I make it a point not to bring up other critics when I
discuss films... mostly, and usually not by name. I’ve been on record saying
that Australian film critics, collectively, need to get their shit together as
they seem to need a lot of work when it comes to prioritizing certain titles
over others. And then there was that one time I openly said fuck you to Clem
Bastow because of her views involving the film The Intern, and while I stand by
what I said, I don’t actually mean any ill will towards any other person.
Honestly, the main reason why I don’t bring up other critics by name (unless
I’m praising the hell out of them, of course) is because most of them not only
have a lot more credibility than me when it comes to dissecting films but also
have a far larger audience as well. I don’t like tarnishing the reputation of
people who actually have a reputation
to tarnish, nor do I like diverting the few readers I have away from me. But
even with all that in mind, there is still one guy that I have been really
itching to talk about, and yet have also been trying to put off discussing on
this blog. In the annals of film criticism that don’t habitually exist on
YouTube, there is one name that is universally recognized as being one of
the... well, ‘worst’ is going a bit far, but definitely one of the less
respected critics out there. Yep, I’m talking about the white whale of the
critical world: Armond White... and why I hate his guts.
Now, there have doubtless been many, many, many articles discussing this man and how he is an absolute
mockery, and most of them bring a lot of similar points. For those not in the
know, White is a mostly print-based critic whom has grown a reputation for
being a contrarian; basically, he seems to go against popular opinion when it
comes to more popular films, even more so than his peers. To put this into
perspective, let’s go over some of his more controversial stances on some
pretty big-name releases. When the finale to the Harry Potter series came out,
and critics and audiences fawned over it (myself included; I see it as a great
conclusion to a series that I and many others grew up with alongside the
characters), White was not so impressed. To quote the man himself: “Now that
the Harry Potter series is over, maybe the truth can be realized: This has been
the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises.” In a world where
franchises are the cinematic M.O. in Hollywood, that’s a pretty big statement
to make. I mean, I get not liking it, but there is such a thing as
over-reaction when it comes to these things. I should know; I do it more than
enough in my own reviews. When the Marvel Cinematic Universe was just starting
to pick up steam with The Incredible Hulk, and fans were a tad iffy on that
effort anyway, White described it as “the crappy summer blockbuster Marvelites
probably deserve.” Putting down the fans, eh? Well, that’s one way to bring my piss to a boil. And in case this makes him come
across as a negative nancy, he has
given a positive mark to certain films. Films like the 2010 version of Clash Of
The Titans, where he said that “[Director Louis] Leterrier certainly shows a
better sense of meaningful, economic narrative than the mess that Peter Jackson
made of the interminable, incoherent Lord of the Rings trilogy.” And just in
case that didn’t cement things for you, he also called the few-lived-to-remember-it Wayan brothers film Little Man as “a near-classic comedy”.
So, this guy has the trappings of a higher-tier internet troll. Anything else we should know about
him? Well, he’s also become known for being rather boisterous when it comes to
face-to-face time with certain directors. He became web-famous for a while
when, at the 2013 New York Film Critics Circle awards ceremony, he yelled at 12
Years A Slave director Steve McQueen, called him “an embarrassing doorman and
garbage man” and told him to “kiss [his] ass!”. White vehemently insists that this
didn’t happen, but the number of outlets that have covered it (and the fact
that he seems to be one of the few people saying that he didn’t say all that) would suggest otherwise. Now, I may be an
uneducated kid from the suburbs of Sydney, but even when I didn’t like The
Quarantine Hauntings and had a chance to say it to the face of the filmmakers,
I had enough tact to not make a scene. Don’t get me wrong: I often have
daydreams about taking directors like Terrence Malick by the collar and yelling
at them for how bad their films are. However, one of the caveats that I thought existed in the difference
between YouTube critics and print critics was that the guys on print were
usually less impulsively vitriolic. Or, to put more simply, they know not to be
a dick in public.
However, I have no problem with either of these parts of his
work ethic. I mean, I’ve made it a yearly tradition to highlight where my
opinion and those of the critical masses differ, so his ‘contrarian’ views
don’t bother me too much. I mean, if you actually look at his Rotten Tomatoes
score, he actually doesn’t differ from popular opinion as much as the Internet
may have you think. He may champion Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, but he
also described the Twilight Series as “an ADHD sedative.” That quote alone kind
of warms my heart to the guy just a little bit. What also helps is that, for
him to be a true contrarian, he would have to disagree with the public for its
own sake. Instead, going by how he breaks down films, he has a very hyper-analytical
and somewhat politically-tinted approach where he puts utmost focus on films as
a means of delivering commentary, be it social, political, socio-political or
otherwise. While I consent that he may focus on the subtextual ramifications a
little too strongly, he still has his
own voice that serves its purpose in the overall critical scene. As for his
real-world antics... honestly, like a fair few of his fans, I like renegade
artists. I like Kanye West for his complete lack of a filter and occasionally
bursts of insanity, while others hate him for the same reason. Seeing someone
in my personal field of interest who a) is this well recognized and b) is this
demonstrably outspoken is kind of inspiring. He claims to have taken
inspiration from New Yorker writer Pauline Kael, who herself was denounced for
her less than popular opinions, and while I may not agree with either of them
all that much, I can see why there would be inspiration coming from either of
them.
So, you’re probably wondering why this article is titled as
it is, if I am willing to defend this guy as much as I am. Well, while I may
not hate him for the superficial reasons that so many others seem to, I have a
very definite problem with something else he has a habit of doing. Weirdly enough,
this also ties into a few of my issues with the critical scene as a whole,
something that I see Armond White as a major embodiment of. When he was a guest
on the Filmcast podcast to discuss the then-recent release of Inception,
something that he considered to be far inferior and more juvenile than Michael
Bay’s Transformers series, there was a certain line of reasoning that caught my
attention. In the After Dark edition of that same episode, he and the hosts got
to talking about the state of film criticism (as it is in the U.S.) and it’s here where the fuse gets lit for me.
Armond White hates people like me. He
hates how uneducated plebeians are being listened to as intently as people like
him, proudly boasting about his formal education on the matter. He sees it as a
sign of not only the critical scene being damaged but also Hollywood as a
whole, and he puts the blame squarely on regular filmgoers who put their money
forward to such projects. In case you missed last time I talked about this, I
absolutely hate it when critics make judgement calls like this. There is zero reason why the blame should be put
on the audience for liking/disliking a certain film, and whatever reason may
exist is probably in it of itself a judgement call. Not that the commoner audience
is entirely to blame though, as he also believes that legendary critic Roger
Ebert destroyed film criticism as we know it, thanks to his work on At The
Movies. Okay, I don’t agree with Ebert all that much either, but dude! All of
this is coming across like the kid on the playground with a new toy, who then
gets whiny when everyone has their own because he isn’t so special anymore. It
is the elitism and snobbery and holier-than-thou attitude that I have come to
despise when it comes to film criticism, and I have zero patience for it. He
may have its place in the world, but if he’s sensible, it’s way the hell away
from me.
So, in conclusion, I don’t hate Armond White because of his
differing opinions on popular films. I don’t hate him because of his openly
dickish behaviour towards certain filmmakers. I hate him because he represents
an antiquated and almost fascistic mindset that says only properly educated
people like him are allowed to have their opinions listened to, and everyone
else are just making things worse. There may be points here and there where
this notion aligns with my own disdain for the critical landscape here in
Australia, but where I have some self-awareness about the food chain, this guy
vehemently fails to realize where he is. What makes critics like Roger Ebert as
lauded as they are is that, as the times changed, they shifted to meet the new
audience. White doesn’t care about the new audience; he just wants things to be
like they were in the good ol’ days. Time to grow up, Armond, in more ways than
one. You’re not sitting in your ivory tower any more; you're sitting in its rubble.
