If you don’t know who Armond White is, you’re missing out. Dubbed the “Internet Troll” of movie critics, the eloquent and controversial critic for the New York Press recently received mainstream attention after his performance as the host for the New York critics award ceremony. White was called out by other publications like EW and the Village Voice for his performance, where he brought his controversial opinions on the films being award on stage with him.
White rose to prominence, and Internet infamy, when he became the only critic to give a big “thumbs down” to “Toy Story 3.” That act of blasphemy inspired people to look at his other reviews. When they did, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that he had given the critical whipping boy “Jonah Hex” a glowing, and introspective review. Intrigued by the controversy, I decided to read through dozens of White’s reviews. You see, I don’t take the media at face value. Decades of being lied to have taught me to research on my own and develop my own, educated opinions. Is White simply an Internet troll, purposely dissing what others praise in an attempt to gain attention? Or is he something more, a critic not only of film, but of the entire media? And, in what is truly relevant to Big Hollywood, what do White’s reviews and media criticisms tell us about the ingrained leftist thought in the Hollywood/Media complex?
My research revealed that White may be the last, best hope for real, intellectual film criticism left in the age of the Internet. We’ve talked at length on this site about how relevant film critics are nowadays. Everyone has a voice online, and for the low cost of $50/month, some free time, and a free website template, anyone can be Roger Ebert. But film criticism, true film criticism, is much more than that. When we think of film critics, we think of Ebert, or Leonard Maltin, or Pete Travers. At best, these guys are “populist” critics, giving their opinion like a sort of Consumer Reports for movies. Is it worth your $10 bucks? But true film criticism, practiced by the likes of Pauline Kael, Andre Bazin and Francois Truffaut is an entirely different animal. It is an educated pursuit, one that examines film like a literary text, pulling it apart and analyzing individual films on multiple levels.
White’s writings ask many questions. Should our opinion of a film be colored by it’s marketing approach? Should how much a film costs affect our expectation of its quality? Just because a film comes out of Sundance, should we consider it an “art” film when it may not be worthy of the title? Likewise, can a B horror movie actually contain more substance than the latest winner of the IFP spirit awards? Should we consider a film to be “adult” or “intellectual” simply because it has a coded style that differentiates it from television or other studio films? And politically, should we accept leftist film as “truth” without examining how well or effective the film makes its case based on its own narrative and internal logic?
In other words, shouldn’t each film be judged and critiqued on its own merits? Shouldn’t we look at a film with fresh eyes and examine what is playing before us, free from the consensus of the critical community, the film’s public history, and the activities of the studio marketing department?
Armond White says yes. And I say, thank God for Armond White.
That’s what true film criticism is about. Everything else that surrounds the film is extraneous and not in the purview of the critic. It is disingenuous, cowardly, and superficial to examine a cinematic work by examining the entirety of the process. It doesn’t matter that a production was “troubled.” It doesn’t matter that the studio decided to dump the film in January and cut its marketing budget. It doesn’t matter that the film failed to attract a bigger distributor, or a bigger star. All that matters to the true critic is the 90 minutes of images, flashing before the eyes at 24 frames per second.
Similarly, a true critic doesn’t accept the notion that films fall into certain categories based on what the press or the marketing department tell you. Why do so many critics give the “well, for an action film its okay” excuse? Alternately, why do so many critics excuse bad cinematography, acting, music etc. because it’s an “important film.” Why do we accept these distinctions BEFORE we actually see the film? Can’t an action movie, like “The Green Hornet” also contain commentary on race? Why dismiss such an obvious element of the film simply because its supposed to be “mindless fun.” According to who?
Armond White bravely challenges these notions. He reviews each film in a vacuum, free from the echo chamber of the Internet and studio hype machines. He also approaches each film from the same perspective. He doesn’t change his expectations or his analysis based on genre or budget. And while I may not agree with his opinions, criteria or priorities, I applaud the fact that he is willing to embrace the scholarly pursuit of true film criticism. Especially in this day and age.
In terms of the whole “left vs. right” paradigm, White is quick to point out that the ingrained leftist culture of Hollywood gives a pass to bad films with faulty logic. It also elevates films that are unworthy of praise simply because their message is in tune with what the Hollywood machine want to push. In his review of “The Company Men” he explains that the film ignores the fact that the men who lose their jobs to the greed of corporate America and are forced to return to their humble beginnings, came from humble beginnings in the first place. The upward mobility of the capitalist system is completely ignored in the narrative, making everything the film says rely on faulty, juvenile logic. Other critics have ignored this glaring plot hole because it’s an “important, timely story”. But would they ignore such a glowing plot hole if it occurred in the new “Avengers” film? Why make that distinction?
Some may claim that White’s reviews try too hard to find subtext in films when it doesn’t exist. This may be the case, but I find it far less egregious to talk about the deep meaning of “Jonah Hex” than I do to praise the intellectual dishonesty of a film like “Crash.”
Armond White’s reviews, bundled with his bold personality, echo what we’ve been saying all along. The media, instead of being the check and balance to the system existing in direct opposition to it, have become part of it. Modern film critics, from the pages of popular websites and newspapers down to the trolls trashing movies from their basements, have become a de facto division of the film industry’s marketing departments. They don’t think for themselves, they don’t judge the film before them, and they certainly exist to reinforce the leftist stranglehold on the entertainment industry.
So, grab some popcorn and dive into the archives of the New York Press. I guarantee you won’t agree with everything, or anything Armond White says, but you can’t deny that he truly is thinking for himself. He judges the film for what it is, doesn’t hold back, and is often times condescending and downright nasty.
And that, is a breath of fresh air.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.