Critical Masses

Until recently, I was completely in the dark about a man named Armond White. Apparently, he's kind of a big deal. (He probably has many leather bound books and an apartment smelling of rich mahogany). Armond White is a film critic for the New York Press who has gone on record bashing Roger Ebert, specifically Ebert's "thumbs up and thumbs down" style of reviewing, saying that his system "destroyed film criticism." According to Movie Fone, White also attacked Ebert on his background, claiming he was unprepared for his 1967 job as a Chicago Sun Times critic and was less knowledgeable than White, who is a self-proclaimed "pedigreed film critic."

Come on, Mr. White. Tell us what you really think.

Let's just get this out of the way: there is no right or wrong on this issue. I know that sounds obvious, otherwise I wouldn't be expressing my own opinion about this issue, but I started reading about Armond White, and I was fascinated to learn about his role as the film critic "heel". Known for dismissing many popular movies, including The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Wall-E, and most recently, Toy Story 3, White pulls no punches with his reviews, stating that "I don't say these things to call attention to myself or to get a rise out of people. I say them because I believe them" (from NY Mag).

First of all, there is no law that says there's a right way to review or critique a film (or critique anything). We have thumbs up or down, top ten lists, 5 stars, scales of 1-10, and so on. It's unique to have variety, even if it is a slightly overly elaborate method of simply saying if something is good or bad. Part of the fun is the style of expressing our opinions, rather than just drill them bluntly and blandly into other people's heads.

You could argue that maybe White is shouting out against Ebert for publicity, that because Ebert is the most popular critic in the country, and I had to search for White, that White feels shafted and that this is the time to say something. I doubt it, but it's a possibility. From my research and his writings, it is obvious White knows a lot about film, so he has wits to back up his claims. Like a lot of critics, he reviews many movies, but he brings with him a classical approach, one that is more educational, offering advice on better movies to see. Some may call it "elitist", and while I could see where they are coming from, the fact is this:

EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION.

The main problem with film critics for me is they have the potential to not only sway you from a movie you could potentially enjoy, but also give props to overrated movies that you take a chance on and hate. It is true that people take chances all the time on movies, because how can we know that there's a movie we know for certain we will truly enjoy? How many overrated movies are out there? (coughSIDEWAYScough). I just don't like assuming film critics are the gatekeepers of liking a film or not. I'm not necessarily blaming the critic for offering an opinion, it's their job. What is meant by all this is that we should not be totally committed to people saying what they think is entertaining and what isn't. A guy like Armond White is necessarily to separate the truth from the fluff. It's nice to see a guy sticking to his guns and saying what he wants. Do I have to agree with it? No. I respect the fact that he can gun down popular movies and dissect them, because more often than not, I get turned off by over hyped films, like Avatar (and 3D in general) or Transformers. This does not mean I hate blockbusters or "big" films, it just means there's a higher propensity for me to be dissuaded by a film because everyone else likes it. It feels awesome to stand out and take a stand against something popular, so I salute Armond White for that.

I will admit, though, based on what I read about White, he does come off as snobby sounding, one of those boastful and "full of themselves" film school professors who seem to know everything about film and over analyzes everything. To read a negative review for a film I like is one thing, but being made to feel stupid and wrong for liking it is another, and with White, he seems to have that ability. The suggestive nature of better films to watch sounds too superior sounding. If you're going to spend more time offering up "better movies", write about those instead of wasting our time?

So think what you want of this guy. I cut up some pieces of information for you, but I threw in the spice that is my opinion. If you are an unadulterated Ebert fan, then keep calling Armond White a douche, but if you want to think outside the box, and consider both sides, I strongly encourage you to do that.. White isn't a pioneer in the world of critics, he's just a rebel.

A good link about White's review of Toy Story 3, and the guy who broke it down: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/07/hating-the-player-losing-the-game-the-armond-white-meta-review/#more-15890

Sources:

Jacobsen, Mark. No Kiss Kiss, All Bang Bang. NY MagMatthews, Jack. Rough Cuts: Armond White vs. Roger Ebert - Whose Side Are You On? Movie Fone