Armond White of the NY Press comes up on this site pretty regularly so I thought I'd pass along links to the text of a long, three-part interview with him from December. It's a great read because he's exactly how you expect him to be from his reviews: provocative, confrontational and well-spoken. (Example: "You look at Noah Baumbach's work, and you see he's an asshole. I would say it to his face. And, of course, he gets praised by other assholes, because they agree with his selfish, privileged, stuck-up shennanigans.") Whether you agree with him or not is another story. Take this:

Here's links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Yeah, why bother fashioning one's opinions towards anyone other than those who already agree? As usual, White uses crude insults for anyone not on his side. In today's divisive Bush America, where people only preach to their own choir and spit poison at anyone else, White fits right in.

And no, I don't think he'd say those words face to face with anybody.

I actually like Armond White alot.

I think he writes very well, and very stylishly. How many movie critics, today, have identifiable styles? Yet somehow you can always read a piece of White's prose and know it's White. I think that's an accomplishment.

I like that he takes his role seriously. Somebody, in one of the comments asks (paraphrasing) "White comes across as a grumpy old man! How is that helping to take film criticism seriously?" My answer is that the question is the exact opposite of the truth; the questioner misunderstands reality. The fact that White is willing to lash out is proof positive that he's serious -- it's the writer who takes everything very collegially, I'd argue, who isn't serious about the form. Hell, take myself: I can afford to be collegial and relaxed here because movies, as much as I love 'em, don't matter to me in the same way that, say, fiction does. I loved KUNG FU HUSTLE -- you didn't like it? Okay, let's chat. But don't stand next to me and tell me you hate, oh, I don't know, Farewell, My Lovely -- I'll have to take you to school. :P

In that interview, I liked his refusal to label his political beliefs, his willingness to speak up for the glory of art over the festishization of technology. his bit on the bourgeoisie roots of the medium. Actually the interview is full of pull quotes -- his bit about he knows Baumbach full well through his films is I think spot on (I didn't see MARGOT AT THE WEDDING, but share his dislike of THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, for pretty much the same reasons.)

IfI have a problem with White, it's not in what he loathes, but what he loves. TRANSFORMERS is really beter than BLADE RUNNER? Really? And I'm not even a fan of BLADE RUNNER, really. I remember reading where he loved MUNICH, and I have to look askance -- wait, where's the askance emoticon -- :blink: -- at anyone who liked MUNICH, which I judge to be a, um, problematic film at best. And here he sings the praises of GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER over BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD. I actually saw some of GUESS again over the holidays, as it's one of my Mom's favorite movies and was playing on some station while I was there -- it's just IMO a terrible terrible movie. Oh, I like the snazzy/deeply ugly Sixties fashions, and there's that one priceless bit where Spencer Tracy orders Boysenberry at the drive thru and then gets cantankerous because dammit, that's not what he REMEMBERED ordering -- but it's shrill and preachy and so dated it might as well be trapped in amber. BEFORE THE DEVIL is not a work of genius, granted, but it's better than that.

If there's a serious critique to be levelled against White, I'd argue it's not that he's grumpy or mean, it's that he's a contrarian, which sounds all glamorous and exciting when you're first starting out, but in the end makes you as predictable as all the other guys you're rebelling against. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call White a contrarian, exactly, but there's a case to be made.

doug

You wouldn't go so far as to call White a contrarian? Are you joking? I'm sure he's sincere about his opinions, but they seem to be formed by reacting against the zeitgeist. For him, consensus is always wrong. The problem with contrarianism is that it usually comes with a massive dose of hubris and self-congratulation, which are all over Armond's writing. It's not enough that he's right; the other guy must be an immoral asshole for disagreeing with him or even making films he dislikes. (Personal insults at a director you've never met are a new low!) I also find it bizarre that he expects everyone else to agree with him and finds them lacking for not doing so - I've long since stopped expecting the world to reflect and honor my opinions. I guess I can see the appeal of White's persona - he has a distinctive style and personality - but I can also see many similarities to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's style of discourse, especially the penchant for ad hominem attacks.

You look at Armond White's work, and you see he's an asshole. I would say it to his face.

I do not, however, consider Doug another asshole for praising him. And that's one difference between me and Armond White.

Well, White has always had a hard-on for Spielberg, so that's why the love for MUNICH. And for De Palma as well (I swear he called MISSION TO MARS one of the greatest films ever made), until he broke with him over REDACTED.

But yeah, I can see calling TRANSFORMERS a better film than BLADE RUNNER. Maybe not as influential or as well-designed, but in many other ways a better movie overall. And the great thing about TRANSFORMERS is that the version we saw in theaters last summer was finished! No director's cuts to worry about in the years ahead. No calling back Megan Fox for retakes in 25 years! There's something to be said for a man who knows how to get something done. :P

Other than White's insane attachments to Spielberg and De Palma, I find myself agreeing with White's assessments more often than not these days. But I'm kind of an old grump these days myself anyway. (I'm not sure if White and I are the same age. He says he's been writing about film all his life, yet he started about ten years after I did, so I'm guessing he's a few years younger.) He's got a great attack on chick flicks in the latest New York Press and he correctly praises MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING's moral sense in comparison. Good stuff. Few critics get that stuff right.

I remember when TITANIC came out in 1997 and all the mainstream critics climbed all over each other to lavish praise on it. Only White, J. Hoberman and Kenneth Turan in L.A. had the presence of mind and critical discrimination to recognize it as the turd it was. White and Hoberman both compared it unfavorably to POSEIDON ADVENTURE. I'd long been a fan of Hoberman at that point, but that was when White endeared himself to me.

Today, when all the critics all gang up to lavish praise on films like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD, my critical hackles rise up. No films can be this good. White is there as an antidote, someone to confirm my instincts.

I didn't read the whole interview that was linked. It's hard to read on the computer and when I printed it out it came out to 34 pages!!! Which is too much to print out, I'm sorry. So I didn't even get to the second and third parts. Plus, the interviewer doesn't sound too sharp at all. I mean, tying in critical consensus to the Bush administration? When you haven't got an original thought in your head, you can always blame it on Bush. Gimme a break.

Who says?

Really? I got curious to see if he really was a contrarian with recent films and checked out his reviews. And he really likes No Country For Old Men. How dare he! And, he actually saw the movie before he made his opinion! Double how dare he!

Even when I agree with this guy, I disagree with him. He can make me roll my eyes and shake my head even when he's praising a movie I love. His NO COUNTRY review is just one more example. THE LADYKILLERS is "brilliant" and contains "the best political gibe of the past decade"? And how about all that sniffy, boringly snobbish babbling about how the Coens' movie is a deep movie, not just a "mere thriller" - because those two are mutually exclusive, you know.