Solid Snake

talking about populist...I wonder wtf he thinks about Charlie Chaplin?

Blu Man

Ebert takes a shot at White. It's on.

Roger Ebert Twitter

Solid Snake

oh shit..it's on. Take him down, Roger!

Supermallet

Charlie Chaplin is a racist motherfucker. He ain't no Harold Lloyd, that's for sure!

Solid Snake

touche, sir.

Eva Kaine

Why would anyone actually love this guy? Just because he is a predictable, high-profile contrarian? He's not even a good writer.

Blu Man

Brilliant first post.

Solid Snake

I got admit...that's proabably the 1st of not many in the time I've been here...1st posts that wasn't super generic. She's on a roll.

dx23

Armond White needs to ask for his money back, because whoever trained him didn't teach him how to write or speak English. By the way, isn't the word "trained" usually used for animals.... Like " I trained my dog", "I trained the monkey", etc? Can we assume that Armond wasn't domesticated?

RichC2

ebertchicago .@GreatDismal It's "CANTED tilt shots" you want to look for. Known as Dutch Angles, except at Armond's film school.

Everyone here who thinks "Transformers 2" has better tilt shots than "The Third Man," raise your hands.

toddly6666

Armond White just wants to be infamous, just like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter...I don't see the big deal with him.

Daytripper

"IS"? The mean to tell me that racist motherfucker is still alive!???

DoubleDownAgain

I don't know. I've listened to about half of his portion of the podcast and he's done a pretty job convincing me he actually believes what he writes. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

wendersfan

This thread cracks me up.

I read Armond White pretty regularly, and I disagree with him a lot.

Here's his top 10 of all time, from his vote in the 2002 Sight and Sound poll:

1. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Spielberg)
2. L'avventura (Antonioni)
3. Intolerance (Griffith)
4. Jules et Jim (Truffaut)
5. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
6. Lola (Demy)
7. The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles)
8. Masculin féminin (Godard)
9. Nashville (Altman)
10. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)

I have to admit, that's a really great list of movies.

pjflyer

I think he had to re-do that list with the release of "Next Day Air"

Supermallet

Except for AI, which Spielberg managed to destroy. And Jules et Jim is overrated, imo.

I also expected to see more of Godard's Maoist films on the list.

wendersfan

I think AI is Spielberg's best movie (See: Faint praise, damning with), and Jules et Jim is not overrated.

Blu Man

We need Team Ebert and Team Armond t-shirts.

Groucho

Yeah, unbelievable that he gets any attention at all.

Troy Stiffler

Yep'. Saying provocative things will get you much more recognition than being talented.

Travis McClain

I've posted on this elsewhere on the Interwebs, but felt it appropriate to chime in on this thread.

I have a bachelor's degree in history, and it absolutely lights me up when someone who doesn't have at least the equivalent in my background argues with me about a subject I've studied closely. So in this regard, I understand what White means when he says that he's "pedigreed" and "more qualified" to discuss film. Whether he's more qualified to discuss film than Roger Ebert is, of course, I am not qualified to judge.

I think the bigger issue is that Armond White cultivated his sense of self and worldview prior to the proliferation of the Internet. It was doubtless easy for him to insulate himself away from the kinds of discussions common folk had about movies. Thanks to the 'net, though, he's now confronted with the kinds of remarks that ordinary people have to say about movies in an unfiltered way. It's as though the masses have been allowed into his ivory tower, and he finds that overwhelming. That's what drives the guy.

Call it elitism, but I think it's deeper than that. It's not just pride that's at stake for him. He really feels that he did things the right way--pursued higher education, studied the craft of film-making and carving out a career as a professional critic--is demeaned and de-valued by the increasingly banal, reductive way that audiences characterize a film. He's right on that last point, incidentally; all too often, we've seen on this very forum members whose entire contribution to a thread about a film consists of "FTW" or "Fail." There's nothing meaningful being contributed to the discussion of film from that level of response.

All that said, perhaps because he never prepared for the eventuality of a peasant's revolt, White has not represented himself well at all throughout these flaps. If he has something thoughtful to contribute to the discussion of film--and surely he does, somewhere in his brain--then he has unfortunately chosen to obscure it in flagrant obtuseness and at-will inflammatory remarks that are clearly meant to incite the pedestrian movie-goer who threatens his values.

Fist of Doom

That's just the free market at work. Apparently, most people don't have a great demand for White's brand of film criticism. Tough noogies for him.

And going to school isn't the only way to get an education. I'll bet there are plenty of DVDTalkers who are every bit as (or more than) knowledgable about film as White. My brother doesn't have a history degree, but he could run rings around most people that do (not a personal shot at you, MinLShaw).

Agree with you here.

From the handful of reviews I've read and this interview, I think the guy is just a bullshit artist. The fact that he can't name a single film critic he respects is telling (Ray Carney comes to mind as a thoughtful "elitist" critic). If you asked that question of an actor or professional chef or architect, etc. they could name many people in their field they admire. I don't think White really respects the art of film criticism.

Solid Snake

this

Travis McClain

No offense taken; that's why I said "an equivalent background" and not "their own degree" when distinguishing when I respond with aggravation to an argument about a topic I know well. I readily admit there are numerous deficiencies in my own grasp on the subjects of which I am enthusiastic, and I also recognize that the classroom will only take you so far. There are plenty of experiences one can have in life that I believe make the classroom environment superfluous. And from what I can tell, Roger Ebert has had enough of those experiences that White's M.F.A. degree is a non-factor.

From what I've read, he worships at the altar of Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay. But I readily confess that I've never read a single review of his and have only read the /Filmcast interview to have a sense of his perspective in his own words.

In truth, I have no real interest in film criticism, unless it's a film that I feel I don't quite understand and I want to see if there's a nugget of insight from someone likely to see things I don't--and articulate them in a way that may be of help to me. For instance, I read several reviews of Eyes Wide Shut when I walked away from its theatrical release scratching my head at all the fuss. Most of what I read amounted to useless Kubrick-worship, some of what I read was in agreement with my "I don't get it" sentiment, but I found one or two that pointed me in the direction of some of the subtleties and nuances of the film that, upon further exploration, did significantly improve my reaction to the film.

I don't even read Ebert's reviews, but I follow him on Twitter with enthusiasm and eagerly read his non-review journal entries on his own life and social issues. I find him a very accessible writer, and while I don't always agree with the positions he takes, I find that he generally supports his positions solidly and I've seen him open to reconsidering them on occasion.

I also just looked up and saw that on TV right now is that show on Fox Sports, Sports Science, and they're exploring what it took for Mike Tyson to chew off Evander Holyfield's ear. That's how Ebert and White should resolve this spat!

ReduxGuy

Armond White is to film criticing what the ghost was to Barbara Hershey in The Entity.