If you keep up with the American critical scene, you’ll probably have got the message by now that people kinda like “Toy Story 3.” No surprise there: every one of Pixar’s features since their 2006 misfire “Cars” has been greeted with the kind of mass veneration usually reserved for returning messiahs, and on at least a couple of occasions, they’ve deserved it. (That’s no dig at their latest, which I have yet to see.)
You’ll also likely have heard that a certain Armond White is less impressed, dismissing the film as “drivel” and adding that “‘Transformers 2’ already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence.” Of course, in its own way, this is as knee-jerk and predictable a response as many critics’ annual ejaculation over the Pixar brand; White is accused virtually on a weekly basis of disingenuous contrarianism. It’d have been greater cause for concern if he’d liked the movie.
As exasperating as he can be, I’ve stood up for White on these pages before, and I continue to do so: as I wrote on Twitter last night, I see his reviews as calculated provocations to the reader, forcing them to engage with the idea of critical responsibility. And for all the talk of “trolling,” I do think he’s conditioned himself to the point where he believes every word he writes — for better or worse.
But I don’t really want to talk about White so much as a bizarrely hostile online response to his minority view that has far more worrying implications than the ramblings of one eccentric. CinemaBlend’s Josh Tyler exemplifies the problem in a petulant and wildly misguided editorial that crucifies White and another critic, Cole Smithey, for going against the grain. This paragraph represents the worst of it (the bold highlighting is mine):
It’s impossible for an opinion to be wrong. Most of the time. Sometimes though, something is so self-evident that it moves beyond opinion. When everyone in the world gets together and agrees that yes, this is really good, that one lone voice standing in the corner and shouting the opposite isn’t just a different opinion, it’s a wrong opinion.
Tyler goes on to brand White and Smithey “assholes” (and, with needless spite, “baldies”) for daring to sully “Toy Story 3”‘s hitherto perfect Rotten Tomatoes score with their negative reviews — and it’s principally this wholly trivial statistic that has him so riled up. In focusing on this, he taps into a vein of thought familiar from comment threads (including some on this site) that places undue, even obsessive, emphasis on the significance of review-aggregate sites — useful but deeply flawed resources that attempt to reduce complex critical thought to cold, hard numbers.
The fundamental silliness of Rotten Tomatoes’s 50/50 “fresh” or “rotten” ranking system — not one that copes particularly well with conflicted individual reviews — wouldn’t be bothersome if readers, and now certain bloggers, didn’t refer to it so consistently, and with such po-faced seriousness. The scores may give a broad indication of a film’s critical standing, but by the time people start using single point differences to determine which of several films is more well-regarded (or, worse, “better”), they truly aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.
So, “Toy Story 3” won’t have a 100% RT report. Who cares? Why are some viewers so hungry for consensus? More to the point, who would believe such a perfect record anyway? There isn’t a film in history — not “Citizen Kane,” not any Academy Award winner for Best Picture, and certainly nothing from the House of Pixar — that everybody on the planet likes, and to pretend that a website can authoritatively declare a film irrefutably perfect is, at best, naïve.
If Tyler sincerely believes (and I suspect he doesn’t) that there can be any such thing as a “wrong opinion,” one would have to deduce he has never been a minority detractor (or defender) of a film loved or loathed by the critical majority — and anybody who can claim that plainly doesn’t love or think about cinema hard enough.
As you know, it’s a position I’m quite familiar with, whether it’s over “Gentlemen Broncos” or “I Am Love.” Only last month, at Cannes, I was left unmoved by the critically revered Palme d’Or winner, “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives.” Believe it or not, when I said as much to my colleagues on the Croisette, they didn’t cry “Wrong!” or even call me an “asshole” for bringing down its criticWIRE rating. (I still have enough of my hair that I’m exempt from “baldie” potshots for the moment.)
Rather, we cheerfully argued about the aspects of the film we disagreed on, briefly attempted to talk each other round, admitted failure, and ordered another beer. I suspect Kris reacted similarly when he found himself amongst the naysayers for another beloved Pixar product two years ago.
On the other end of the scale, earlier this week, I joined a critic friend at a repertory screening of “Myra Breckinridge,” the batty 1970 sex-change comedy that is routinely described as a catastrophe, an abomination, among the worst films ever made. Unintimidated by that reputation, I dared to find it an adventurous, frequently admirable romp with a spectacularly good lead turn by Raquel Welch — and yet I wasn’t struck dead by lightning for having a “wrong opinion” on that one either.
I do, however, look forward to someday debating its merits with one of its attackers (alas, my companion was on my side), as it’s that kind of conversation that makes being a critic, a blogger, or simply a casual moviegoer, worthwhile. Hurl rocks at Armond White if you must, but I’ll tell you this: when there’s a film that he and 100% of the world’s critics agree on, I won’t be interested in seeing it.
Comments
73 responses to “Who needs consensus?”
What a terrifying quote from Mr. Tyler. I surely hope he keeps this sort of thinking exclusively film based and that it’s not a world view.
Either way, how childish.
Quite.
The reason everyone’s angry is that he wrote a nonsensical review that manages to once again, blame a movie for having some wacky political theme, without ever mentioning the direction, the voices, the 3D, or anything that actually pertains to the movie itself.
White’s actual review is a red herring in this discussion: misguided or otherwise, it doesn’t excuse one writer from disallowing the possibility of critical dissent.
I agree almost completely with you, Guy. I never visit Rotten Tomatoes, and care not a whit for its ratings system. And I often say that the movies that leave half the audience reviled and half eccstatic are the titles most probably worth seeing. However, I don’t think Armond White’s reviews are worth reading, because I believe he’s in the business as a performance artist; that is to say, he’s not into movies, he’s into riling people up. I have no time for performance art of almost any sort, so I simply choose not to read his reviews. Nonetheless, when I do hear of his antics, my hair stands on end. And, unfortunately, that means he’s successful in his intentions.
I’m not sure if this puts a dent in your editorial’s argument, Guy, but Armond White has actually publicly said something similar to what Josh Tyler said in reaction to White’s Toy Story 3 pan: that there are absolutes in the movies—certain movies that are indisputably great, and to not like them is to not really get cinema as an art form. He was thinking, of course, of films by Bresson or Welles, not Lee Unkrich or Michael Bay. But still…it’s a similar mindset, not that much different from Tyler’s. Or so it seems to me.
If you’re interested, he said it during this radio show: http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/1996/apr/09/being-critical/
RottenTomatoes is an interesting resource to measure critical reception, even though it’s not always entirely accurate.
Also, “Cars” is by no means a misfire. It’s simply the one Pixar film that is geared most specifically towards kids. And they all seem to love it. And the merchandise of that film is still cluttering stores all over the place here. It’s a marvel of merchandising.
Couldn’t agree more. While I am not a fan of White’s writings (or Smithey’s) and I don’t find any insight in most of his reviews, I don’t see why people are offended.
His dismissal of Toy Story 3 isn’t remotely surprising, and the best thing to do was ignore him. Peter at Slashfilm wrote a post about the negative review like it’s big news.
Hell, if these bloggers were great writers I wouldn’t mind them complaining. But they’re mostly just fanboys who couldn’t come up with a well-written review for Toy Story 3 if their lived depended on it.
Off-topic questoin: Guy, from what film is your Twitter background picture from? Just curious.
Filmoholic: “Vertigo.” One of my all-time favourite shots.
That shot is from Vertigo? Really?
Strange. Vertigo is one of my favorites but I don’t seem to remember that shot. I guess I’ll have to revisit it soon.
jiveturkey pretty much summed it up. Plus, White often comes to downright incorrect conclusions about even films he “enjoys”. Look at the booklet insert in the Criterion Collection dvd of Revanche. His essay provides what is, without question, a completely wrong and downright silly interpretation of the film, particularly one or two scenes. I know this because the director, in numerous interviews and behind the scenes features for the film, has repeatedly said that the kinds of conclusions White came to are not at all what the film is about, plain and simple. That White comes to a similarly nonsensical conclusion that Toy Story 3 is full of product placement and a praise of consumerism is equally baffling.
Here’s the thing. I really honestly don’t think anyone in the real world could like Transformers 2 more than Toy Story 3. If White could come up with logical, sound arguments for his contrarian views, that would be one thing. But as it stands, he really never says anything that makes an ounce of sense.
“True art is watching hot chick Megan Fox stare at Jonah Hex’s scars as a reflection of her own exploitation.”
And the title of his Toy Story 3 review? “Bored game”. I can just feel how proud he was of himself for being “clever” and using a homonym. I’m sorry, but even trolls on message boards are more clever and creative than that.
While I agree that the notion that there can be a wrong opinion is troubling, the fact is that White comes off as a troll because he can never find a logical argument to back up his claims of why he hates almost every film out there with a favorable consensus. The man has political and personal axes to grind, and it’s really obvious when he comes to the conclusion that something like Toy Story 3 celebrates consumerism. If White can come up with a sound argument as to why the movies he hates are bad, I’ll take him more seriously. Until then, he’s just an internet troll with a thesaurus.
It’s amazing how many people I talk to that think the tomatometer percentage is a quality-based score. For that, there’s a little stat over to the right called average rating. The tomatometer % just tells how likable a film is, and what does that really say?
There Will Be Blood (91%) has the same tomatometer score as Crazy Heart (91%). But it’s deceptive. There Will Be Blood got an average rating of 8.4 from the critics while Crazy Heart got a 7.4. And Man on Wire may have a 100% tomatometer, but its average rating is also 8.4.
I think Toy Story 3’s critical achievement was not that basically every critic gave it a positive review, but that nearly every critic that gave it a positive review loved it (it has a very high 8.8 average rating).
And for all the complaints toward Smith and White, Roger Ebert gave Toy Story 3 *only* three out four stars. He gave higher scores recently to The Karate Kid, Date Night, and The Losers, and the same score to Iron Man 2, Letters to Juliet, and Just Wright. Not to mention that Ebert gave higher scores to Up, Wall-E, Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Toy Story 2, A Bug’s Life, and Toy Story. Which puts Toy Story 3 at the bottom of Pixar’s features with Cars and Monsters, Inc.
I personally do not care for Rotten Tomatoes; like George pointed out, it does not properly gauge how much a critic liked or disliked something, whether it be lukewarm or intense. Metacritic is better in this regard. Also, they do not include Armond White.
Guy, I find your use of the word “troubling” troubling. It isn’t like they are saying he should be banned from writing or thrown in jail for his “wrong opinion”, but just pointing out that White is sort of an asshole. This is a guy who has said disgusting things about a huge list of critics, including Roger Ebert, who once tried to defend White.
There is value in being a contrarian, as too often an echo chamber will emerge. I loved The Dark Knight, but I will often take a critical angle when discussing it with friends. Like you, there are critical darlings I have disliked and critical bombs I have loved (I hated Avatar and loved Observe and Report, for example). But White just does it to be an asshole. Did you see his top ten from 2009? Maybe one Gentlemen Broncos is okay, but Next Day Air, Brothers, This is It, Crank: High Voltage, and fucking Bandslam? White can’t even properly identify why he loves these films, instead denigrating other films to show his picks’ superiority.
White can succintly sum up his every review with, “LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I’m controversial because I possess no writing skill and have no way to garner attention otherwise.”
@James: I didn’t use the word “troubling” anywhere in the article, so I’m not sure what you’re on about. That said, I could have: I find the very phrase “wrong opinion” troubling. What’s the problem?
@Kenji: Interesting, thanks. Obviously, I think White is wrong there too, but I don’t think that dents my argument above.
That’s a very interesting subject. I remember listening (and participating but not much) to a conversation about whether there is some objectivity in judging a film or not. (They didn’t manage to agree).
I really can’t decide. I tend more to believe everything is subjective. No two persons can feel the same way about a movie. There is the possibility that one might not “get” something about the film (and I don’t mean regarding the plot) but that’s a different matter.
I think most people are a little guilty of being certain about their opinions on a movie. Even you :p
But thank you for giving me more confidence in my against-most-people opinions as well as the chance to say that I don’t like LA Confidential and Cries and Whispers.
I’m not going to run and hide :p
It felt like you used the word troubling, but you actually said “far more worrying implications”. I think you are overreacting to the piece. It isn’t like people go after every critic who gives a bad review to a loved film. White is really the exception, although this Smithey guy seems to have been caught in the crossfire as well, although I am not familiar with his work to comment.
Smithey’s review is tamer than White’s, but equally baffling. He writes all of three paragraphs, one of which is devoted simply to the plot setup. The other two are just him complaining that the film is too dark for kids. But he never gets into why he feels it’s too dark, he just expects the reader to get it. His review doesn’t come off as contrarian as much as White’s does, but more just lazy. I think he has a valid point that the film is dark, but he never goes beyond just saying that it’s dark, never once backing up his claim with evidence or even a simply explanation of why he feels this way. That pretty much breaks the rules of film criticism right there. I think people are baffled by these two reviews simply because they either don’t make sense (White) or don’t bother to explain their stance (Smithey).
I definitely agree with the spirit of this article. After seeing Toy Story 3 last night and reading White’s review, I went through several stages of frustration and bewilderment before deciding that, while I disagreed with his review (and, having read some of his previous reviews, generally disagree with his taste), it doesn’t really matter to me personally. Every reviewer has their own personal taste, every non-reviewer as well, and we’re all going to agree AND disagree with general consensus from time to time. There are plenty of movies high up on the tomato-meter that I dislike and plenty on the lower end that I love. It’s fun to check ratings at rottentomatoes and get an idea of what other people generally think, but it’s all about how you, as an individual, see a film. Again, I strongly disagree with White’s review of Toy Story 3, and I’m sure I’m not alone, but that does not give the right to Tyler or anyone else to dismiss it as wrong.
I’m right, you’re wrong, end of story.
If you can’t see this, you’re blind.
Wow, Josh, that was incredibly mature, insightful and enlightening. You clearly “won” the discussion. You obviously adressed Guy’s arguments and refuted them, one by one. Wow. You have my admiration, and my readers and I will visit your site always. Wow.
I strongly disagree with White, however calling an opinion wrong just because everyone has a different opinion is so insanely stupid. Furthermore, I hate it when you’re told you’re beliefs are just to be different if they don’t coincide with everybody else’s.
I find reviews against the mainstream much more interesting, as long as they aren’t written for the sole purpose of being provocative. Rottentomatoes is a pretty dumb site, and people take it way too seriously. Challenging films get low ratings compared to dumb efforts like Invictus.
By the way, not to be nitpicky, but it’s a 60/40 fresh/rotten system.
I completely agree with you regarding RT. Its just a pop-culture phenomenon, everyone from critics, bloggers to even movie stars and film folks mention it. Its fun to discuss and quote but jesus nobody forms their opinions based on it(atleast i hope so). In the scheme of things it does not matter at all and is actually inconsequential (the general movie going audience does not care about it) but still I’m glad its out there, its certainly not harmful.
About White, I like what he represents, a sobering balance, but a thoughtless pointless one, and one eventually without any redeeming value.
The annoyance arises not due to dissent(which is welcome infact) but due to purpose, if suppose Dargis or Ebert or Corliss had written a negative review of say Hurt Locker or Toy Story 3, it would spark rational discussion(baring a few foaming-at-the-mouth fanboys) rather than outrage because these critics would argue themselves out eloquently, but White does not have that kind of credibility.
Haven’t you ever wondered why does he publish his reviews later on. Its like he waits for sometime, observes the general consensus and then writes a review which is exactly the opposite. (Chad is a contrarian, but an intelligent one who represents individuality, nobody would ever call him a troll.) I would trust White more if he got out his reviews one week before the release of the movie, but what he does points the finger towards trolling.
Yeah he’s a celebrity. Amongst the most-widely read critics, he probably gets more hits than even Ebert. But what is his contribution to film criticism? Guy can you honestly say that he’s gonna have some legacy, is there gonna be some interest in his writing further down the line(apart from a psychological study into contrarianism and I truly mean this(his behavior is more discussed than his reviews))?
He exercises one of the privileges of film criticism (criticizing movies) without ever contributing to it even in the smallest way.
@Gustava…I’m pretty sure Josh is kidding.
Guy you’ve been on the other side of this issue believing others to have the wrong opinion – when an online poll voted Heaven’s Gate the worst movie ever made. You barked actually.
I have no issues with stating opinions whether they follow popular opinion or not. I have had plenty of experiences where the critics and the media praise something beyond belief, yet I just can’t wrap my own mind around it. After reading his review, though, I’m more worried that I came away as feeling like I was being criticized for liking the film. Whenever, I see an amazing movie or read a great book, I love to see everyone’s opinions and what they got out of it, or what I may have missed. In his review of Toy Story 3, however, he claims, “The Toy Story franchise isn’t for children and adults, it’s for non-thinking children and adults.” If he wants to continue to expect the public to take him seriously as a journalist, he should not make his reader’s feel like they are being bullied because they may have their own opinions.
With all that said, I am in the popular consensus for Toy Story 3. Additionally, I think this film not only continues Pixar’s hot streak, but solidifies its maturation into the premier animation studio and a creative force.
Yeah, whatever opinions I may have about the reviews (I still don’t think White believes a word he writes, and is just doing it to provoke people, which would work were he truly provocative or a good writer), the CinemaBlend article was just pointless. Devin Faraci at CHUD put it best last night when he asked who gave a shit about what Armond White thinks.
I’m a huge Pixar fan, and I can’t wait to see Toy Story 3 tomorrow, and I expect to love it. And these two guys’ poorly written reviews will remain just that. Odd dust-up, but a solid article from you, Guy.
i don’t quite get how Cars is a misfire when everyone likes the film
I have yet to see Toy Story 3, so I can’t comment on how good or bad the film is. It seems most people think it is quite good. The only movies Pixar has put out that I didn’t care for were Cars and Wall-E. The latter is, in my opinion, one of the most overrated movies of the last decade.
However, I do agree that it is absurd to believe that those two critics have wrong opinions because they took down the film’s rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I think people hold that website too highly at times, such is the case for this incident. Armond White has a history of giving, well, different opinions from what most other people think, but he has the right to do that.
The last film I can remember getting a 100% score (and still has it to this day) on Rotten Tomatoes is Man on Wire.
Glad you wrote this, Guy. It’s true, we live in a time when it’s not enough to have an opinion — others must share and validate that opinion. I think this outsized reaction to Mr. White’s review has a lot to do with Mr. White himself, however, who has delighted in his ludicrous contrarianism for a while now. Instead of rolling their eyes, the critical community continues to take him seriously, if only by attacking his absurd views. This other fellow who disliked Toy Story 3 simply jumped on an unfortunate bandwagon at the moment everyone decided to direct a fusillade of “Oh, come ON!” at Armond Joy. He’s found a way not only to push their buttons, but to tap-dance on them, and I’m sure he enjoys the attention.
I was watching the outrage over this yesterday and thinking the same thing: Who cares if two random people dislike a film everyone else loves? And who cares *especially* if they are regarded as crackpots whose reviews are written for shock value?
One thing that impresses me, though, is that you made it through this without once referencing “hot-dog eaters,” “film dweeb nation,” or your current home address in the realm of stratospheric water vapor. (http://bit.ly/cj5Ez6)
In my opinion, people should look at Armond White and think of the time a young Allen Ginsberg met with an aging William Carlos Williams. Asked for words of wisdom, the elder poet looked out his window and said: “There’s a lot of bastards out there.”
Certain aspects of film are absolutely objective. You’re free to not like “The Godfather” all you want, but to deny its construction, its storytelling, and its thematic richness is, indeed, wrong.
I would have no problem if someone had a negative opinion or critique of a film I like. But Mr. White doesn’t present any real opinion, he just says that it is the ruining of film and he gives wrong information (like Hamm is a villain). I don’t really care what Armond White says, and don’t think people should get worked up over a 99% at rotten tomatoes, but I wouldn’t call what he writes an opinion or critique.
I don’t even think White is a film critic. Most of the times I feel he had already written his reviews before watching the film. I think he should be considered to recieve an HONORARY RAZZIE AWARD IN 2011. No other person has done so much effort for the bad films (Twilight, Transformers 2…) as him. He deserves that.
Armond White once said (in a review for Before Sunset)
“I am not the least bit interested in reading the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. There, I’ve said it.”
Most of the world believes Armond White doesn’t know what he’s talking about so according to Armond we shouldn’t be interested in his opinion. This is a man who has said, not implied, but explicitly said the following:
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull BETTER THAN Iron Man”
“Transporter 3 BETTER THAN The Dark Knight”
and my personal favorite
“Twilight BETTER THAN Let the Right One In”
Let’s not even talk about his 2009 BETTER THAN list.
“This tragedy is exemplified by the scary acclaim for the year’s worst: The atrocious Slumdog Millionaire and Pixar’s hideous Wall-E, the buzz-kill movie of all time. Trust no critic who endorses them.”
…So trust no critic in the world except you, Armond? Really? His head is stuffed so far up his own ass it’s ridiculous.
IMO Indiana Jones 4 is much better than IRON MAN (which is a hurried and rather mundane movie).
RT aggravates me because most of their 2.5’s out of 4 are registered as “rotten” when I consider it marginally acceptable.
Also, I’ve seen some 5/10’s that register as “positive”. And I’ve seen 8/10’s register as “rotten”.
It is inconsistent; though, I realize it’s supposedly up to the critic to mark it as pos or neg.
honestly, white is less interesting than the questions his career raises about subjectivity vs. objectivity in re: to film viewing and criticism. if all opinions are subjective, then it shouldn’t matter too much what someone thinks of a movie. sure, it’s fun to discuss your opinion, but to get bent out of shape is a waste of time and energy.
the problem, i think, is that people have difficulty separating objective observations from subjective interpretations. for example, back when the dark knight came out, a small but vocal minority complained that the movie was an apologia for the bush administration and that batman was a stand-in for bush/cheney. if that was true, then obviously the joker was a stand-in for al qaeda and what does gordon say at the end of the movie? “the joker (jihad) was right.” so the movie is basically saying that jihad against the u.s. is justified? if so, how does that make the movie *pro*-bush? if that interpretation was right, if anything, the movie really paints a more complicated picture of “the war on terror.” but the group saying claiming the movie was pro-bush didn’t allow it that complexity, they just hated the movie and used their politics to color their opinion of it.
this is my main problem with white. he constructs straw men and then burns them down, but they’re just that–straw men. just because he interprets a movie a certain way doesn’t mean the movie is positing whatever message he believes to be there. white is constantly railing against “hipster nihilism” but are the movies he lambasts really promoting “hipster nihilism” or is this just something he uses to denigrate a movie? does white even really understand what hipsterdom or nihilism really are? or are they just two things he’s against because he’s a rather conservative christian, thus every movie he dislikes is obviously promoting “hipster nihilism”?
this is where i’m going to disagree with everyone and say that an opinion can, in fact, be wrong. for example, let’s say that i read a post by guy lodge and conclude that he’s homophobic. in reality, lodge isn’t homophobic, but he said something i disagree with and i picked up on a supposed subtext and concluded that he must be homophobic. i mean, he MUST be, right? homophobia is bad, guy lodge is an asshole therefor he MUST be a homophobe. is my opinion right? of course, i’m *allowed* to have that opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s an opinion that *isn’t* wrong.
this is what white does *all the time*. he reads shit into movies that isn’t really there. the fact that he often avoids criticizing the actual movie at hand and instead compares it to other more “worthy” titles is another example his inability to take a movie for what it is.
white can say whatever he wants about whomever he wants, that’s his right as an american (america, fuck yeah), but he is, quite often, wrong. and he’s just a really shitty critical thinker, too.
Is Rotten Tomatoes taken way too seriously? Yes.
Was there one shred of movie criticism within either of those reviews? No.
Everyone is free to have their own opinions. That’s the beauty of film and why there are so many varying kinds. We can all love something different. But the public is different from film critics. We don’t have to explain our reasons for liking films. Film critics do and neither one of these guys showed any credibility here which renders their reviews/opinions/whatever you wanna call what they said null in my opinion.
It doesn’t anger me to see Toy Story 3 drop from 100% to 99%, what angers me is to see two critics give opinions which are utter nonsense and do not help anyone and really just stir them up.
So many thoughtful responses here — I thank you all. (Well, maybe not the multi-handled “Josh Tyler.”) Just to pick up on a few points:
@Red_Wine: Hard to say how White’s output will age, though I think his legacy might be his ability to generate a broad public response to film criticism. Also, I’m seeing a lot of comments here denigrating his writing ability, which I simply can’t square with: much of his work is silly, but his reviews are still spry and entertaining at their weakest, and when he has real feeling and fire in his belly (as in his remarkable “Precious” review last year), I think he’s a pretty great stylist.
@/3rtfu11: Fair point. But I wrote “Some of the inclusions strike me as a little hyperbolic — ridiculously so in the case of ‘Heaven’s Gate,’ which I actually have a lot of time for” — a sentence which twice emphasises the subjectivity of my stance. I’m certainly not declaring fact.
@Breznican: Ha! You tap directly into one of the most perplexing ironies about White: people are at pains to dismiss him as irrelevant, yet get awfully worked up about what he thinks.
@English: No surprise that we disagree again. But I know people who can put up a very elaborate and articulate argument against “The Godfather,” and as much as I disagree with them, their opinions are wholly valuable in helping me test and solidify mine. I just don’t think the word “wrong” belongs in any serious evaluative discussion of the arts, and I can’t be persuaded otherwise.
@Aaron: Interesting example, but you calling me a homophobe wouldn’t be an opinion so much as an expression of what you think is a fact. It’s not quite the same. There may be interpretive errors in a critic’s reading of the film that you could deem “wrong,” but you couldn’t say the same for his appreciation (or otherwise) of the film. Subtle difference.
This is just Armond White being himself. Over the years he has been as consistent as Pixar. You know what you’re getting from both of them. Let me know when something different happens.
Just to interject, Guy, I think people get “awfully worked up” because White continues to have a career while numerous critics are laid off left and right, and also because he heads up the NYFCC, which is meant to be a discerning barometer of film quality. He SHOULD be marginalized, but unfortunately, the coin keeps coming up in his favor.
I’m all for having divergent opinions in the world. But call it what it is: showmanship of the worst kind. I’m convinced White is believing his own hype and doubling down on his own contrarian recipe as of late.
Thank you, Mr. Lodge. A highly entertaining read, and laden with much QFTage.
I just can never forget White’s hilariously incomprehensible blab of a review for “The Dark Knight.”
I can understand the strong emotions against White’s review, but any article which defends the idea of “wrong opinions” should be discredited.
I will say, an opinion CAN be wrong, if its based on incorrect information. Every opinion is based on something. If we base it on something that isn’t true, then the opinion can be wrong because it isn’t based in reality.
A lot of people believe Obama is a Muslim. That’s their opinion but it isn’t true. Art is of course more subjective than that, with less hard facts but we can still base things on something that isn’t there. Not saying that’s the case here, haven’t read his Toy Story 3 review, haven’t read any of his reviews in a year or two. But I know in the past I’ve seen him base his opinions on things that quite simply weren’t in an obvious attempt to rile people up.
Just more “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” bullshit. Haven’t seen “Toy Story 3” yet but I will certainly keep White’s review in mind when I finally do. He wasn’t a fan of “Precious” (to put it mildly), and he took quite the beating for that. But he did raise some valid points that no one else was willing to dare speak of.
The more and more that I read Armond White, the more I think that he likes to be a contrarion for contrarion’s sake. It seems like he wants to be different just so that he can snidely think and say that I wasn’t part of the groupthink on this movie.
I’ve read plenty of negative reviews of critically acclaimed films and in most cases I could understand where the reviewer was coming from, even though I didn’t agree with them. With Armond White, I don’t. The man is a mystery wrapped inside a riddle encased in a set of Russian wooden dolls.
really great read Guy. you’ve got a good point:)