't want to know you.

Oh, and also—my Premiere review of Shotgun Stories ran the day of the picture's New York opening. So bite me.

Comments

[Keith G]

So he thinks the only worthwhile film journalism is criticism? What the hell?

And PREMIERE was more than just production news, it was profiles of artists - directors, actors, writers, technicians. It wasn't just who was making what when - that's Variety's job. It was an in-depth look at the process, the creativity of filmmakers.

I still mourn the passing of the print version of PREMIERE. I'm glad you're blogging Glenn, because it feels like a little bit of what I remember about the magazine is still here. The rest just doesn't feel the same.

[Jeremy Smth]

Is it possible to hate White's examples and still agree with his thesis? Aside from SHOTGUN STORIES (which I have yet to see, so I guess I'm part of the problem)?

It's a whole mess o' crazy, but I feel like the busted clock strikes right twice in that essay. There *is* an alarming tendency toward posturing and disaffection nowadays; too many smart writers are way too unwilling to connect with something real. But it's the LITTLE MISS SUNSHINEs I'm worried about, not the DEAD MANs.

[msic]

This screed is just riddled with glittering generalities about the Common Man and the art that moves him, stuff that would be more at home in a Zhdanovist treatise. And let's not even get into the factual errors. For example, people don't refer to Apichatpong Weerasethakul as "Joe" to be cliquish or efface his Thai ethnicity. It's because he's stated that he himself often prefers it, which actually makes it good manners. What's more, he should properly be referred to as "Apichatpong," not "Weerasethakul," following Thai custom.

But I don't have all night to get into all this. Maybe we can just ignore it? Armond White has finally confirmed himself as the Hilton Kramer of contemporary film criticism, and let's move on. Hey, I wonder what the as-yet- unannounced French Comp film at Cannes will be.

[Glenn Kenny]

Jeremy, not to go overboard on my nothing-new-under-the-sun idea, I think a survey of every era's criticism could yield substantial amounts of posturing and disaffection, or some equivalent thereof; the difference these days is in its proliferation, which new media has enabled an explosion of. White's schtick is that only he has the perception, the judgment, and the moral vision to see through it all; this, in his mind, excuses his incivility...no, to hell with it, it's not incivility, it's simple snickering haughty mean-spiritedness. And I feel sorry (among other things) for anybody who insists on mistaking it for brilliant contrarianism.

And msic: I like the way you think. I'm gonna try to be as zen as you...

[Chuck]

I admit that I read and was stunned and totally bought into it. Then I thought about it, read some of the other reactions (most particularly yours Glenn) and came around. I feel the general divorced from cruelty point is valid, but White displays a grand hypocrisy in his essay, it pummels and targets insecure people into submission and plays on a hatred of critics in a way that recalls O'Neill's piece on Sunshine the other day. The difference is that White is hell of a pure writer and can pull it off before you start to think about it.

[Chuck]

Pardon me, Sunrise.

[Filmbrain]

Wow...seems like Armond was getting annoyed at all the attention being paid to Tom O'Neil.

I challenge Armond to show me ONE film blogger emulating Lindsay.

[Victor Morton]

Armond White wrote:

The most powerful, politically and morally engaged recent films (The Darjeeling Limited, Private Fears in Public Places, World Trade Center, The Promise, Shortbus, Ask the Dust, Akeelah and the Bee, Bobby, Running Scared, Munich, War of the Worlds, Vera Drake) were all ignored by journalists whose jobs are to bring the (cultural) news to the public. Instead, only movies that are mendacious, pseudo-serious, sometimes immoral or socially retrograde and irresponsible (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Army of Shadows, United 93, Marie Antoinette, Zodiac, Last Days, There Will Be Blood, American Gangster, Gone Baby Gone, Letters From Iwo Jima, A History of Violence, Tarnation, Elephant) have received critics’ imprimatur.

If merely looking at that list doesn't type White as a buffoon, I don't know what else to say.

In what world were MUNICH, WAR OF THE WORLDS, VERA DRAKE, WORLD TRADE CENTER and THE DARJEELING LIMITED "all ignored"? And in what sense did MARIE ANTOINETTE and LAST DAYS (54 and 60 percent respectively at Rotten Tomatoes) get any "critics imprimatur"?

I note that I've been careful to pick examples of films about which my own opinions vary considerably.

[don lewis]

Victor-if you've never read Armond White's reviews, you're missing out. He's a brilliant nut job. I seriously cannot tell if he's serious or kidding half the time.

p.s. Sic em GK!

[Dan]

I can sum this article up in six words:

"OFF MY LAWN! YOU DAMN KIDS!"

[Dan Coyle]

To paraphrase Armond himself, in a just world, he'd be in prison.

[Victor Morton]

Don:

I have been semi-following Armond White's buffoonishness since his memorable(?) piece in Film Comment some years ago on "Simi Valley aesthetics." I haven't read him since I began boycotting the NY Press in response to their cover article "52 Funniest Things about the Death of Pope John Paul."

[Stephen Bowie]

Victor, I'd think you'd be on board with Armond White, at least politically; it's his odious post-9/11 neoconservatism that finally pushed me over the edge with him, after years of finding White to be one of the most talented and sporadically brilliant film critics we have. Despite the unnecessary solipsism that's been belabored ad nauseum by many, many bloggers, probably to Armond's considerable delight.

I forgot about the "52 Funniest Things About the Death of Pope John Paul" ... that shit cracked me up, almost as much as when they named Mr. Kim of Kim's Video as one of the 50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers. The NYP is generally a pretty worthless rag but I guess it's had its moments.

[Tony Dayoub]

What gets me is how White condemns modern film criticism for being elitist while trying to cordon off the profession from bloggers and New Media.

The wonderful thing about New Media is the fact that it opens up opportunities for people who normally may not get the access whether they deserve to or not. He's right when he says there is a lot of junk out there now. But I would counter that proportionally there is the same percentage of crap writers that there have always been in the profession.

Whether it's film journals, newspapers, film magazines or what have you, only about ten percent (arbitrary estimate) of the writers are worth reading. As it should be. Good writing becomes all the more precious when you have to dig around for it.

[Arion Berger]

That list of "powerful, politically and morally engaged" films makes my blood BOIL. Hulk angry. There's nothing that brings down the red curtain faster, for me, than someone throwing out specious lists like these and then refusing to be critical about them. Why not put your pp&me "Vera Drake" right up against "mendacious, pseudo-serious, sometimes immoral or socially retrograde and irresponsible" "4 Months" head-to-head, Armond and tells us why?

But he has a point about Premiere. I mean, I guess they didn't have a regular film critic. I can't remember the dude's name anyway...

[wells]

Uh, "Ye-Ye"?!

[Glenn Kenny]

Arion, it's worth remembering that Premiere ran regular film criticism well before that dude came on board—criticism by the likes of J. Hoberman, David Denby, Todd McCarthy and Libby Gelman-Waxner, morally upstanding writers all.

Wells, you mean you never heard of "Ye-Ye," the documentary about the French pop style that took that country's charts by storm? Me neither. I believe White means Yang's "Yi-Yi."

[wells]

No, I'm sure he meant the former. You know the hipsters and the bloggers love that Chantal Goya bullshit. Oops, Glenn, there we go, being united in our sarcasm. Good thing we know Armond isn't reading this... Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to diminishing cultural discourse.

[Billy Whizz]

Armond White hates movies. He uses them as his tool of choice to distance himself from the rest of humanity, to spotlight his superiority. I know it's hard to be black, gay and a fan of Morrisey, but really, does he have to take it out on the rest of the world? I mean, how can I take anyone seriously who refers to Torque as "pop-art masterpiece?" I'm sure he thinks with all the attention he's getting that he has somehow grabbed the keys to Kael's mansion, but if he had perspective on himself he would realize that what he just grabbed were the keys to Dale Peck's studio apartment.

[Nathan Duke]

Finally, there's someone willing to take on the irresponsibility of "Marie Antoinette," which recklessly mixes French aristocracy and Siouxsie and the Banshees songs, and the amorality of "There Will Be Blood," with its championing of milkshake theft and bastards in baskets. Thank you Armond White.

I'm glad he included "Running Scared" on his list of morally engaged films, considering that film's extended Children in Peril sequences that are played up for thrills.

[Claire K.]

I kind of agree with you Billy Whizz, except for the idea that White hates movies--I think he's actually the movie-watching equivalent of the book-loving Burgess Meredith character from that Twilight Zone episode. Or at least, I think that's how he'd like to see himself.

[Nick]

White seems to ignore context when it suits his arguments. Film critics aren't going to stop the way American consumer culture has affected criticism and art of all kinds. No critic can do that. Talk about denial.

[Moviezzz]

White lost me early on with:

"Nowadays, reviewers almost never draw continuity between new films and movie history—except to get it wrong, as in the idiotic reviews that belittled Neil Jordan’s sensitive, imaginative The Brave One (a movie that brilliantly contrasts vengeful guilt to 9/11 aftershock) as merely a rip-off of the 1970s exploitation feature Death Wish."

Maybe if he had looked into film history and noticed that THE BRAVE ONE was written by the guys behind the Michael Douglas and Hal Holbrook as vigilantes THE STAR CHAMBER and TV's THE EQUALIZER (and countless B grade action films), he might not have written off those comparisons.

I guess in his eyes the wildly uneven Jordan is a true filmmaker, while Sidney Lumet is still a hack.

As for SHOTGUN STORIES, it is kind of hard to review a film that barely gets released outside of major cities, unless you live in those major cities.

The internet is worldwide, not just in Midtown Manhattan.

[Marilyn]

I think he's just pissed off the Roger Ebert got some high-profile, glowing write-ups instead of him.

[Dan]

Wow, is it ever a small world: I look up White on Wikipedia to see if Whizz there was joking about his being a black gay Morrisey fan, and what do I see but praise from James Wolcott! Unverified, alas, but it's still funny to see.

[matt lynch]

I seem to remember hearing about Armond having a personal beef against Georgia Brown that some say trickled down to him calling Noah Baumbach "an asshole". Also something about a controversial radio appearance involving the White and Brown. I can't seem to find anything else about it though. Any help?

[Arion Berger]

Sheesh, I was just flattering in you. GD. Anyway, someone needs to make a movie called "Ye-Ye," right? We got a million-dollar idea, y'all!

[don lewis]

Wolcott...don't you wanna get outta Cape Cod...outta Cape Cod toniiight....

Sorry.

Isn't White a black, gay, REPUBLICAN Morrisey lover? Man, that's a tough road to travel....

[Matt Noller]

Matt, I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sure he suggested that Georgia Brown should have gotten an abortion.

He's a classy one, that Armond.

[David Schwartz]

Glenn,

Let me be the first...or, well, thirtieth, to chime in on Armond White's column. I need to respond to one thing he wrote about the Museum of the Moving Image's recent institute in film criticism (which I co-organized). Namely this:

"These desperate stakes became even more alarming with the recent announcement of the Museum of the Moving Image’s Second Annual Institute on Criticism and Feature Writing—a project seemingly designed to further confuse the profession. Offering a session on marketing and publicity, the MMI’s Institute implies that flackery is part of critical journalism, and that’s really the root of the problem—sanctioning the way in which critical journalism has blurred its mandate into promoting the industry, not the art form. It overlooks any chance for criticism to unite while enlightening the audience, keeping it divided. There is no 'conversation' when what we say when we talk about movies is driven by elitism or commerce, both now horribly combined in Queens."

Do we really need to state the obvious: Film is art AND business; to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. The point of the publicist panel at the Museum was to demystify and discuss the way that publicists work. Like it or not, publicists control access to films, filmmakers, and actors, and they attempt to influence how a film is received. So it seemed reasonable to give critics an inside, candid look at how they work. The panel indeed was a conversation--a lively, informative, candid one-- and not a brainwashing session.

David Schwartz
Chief Curator
Museum of the Moving Image

[The Playlist]

Armond White has always been insufferably self-important. He has fittingly written for years in near obscurity over at the fucking New York Press - an ignored paper so perfect for the already bitter, disenchanted writer further frustrated with his station in life.

[Fred]

Polemics and counter-polemics are always fun. But the most crucial thing to take wawy from this "debate" is that both White AND Kenny are full of s**t!

Nothing personal, it's just the being full of that substance is part of the job requirement for being a film critic.

Kenny's a snob and White's a crank.

[Dan]

Fred, gotta disagree with you there. Take our host's review of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". I think it's better than 2 1/2 stars, BUT, unlike a lot of hilariously godawful reviews I've read of said film (male nudity never fails to reveal a few closet cases in the film "blogosphere"), Glenn ticked off the merits it had and things he thought could improve, he didn't buzz-bomb it. Honestly, if I thought he WAS a snob, I wouldn't be such a gadfly on his blog!

[TC]

What bothers me most about White is the "either/or"ism that I get from reading essays like this. It's possible to like "irresponsible" movies like THERE WILL BE BLOOD and ZODIAC, as well as the ones from White's list (well, some of them anyway).

[Joe Leydon]

Seriously: I was very sad when Premiere stopped publishing. And not just because I was sent copies of US Weekly to compensate for never-published issues I was entitled to receive for my not-yet-expired Premiere subscription.

[Kent Jones]

Many years ago, a good friend of mine made an observation that's stuck with me - "You can be addicted to anything - drugs, alcohol, exercise, even your own personality." You can even be addicted to the sensation of righteous indignation. Which, I'm afraid to say, is what I see in Armond's writing. About which there's nothing much to add to what Matt Zoeller Seitz has written.

There are usually insights sprinkled throughout Armond's reviews, but they are now buried under mounds of shaky suppositions and assertions, unvarnished opinion masquerading as fact, unverified "proofs" of the moral bankruptcy of this or that film, filmmaker or critic, and attacks on some phantom hegemony. On top of which, one can pretty much predict what Armond's feelings about a given film are going to be. He also has an ugly habit of attacking his fellow critics, and when he does it by name it's in truly alarming language, as his remarks on Lisa Schwarzbaum and Georgia Brown attest. He seems to feel that he has license to do so because he feels that he is the one on the barricades, that he alone is speaking out against I-don't-know-what. As I found out myself.

He has become eminently if not proudly unreasonable and illogical, and I'm sorry about that, because as Matt wrote, he did a lot of strong work in the 80s and 90s. I wish him well. I'm sorry that he's erected such a high rhetorical wall around himself.

[vadim]

Glenn, I'll love you forever for the LAUGHING GAS shout-out. One of my favorites.

[The Playlist]

Sure, Glen can read and sound like a snob at time, what film critic doesn't? I can understand the problem some people have with him, but compared to Armond he seems like a congenial walk in the park.

[Evan Waters]

The list basically turns this into "other critics don't like the same films that I do!", which is petty and dumb. If he thought WAR OF THE WORLDS was great and transcendent, good for him! Yay for diversity of opinion! But other critics' failure to praise it means jack squat. It's not because they failed to grasp the profundity of Spielberg's vision, it's because they didn't think it was that well made.

Heck, the Ten Current Film Culture Fallacies are just a list of specific films and filmmakers and movements that we're supposed to think are good or bad based on his judgment. The new musicals suck, Dogma 95 sucked, David Cronenberg = Paul Verhoeven (or something), etc.

The one point I will agree in a way on is that I do think Wes Anderson sometimes gets misread- the surrealism of his work is mistaken for emotional detachment. But THE DARJEELING LIMITED got quite good reviews, so it's not really the best test case, is it?

[Kent Jones]

I agree completely about DARJEELING, and about Anderson's work in general. But were the reviews really that great? Many people I know hated that film, and I read many reviews that were either severely qualified, mixed, or dismissive.

[Glenn Kenny]

Yes, Kent, "Darjeeling" in particular came in for a lot of (to my mind completely unwarranted) hostility. Seemed almost reflexive, too, as if a lot of haters were just waiting to pounce. I appreciated A.W.'s spirited defense of the movie, and Anderson in general. But your points on Anderson's essential nature as an artist are what I pull out when I want backup in an argument...

[Kent Jones]

Thank you GK. Dave and I are on our way to pick up Nathan. Meet you at Elaine's at 3.

[Brandon]

I think White's plea is justified, yet, obviously, not entirely accurate.
Criticism is not a competition of who has the best idea about what they have seen. Each piece IS a personal viewpoint on the film. Political, moral, or theoretical analysis (or the lack thereof) is all filtered through that, as Mr. White so clearly shows with his own piece of anti-hype.

That being said, I think the biggest problem with criticism today (if I can be so White) might just be in the general lack of differentiation between praising a film and defining it as (comparatively) worthy of note; in other words, the difference between liking a film and it being good.
These have always been two separate things for me...

[Lizzie]

It's appalling to read all these denunciations of Armond by his colleagues. Is it unforgivable merely to say what everyone already knows to be true about Roger Ebert? Are today's critics really so desperate for celebrity that they revere Ebert's example rather than lamenting the obvious damage he's done to the profession?

Every objection I've read to Armond's article is based on a misinterpretation of his ideas. I'm afraid that willful ignorance, cultural prejudice, and arrogance are combining here to create a shameful spectacle: a vicious pile-on/scapegoating of a principled person who is also, ironically, his profession's best hope and most eloquent defender.

[Glenn Kenny]

Lizzie, the reactions here are to much more than White's denunciation of Ebert, and I can't say that any of the critics who have made their objections above or at "The House Next Door" have ever displayed anything like a desperation for celebrity. That's a nice straw man you've put together, though.

One reason Armond's ideas are so eminently open to what you call misinterpretation is that they're incoherent.

[Lizzie]

Glenn,

If you really found Armond's ideas "incoherent" (they're not), why not ask for clarification, either from the critic himself or from the online community? The latter option would perhaps have resulted in a conversation that would have justified the existence of this blog.

Instead, you extended no respect or professional courtesy to Armond, despite the apparent consensus in the community that he did some important work once upon a time. All because he dared to question Ebert's and The New York Times' authority, and rejected the bloggers' claim to authenticity. If you can get beyond your deep-seated complacency, try wrestling with what Armond put out there last week. Start by, um, reading it.

[Tony Dayoub]

One should not have to ask for clarification from an eminent critic like Mr. White. His writing should speak for itself.

But his "incoherence" often seems to be deliberate, proposing half-baked theories or obscure references to support his ideas. Invariably this perpetuates his own notion that no one understands him because his mode of thinking is so beyond everyone else's.

Kent Jones is justified in his statement that White has "erected such a high rhetorical wall around himself."

[Glenn Kenny]

Lizzie, for a crowning example of both White's incoherence and factual double-dealings, see Victor Morton's first comment above, citing White's competing lists of thrifty-brave-clean-and-reverent films to slothful ones. Also, just on a side note, just why is it that a film that is irreligious or anti-religion is immoral. I guess I SHOULD ask Armond that one.

[Dan]

Lizzie, first off I'd like to point out that trashing your colleagues in print isn't "professional courtesy" no matter who does it, which is precisely what White did, and more to the point, he did so not only a magazine that didn't really deserve the bile he spewed on it ("Premiere" may not have been "Film Comment" but it was far, far away from "US Weekly") but in such a way as to personally offend our host. How would you take it if I walked up to you and said, "Hey, I'm glad your friends got fired! BECAUSE THEY SUCK!"

As for Mr. White's opinions, I have no doubt they're sincere, and I agree with them to a point, although they're bluntly nothing new, and White takes it WELL beyond the pale of both taste and ego: our host's summary of the article was apt.

Frankly, I think you could bother to read the piece more closely yourself: he contradicts himself throughout the article. For example: if elitism is the problem, why is he dismissing everyone who isn't endorsed by him? And why is he dismissing Roger Ebert? You'd think an anti-elitist would view bringing film criticism to the masses would be a good thing.

Furthermore, it's choked with generalizations about anybody who isn't Armond White that are, well, more cranky and silly than anything else. A critic is defined by their insights and grasp of the medium, not whether they're paid or what medium you find their reviews on. Nor do those insights have to be of a political or social nature, in fact often those tell you much more about the critic than they do about the film.

In short, just because someone disagrees with you on a matter of opinion makes them neither an idiot nor ill-informed. A lesson, I think, both you and Mr. White could stand to learn.

[Evan Waters]

Ebert-bashing aside (not that I approve of that either), the problem with the article is that it basically says "critics are wrong for liking these films instead of these!" As I've said before, diversity of opinion is good. I personally think highly of a lot of despised movies (do NOT get me started on THE AVENGERS, we'll be here all night.)

But there's a difference between having a minority opinion and saying that the reason you have a minority opinion is because the entire system is corrupt and elitist. The latter, in my opinion, is a barrier to genuine discourse. It makes the discussion hostile, which White can then turn around to his own advantage by saying how hostile his fellow critics are. He really seems to want to position himself as a lone voice in the wilderness, and not just as a guy with unorthodox views.

[Lizzie]

Re Ebert's "anti-elitism": People magazine is for the masses, too, but it's created by folks with insider knowledge and access. The magazine may be "lowbrow," but it isn't anti-elitism. It isn't "anti-" anything, except financial failure. Same goes for the Ebert institution. Sorry, the reduction of film criticism to thumb-up/thumbs-down was a hideous capitalist innovation, and it was influential. Armond pointed that out, and made sure to wish Ebert well in his ongoing recovery. What's the problem?

Re the list of "ignored" films: I take Armond to mean that the special art qualities of films such as Munich, War of the Worlds, Vera Drake, and The Darjeeling Limited were ignored. The movies themselves may have done ok at the box office, and they may even have gotten the thumbs-up from Ebert and Co., but what made them stand out from the usual Hollywood/indie product wasn't the subject of sustained discourse or inquiry. Recently, critics preferred to discuss simpler issues, such as the sexism (or not) of Judd Apatow and the feminism (or not) of the movie Juno. These sound-bite issues and superficial movies can fairly be called "reactionary" after Spielberg's 2005 banner year.

Re Glenn's fired colleagues at Premiere: Armond never celebrated anyone getting fired. He discussed the negative cultural impact of a certain magazine.

[Glenn Kenny]

Yeah, you're right Lizzie, any smug superciliousness I infer from the phrase "trimmed away" is entirely the result of my own hypersensitivity. Furthermore, my refusal to believe White's incredibly generous wishes for Roger Ebert's good health are the result of my own mean-spiritedness. Now, can you explain to me how Armond White became the world's first anti-capitalist Bush supporter? 'Cause that point's still kind of bugging me.

[bill]

I've never exactly minded White's Conservative streak, but I admit I do find it a bit perplexing. Well, maybe it's just surprising.

As for Ebert, Lizzie, you're clearly missing the contradiction. I have problems with Ebert myself, but he would seem to be exactly what White wants more of: a smart, populist film critic who gets the word out about any and all obscure art films that he finds particularly good, or even that he simply thinks merit some attention. Are you basing your opinion of Ebert solely on his TV show? You, and White, seem to be. Have you ever read him? Among other things, he is one of the more elegant film writers out there (far more elegant than White).

[Glenn Kenny]

Bill, just to be clear, I wouldn't mind White's conservative streak...if (and I sound like a broken record) it MADE ANY SENSE. Terry Teachout is one of the finest critics working, and his conservatism is both never in question and not an issue. For Armond to rail against anti-religiosity and Bush-bashing while deploring the by-products of capitalist culture in terms that would please an early-'70's Italian Marxist is to want to have things both ways in the worst way possible.

[Evan Waters]

Again, isn't this coming down to having a different opinion of the films in question? Armond White loved WAR OF THE WORLDS- some other critics did not. (I thought it was passing, but as adaptations go it wasn't close to the radio play or Jeff Wayne's musical.) Again, great, diversity! This is good. No need to claim persecution.

And- honestly it took me this long to figure out that politics WERE part of this.

[Glenn Kenny]

Evan, I just wanna say bless you for invoking the Jeff Wayne musical adaptation of WOTW, one of the great rock operas maudit of the previous century...you rule!

[crazysummerswithbrigitte]

I am sorry, but here in France we know what snobbery is. My goldfish in childhood was named Camus. My sister's favorite dolly's name was the Marquise de Montespan. My sister's e-mail address is Marie Antoinetflix. And so on.

Monsieur Kenny is not a snob. In the great tradition of Monsieur Robert Christgau, he is the opposite. He believes that exercising his intelligence in the most vigorous way engages rather than alienates his audience, and he is right.

As for Monsieur White, a Napoleon complex was not all that becoming even to Napoleon -- and he was a general and an emperor. A Napoleon complex in a movie critic is like a short-order cook imagining that he is a great poisoner.

[Dan]

"Sorry, the reduction of film criticism to thumb-up/thumbs-down was a hideous capitalist innovation, and it was influential. Armond pointed that out, and made sure to wish Ebert well in his ongoing recovery. What's the problem?"

Let's take it from the top:

White is not only EXTREMELY late to the party on this (go read any obituary about Gene Siskel, for Christ's sake, most of the obit writers made the exact same point), but you and he both are missing the point. The show, since you obviously haven't seen it, may use the thumbs but it also requires the critics to actually offer their opinions. It is of necessity more limited than print, because of the hard time restriction inherent to TV. But honestly, it's rare that Ebert or Siskel's opinions stated in the show varied from their written views.

You're also missing out that the show arrived at a time when you couldn't just pop up a website and read the archives; for a lot of people, "Siskel and Ebert at the Movies" was one of the few good outlets for professional film criticism they had, and THAT was why, whatever newspaper editors may have believed, why the show was so popular. When was a professional print critic regularly allowed airtime? Especially in the '80s? To dismiss the show because it's not relevant now is asinine and shows a disappointing lack of hindsight on White's part.

Secondly, if I closed my above diatribe with "And I wish you all the best in your personal and professional endeavors", would that seem remotely sincere to you? Add to this that apparently Mr. White is rather two-faced if our host is to be believed, and it's hard for me to think the man's wishes come from the heart, call me crazy.

[Lizzie]

Dan, you seem to think that "popular" equals "relevant." That's not always true. If you want to think that Ebert was offering something valuable--something more than just "opinions," which you can get from any layman--please do so. I don't see why that "opinion" of yours is better than Armond's principled analysis. I also don't see why Armond needs to be condemned for stating his principles.

If you wished me well in my personal and professional endeavors, yes, I would believe you. What you wrote implies that you don't. Wny not? Really: think about it. Perhaps you're projecting your own aggression and malevolence onto Armond. I have no reason to doubt Armond's sincerity, and neither do you.

Is it because you, like Glenn, see him as some kind of Bush booster indirectly responsible for the Iraq war? Where is the evidence that he supports Bush? True, he's not willing to compromise his critical standards in order to praise a shoddy movie that happens to espouse a "left" point of view, but neither should anyone, let alone a critic.

So, no, I won't "call you crazy," as so many have done to Armond, but I will call you biased. You should ask yourself the question: "Who am I when I watch a movie?"

[Dan]

>SIGH< Lizzie, do you have any capability to understand the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you whatsoever? I'm actually starting to think you are either being intentionally obtuse or you have a terrifying lack of perspective.

I hold you no personal malice. The point, however, was that for me to say so after my lengthy comment would be insincere, as you yourself have noted. So it is with Armond White's comments about Roger Ebert.

If you want to think that White was offering something valuable--something more than just arrogance and snobbery which you can get from any tiresome graduate student--please do so.

[bill]

Maybe she's Armond White.

[Lizzie]

Why would it be insincere? Isn't it possible to acknowledge the humanity of people you disagree with?

This question isn't meant to frustrate you further. I'm trying to point out one way in which discourse has been corrupted. Bush-bashers, for example, often seem unable to respect the humanity of people with whom they disagree on political issues. I'm sure the same is true of many people on the Right.

Again, why do you feel compelled to impute the most deplorable impulses to this critic, with absolutely no evidence? You're making a terrible accusation, and you seem unwilling to even consider your motivations for doing so.

[Dan]

Bill, I think a print critic has better things to do than argue with some film nerd on the Internet. Unless it's about "Sunrise". :-)

[Dan]

"Again, why do you feel compelled to impute the most deplorable impulses to this critic, with absolutely no evidence?"

I've got plenty. It's the article at the link.

"You're making a terrible accusation, and you seem unwilling to even consider your motivations for doing so."

Considering how subtly insulting you've been throughout this entire dialogue, you are, madam, in a glass house, and you just threw a VERY large stone.

There's a reason I threw your remark about Roger Ebert back at you: whatever your intent, it came off as condescending. You make it sound like I'm accusing White of war crimes, instead of just being self-centered and pretentious. I've got no desire to throw the guy in jail, for God's sake. Honestly, I don't care if the guy keeps writing. I'm not going to write the New York Press about him. I'm not going to start a petition that he be fired. The only reason this has gone on this long is I've been bored lately, and it's been fun to see just how far down the rabbit hole goes with you. I'm fifty/fifty on whether you're a troll or whether you're sincere.

Consider this my last word on the subject: criticism is, whatever you may believe, ultimately not based on any truly objective measure. It's really that simple. Anybody who insists otherwise isn't paying attention.

[Glenn Kenny]

I just started reading Richard Brody's new biography of Godard (I know I ought to be reading a "great 19th Century novel" or something instead, so sue me) so it occurs to me that White's hardly the first critic who's wanted to take a swing at writing the "A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema" for his or her own time. But among other things, White's stance is too wide and his swing wild; for all its venom, Truffaut's essay also had a ruthless focus, not to mention a forward motion AND (this is important here) a bunch of EXAMPLES OF WHAT TRUFFAUT WAS TALKING ABOUT. After quoting a single line from Spielberg's "War of the Worlds," giving a sketchy description of a moment from "Broken Sky," and then mentioning a scene from "Shotgun Stories" in which a Montrose song is playing on a character's car stereo, White's argument devolves into nonsense generalizations, predicated on his seeming belief that he can see into the withered, dessicated souls of his fellow reviewers. How else to explain his assertion: "they [most critics] disdained the beauty of 'The Darjeeling Limited': Wes Anderson’s confrontation with selfishness, hurt and love were [sic, by the way] too powerful, too humbling." Like White, I was one of 'Darjeeling''s most vocal defenders. But I can't honestly say that the disdain a lot of other critics had for the movie was secretly motivated by their being humbled by the film, and then ashamed to say so.

Too often, given the choice between passionately defending a film based on the merits he see in it, and reflexively and imperiously pronouncing that all those who don't share his particular view of the film are writing in the worst possible kind of bad faith, White opts for the latter. That's why some characterize him as "crazy," and why I called him a bully.

[vadim]

The idea that the "special qualities" of War of the Worlds, Munich et al. were overlooked — if that's what White is saying at all, which is an EXTREMELY generous interpretation given that he says that the films he approves of were overlooked by "journalists whose jobs are to bring the (cultural) news to the public," but the immoral ones he disdains were given "critics' imprimatur," which is a conflation of business/entertainment-type reporters and critics, and an extremely sloppy one, but let's take it he means them, miraculously, as completely synonymous — is such garbage. There's plenty of intelligent discussion on these films, including in (sorry) the New York Times. While it's true that — for a lot of small films — a bad Times review can be the commercial kiss of death, that doesn't stop the discussion. Assuming that you're, you know, *looking* for the discussion and where it might be taking place, not clucking at how you can't see one going on, so it must not exist.

And frankly, the idea that we should read it closely — like some kind of recondite, hard-assed French theoretical text — is the last refuge of people who want to convince others that they're offended because they're either a) scared of what it says or b) don't understand it. Acknowledging that opponents just think it's ungracious, incoherent and, yes, totally understand it is apparently not an option.

[Lizzie]

Sorry for my insistence on "close reading," but if you're going to accuse this great critic of incoherence, I'm going to make you prove it.

Dan can't; he points me back to the article without isolating a single sentence or phrase to justify his contempt for Armond.

Glenn uses the argument that Armond condemns all who disagree with him, but the passage about The Darjeeling Limited that he quotes doesn't back up that assertion. In that sentence, there's nothing about critics' "withered, dessicated souls," just a statement of fact...The movie is beautiful; its beauty was disdained; Armond boldly, but not implausibly, explains why. Does he need to preface every sentence with "IMO"? His version of events fits the facts as we know them. If you have a better theory about why The Darjeeling Limited was widely mocked despite its beauty and emotional intelligence, let's hear it, but at this point it had better be at least as good as Armond's.

Vadim, re "intelligent dialogue": On a prominent film blog last week, people were STILL talking about the "nihilism" of No Country for Old Men. The fact that this misinterpretation exists is proof that Spielberg's 2005 masterpieces, with their deeply Judeo-Christian moral inquiry, were not adequately dealt with in film culture. In other words: Denial.

[Glenn Kenny]

Um, wow. What was that thing Lou Reed said in "I Heard Her Call My Name"? Oh, yeah: "And then my mind split open."

That is some good sophistry you've got there, Lizzie.

[bill]

I'm telling you, she's Armond White. They think exactly alike. NOBODY could be that in synch with White and not actually be him.

[vadim]

"On a prominent film blog last week, people were STILL talking about the "nihilism" of No Country for Old Men. The fact that this misinterpretation exists is proof that Spielberg's 2005 masterpieces, with their deeply Judeo-Christian moral inquiry, were not adequately dealt with in film culture."

Um, WHAT? If that *is* a misinterpretation — I'm open to either view, really — I'm not sure why this is because millions of people didn't adequately respond to Spielberg's "Judeo-Christian moral inquiry." Was Munich a primer for No Country?

[Evan Waters]

"just a statement of fact...The movie is beautiful; its beauty was disdained;"

Except that's not a FACT, it's an opinion. Aesthetics will always involve some level of subjective judgment, even as we use theoretically objective criteria.

[don lewis]

I'm with Bill. Lizzie's assertions make as much sense as White's reviews....come on, Armond....just say it's you. We all actually *do* kinda of like you. Well, I do.

[Stephen Bowie]

Look, I remember the "Armond Dangerous" blog days, and I've turned friends on to White's reviews in the NYP and held their hands through the inevitable "who is this LOON?" reaction that set in at some point. And I know I chimed in with a partially negative remark earlier, but I'm still convinced that the proper response to Armond is the same as one would use with any other critic: take what insights one can from his criticism and ignore the rest. So much of Armond's schtick seems designed to provoke extreme responses that I think we're all taking the bait here.

For anyone who didn't connect the dots, Glenn, I recognize that jibe about the "19th century novel" in your above comment as a shot at Nathan Lee, responding to something he said in an interview last week. (Maybe we're all reading too much of the same stuff here.) So I'm confused: where exactly is the moral high ground in indicting Armond for unchivalrous behavior toward Ebert and the PREMIERE staff when this blog is itself a site for raking other critics' work over the coals? Is the distinction that a given critic must be gainfully employed and presumably in good health in order to come in for such scorn? Not that I'm sticking up for Nathan Lee; I'm in the camp that found his writing cringingly glib and immature (crieth Armond: "hipster!"), and I'm annoyed that I'll now have to skip around it in the NY Times, of all places. But still: a point of order.

[Glenn Kenny]

Well, Stephan, I wish I could say "guilty, with an explanation," but just plain guilty covers it. Fact is, I think Lee's advice is good, even if you're not a critic. I just wish he wouldn't phrase it in such a way as to suggest he invented reading, going to restaurants, getting laid, etc. That said, I'm gonna lay off the intra-critic polemecizing for a bit...