THE DEVIN'S ADVOCATE: WHO CARES ABOUT ARMOND WHITE?

Solid. And agreed.

I'd say well written, Devin!, except perhaps I just agree.

Great article.

Obviously his name seems to pop up most when a big "geek" property is released, I remember the outrage when he dared give THE DARK KNIGHT a negative review. I honestly feel like his act is starting to wear a bit thin, but every once in a while he comes out with a gem:

Absolutely right. Thanks for the dose of reality. I am not in the least offended by the Tomatometer reading on TS3 being (gasp!) 99% now. However, I confess that White's reviews fascinate me in their almost nutty contrariness. I guess by reading them I'm "feeding the troll," but I am not offended by anything he writes; usually, just very amused. I can often imagine him cackling madly to himself as he spews out his latest diatribe against the latest critical darling, then sits back and waits for the hits to roll in.

Interested to see your TS3 review Devin; perhaps it will temper my expectations. I have no doubt it's a good film, but I suspect that many of the most glowing reviews are somewhat influenced by nostalgia for the 1st 2 films.

It shouldn't matter in the long run, but doesn't it get kind of offensive when you're the contrarian all the time?

I realize it's his opinion and he has every right to make it, but doesn't it cheapen the art of critique if he's just doing it to be an asshole?

If anyone should bitch about it, it should be other (professional) movie reviewers calling him out for being a total hack.

I basically agree with everything Devin wrote (which is kind of funny to write considering the contents of the article). I've been to message board where the people are more interested in discussing the Rotten Tomatoes rating than the actual film. I rarely ever check that site anymore because I have my core group of critics I read and respect and don't feel the need to get a general consensus.

I think part of it is that a lot of people don't like to have an opinion of their own. They feel more comfortable being part of the majority. Then when someone disagrees with them it almost becomes a witch hunt. Hell, Devin still gets hell for his BATMAN BEGINS review.

I'm not sure how a review of JONAH HEX really furthers the art of criticism beyond being well written. I think White's a pretty good writer when he sets his mind to it.

Criticism is about writing, not opinion. It's about writing well ABOUT your opinion. Hopefully your opinion is informed and reasoned and good, but it's like Debate Club - the winner isn't the guy who is right, it's the guy who argues best.

A lot of it has to do with no one being allowed to attack people's cherished favorite properties too. Like they need outside approval for the things they love so much.

I always forget about White until he goes crazy on some summer blockbuster and freaks everyone out. I do wonder about his hatred of Cronenberg, but otherwise he's pretty funny.

@PE:

That's a solid point, but at the same time you have to consider the people who make a habit out of gunning for people's cherished favorite properties just so that they can fuck with someone's sacred cow. Just sayin'.

Criticism has to be about opinion as well. I don't wanna bash the guy cause he can have any opinion what he wants, but doesn't it question your taste when you like such a in-your-words "dog shit" film, but hates a very critically acclaimed one coming out in the same week?

Just reading the review for Jonah Hex felt like he was doing it just to piss people off, which is actually fucking hilarious.

I totally agree. Without straying too far into the typical Princess Kate personal anecdote here... my roommate is one of those guys. He'll hate on anything I like such as LOTR or Marvel properties because he finds them to be geeky. Yet, this is the same guy who loves Harry Potter. Don't get it at all.

Armond White seems like he's kinda like that. He wants people to read his stuff, so he'll be an asshole and be popular for being "that guy."

Very well written.

I'm curious what the thought is on emotional attachment to art. A lot of what is argued against in this piece isn't that. It's the stats tracking as Devin puts it.

But should people be emotionally invested in something they didn't make? I'm not talking about crying at movies but having a piece of art mean something to the point that having it insulted or praised affects them.

We should remove TS3 for this debate because frankly this attachment takes time and most people haven't even seen the film once.

An example would be the last movie you saw with a relative before they died or a movie you went to on your first date.

I didn't even know who this person was until this article. Apparently you care enough about him to write an article about him.

Maybe. But there's a fine line between being emotionally invested in a film and being obsessed about it. All of those comments on Armond White's review blurb on RT are borderline obsessive.

No offense, but he's not like that at all.

Read his review of DISTRICT 9.

This is an excellent example of a contentless spam post.

And people usually get pissed off at him before they've even seen the movie.

The very existence of the article undermines its intent.

That's the very thing that drives me mad about the Rotten Tomatoes comment section, which I cannot help but read on occasion.

Thats my major beef with White, though: There's ways to play Mr. Contrary, using that talent--and yeah, I read his Tupac book, he DOES have talent and insight--have the world disagree with you, and still come off respectable. Roger Ebert's wonderful at this. I've seen the guy hold some truly headscratching opinions on films I loved, but no matter his opinion on each, he still loves the medium, and that shines through every word, no matter how "What the fuck?" the opinion may be.

The problem with Armond White, Jeffery Wells and the like is that they obviously have issues with where their beloved medium has gone, and there's a righteousness to that, but instead of dealing with these ebbs and flows gracefully, or at least humorously, there's this underlying venom and blind flailing to shake things up that I think they believe makes them anarchists or lone voices against the tide but really comes off as high level petulance, especially when the end product is so baseless and trite covered up by a wide vocabulary in White's case. Its the high culture equivalent of playing with your food at the table. Both those guys are better than that.

I don't care what they think about my beloved properties. I care that it's a waste of time and talent. And, as a general policy, anybody that wastes talent in this day and age can suck my dick.

The article isn't an empty flame on Armond White like just about every other article about him, so it doesn't really undermine anything. Although it is essentially Devin doing what he says Armond White might be doing if he truly believes his own words: yelling at a brick wall. People are going to become more and more emotionally attached to things they have no real reason to be attached to as time goes on. We're in the center of the era of the manchild, after all.

About the constant talk of percentages and box-office weekends.... we're live in a world that is becoming quantified into statistics. Everywhere I look or read, there's something about someone trying to measure something we've always found to be intangibly emotional and subjective. Measuring LOVE? Wow... It's bled into the culture as something normal.

So I'm not surprised about the Rotten Tomato thing. I used to follow that site back in 2000 but stopped when I realized how stupid it was.

I'm curious though... which of your reviews are you getting praised for that you feel are badly written?

Looking forward to your Toy Story 3 review. Especially in regards to Unkrich's (possible spoiler?) religious undertones.

I didn't read his TS3 review -- trying to avoid spoilers -- but his Hex review, while certainly against the prevailing opinion, doesn't strike me as bad writing. I think he may be reading a little too much into things -- the villain sharing Tarantino's initials and Megan Fox staring at Hex's scarred face being some kind of commentary -- but he's certainly backing up his ideas with examples from the film.

I wonder how loud White's squeal-of-glee was when he found out Jonah Hex director, Jimmy Hayward, was once an animator at Pixar (who worked on both Toy Stories). Relevant connection!

And how does one go from directing Horton Hears A Who to Jonah Hex?

Armond White is duke_fleed. And Fleed is awesome. How do you people not see this?

Now, seriously. He is not insane. He has an agenda. He has a public personality that was born at some point to further that agenda. It is not necessairly his actual personality.

I'm getting people yelling at me for an 8.5 review of TOY STORY 3.

The thing that does piss me off about White is not that he's a contrarian but that he can get downright personal when he hates a filmmaker. This is the man who said he wished Noah Baumbach's mother had had an abortion.

Bet most of those people didn't actually read the review, just the score.

8.5/10 is very positive.

People like seeing agenda when it serves their purposes, which is revealing.

Great art can stand in the face of criticism... Shit, I read Pauline Kael (who I love) try to tear Orson Welles a new asshole. She was wrong, but it was fascinating. I love to see someone either try or successfully deconstruct something, whether I love it or hate it. But there you have to have a point of view and rational discourse. I like reading well written reviews period, and like to see why people don't like what I like as much as I enjoy being agreed with, though I love it best when someone gives me a new insight into a work.

Does your contrarianism know no bounds?!

This thought in your advocate:
It immediately made me think, "No, but it probably make it more beloved from a desire to spite White." Which would be sad. I think we all do this to a certain degree, but in this instance it just feels silly.

Exactly. But it's not perfect, and a lot of people seem to think everything is the best thing ever since the last best thing ever.

But if he is being dishonest about his opinion simply to draw attention to himself, doesn't this spit in the face of what you do? I read the reviews on CHUD because they are well-written and more importantly, honest. I may not always agree with what Devin says, but I never doubt it's what he believes. And that's the way it should be. I can't say that with White.

So don't read White's stuff.

I stopped caring about Armond White except for the occasional joke when I figured out he was doing shtick, and not giving honest reviews and was in general a attention whore and a big phony. But worse of all, he has just gotten boring.



BUt Devin is 100% on about the incredible emotional attachment that fanboys get for whatever the object of their passion is, and the way they declare Holy War on anybody who dares to critcise it. They seem incapable of simply saying, "Well, different people have different tastes " and move on.
And what we are seeing with Toy Story is not nearly as bad as what we saw with "Avatar".

I'm a friggin' statistician, and I don't think that art should be discussed using statistics. First off, lay people don't understand statistics (which makes watching TV news unbearable). Second, there are the numskulls who think Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office performance are the only measures what art is relevant or viable.

Simplifying too much, I'd say RT & BO Performance is more like a political election results. The more they spend on and the more they successfully market their product (e.g. movie, candidate, etc.), the more likely they are to win (but not guaranteed). This has nothing to do with substance or quality. It's basic public manipulation/propaganda 101.

(With a graduate degree in statistician and an undergraduate degree in psychology, this shit fascinates me to no end. Even more fascinating: people's visceral, angry, and defensive reaction when it's pointed out to them that they have been manipulated. Don't worry. We all have. It's part of the game.)

Of course the other bit of it's media ownership and lazy reporting. As of 2010, Walt Disney is the worlds largest media conglomerate (beating out Warner and News Corp). Think that can generate some positive reviews?

If I read White's stuff it's because there is a certain train wreck factor to it. I'm not going to lie, I will probably read every Armond White review of every Noah Baumbach film just to see what he says and how he equates those films to the rise of Hitler. I don't really look at it as film criticism, but almost as a work of fiction.

Great advocate.

I like White. I like reading reviews of films that I disagree with. It helps me form my own opinions more, and sometimes makes me question some of the reasons I like or dislike it. That's what good criticism should be about.

I don't get this prevailing sense that everyone must agree. The same thing happened with The Dark Knight around here. It was as if nobody could say anything wrong about it because some of the people who loved it assumed anyone saying anything negative about it was simply being contrary, which is ridiculous, and I loved the movie.

White can be loony, but he can also be really funny and a really good writer. And I like to have my opinions challenged. The guys at Slant get a lot of shit for being pretty tough on movies (especially popular ones) but they're really good writers and when they love a movie, they really love it, whether it's UP (a rare 4 star review from Ed Gonzalez) or the Tilda Stinton stunner Julia from last year.

Yeah, I mean...let's say White is making shit up. Are people that that insecure in their own opinions that they need everyone to agree? It doesn't make any sense.

This is the same shit Dark Knight fans pulled back in the day to the point where it probably made me dislike that film a little more than I actually did. I hated seeing fans who clearly hadn't seen the film yet rip into a critic from The New Yorker just because he dared give the film a less than positive review.

I just don't get it. Do these people realise they are supporting large corporate characters that don't need their help?

I'll probably enjoy Toy Story 3 but this whole situation will probably make me pay closer attention to the negative aspects of the film that I usually would have.

This is my problem with this whole debate. If White offends you so much, ignore him. It's that simple. While I often find him obtuse and frustrating, relieving myself of his opinions is as easy as closing the browser.

I think White has got to be trying some sort of social experiment via criticism - he's the Anti-Quote Whore. Fascinating.

So everyone agrees with Devin again? I'll point out that Toy Story 1 & 2 both got 100%, so it would have been kind of cool if they'd managed the hat trick. I know it doesn't matter, but if you step back, none of this shit matters.

I've read a handful of Armond White reviews. Not enough to make me an expert, but enough to come to this conclusion: Armond White is not a film critic. Armond White is an artist.

ETA: Damn it, HBC.

The people who get upset about critical opinions and statistics in regard to certain blockbuster type films they're emotionally attached to are people who define themselves by their taste in art rather than by what they themselves create or produce or accomplish. That's where the insecurity lies.

And it's normal for adolescents to feel this. That's why kids get so tribal about music genres, because they latch onto the character of the music as something to hold onto until their own character develops. They do the same with films and directors. Part of growing up is learning that self-respect comes from your own work, not from your opinion on the work of others.

And don't anybody misread what I've said here as me saying that the works of others should cease to affect us emotionally as we mature. I haven't said that. I've said that the works of others should cease to be part of what defines who we are as we mature. Because if we don't define ourselves by the works of others then we can't be emotionally hurt when the works of others are attacked in ways that can't and won't affect those works. Maturity is a measure of independence. It's about letting go of those cultural comfort blankets and being your own person.

I'm guessing the majority of people getting emotionally upset at Armond White are under 21 years old and still finding their place in the scheme of things. It would help all of them make better sense of the world if they would take Devin's advice on this one.

Again, I have to second this. I too had not heard about this chap until today and couldn't resist reading his Toy Story 3 and Jonah Hex thus increasing his traffic. Shame on me.

It's a valid point to say that the quality of the review far outweighs the opinion but his track record would indicate that he is deliberately trying to draw attention (having said that I haven't seen either, so it's possible I could hate Toy Story and love Jonah Hex, maybe, sort of)

I feel like dismissing White on grounds of insincerity, or a being a troll, is kind of missing the point.

Whether or not he is serious, he is still a really useful and stimulating thinker. For me at least, he was an important step in my maturation as a someone who watches and thinks about film. Although I don't really follow him anymore. Once you've caught the lesson he's imparting, reading him becomes sort of redundant.

At his best, which is usually at his most infuriating and confusing, he constructs a counter narrative to the dominant responses to a film, and exposes the text to ruptures of meaning and boldly counter-intuitive interpretations. He's not being a contrarian just for the hell of it. Once you get past the vitriol and narcissism and fierce loyalties, there's actually a constructive program to be found. Although sometimes he is just crazy, as with the Baumbach controversy, and he often lets his demons get in the way of his message.

My favorite example is his review of Mission to Mars, a film which I found ridiculously stupid and off-putting on first viewing. But he insisted, among other things, that anyone who doesn't like the film doesn't understand cinema. And on re-watching I got a lot more of what he was on about. I still don't like the film, but I admire it, and I now understand the interesting things it does that I wasn't trained on first view to notice.

On a purely speculative note I feel like his whole intellectual program might have something to do with his race. There's a whole thing in post-colonial and feminist discourse about about breaking open the dominant discourse to carve spaces for the marginalized and the Other. I see a lot of that in White, and it's kind of refreshing. Not many film critics today are crazy enough to let an intellectual program totally dominate their reviews, unlike the Marxist or feminist reviewers of yesteryear. It's kind of valuable, I think.

It's also funny, in the changing annals of geekdom, that geeks, who have made their subculture out of finding and prizing and breaking into marginalized and 'cult' texts, would find White so threatening, when he's doing pretty much the same thing.

Seamus, I could kiss you right now. That is truly a stellar post, and I'd love to say you summed up my thoughts exactly, but I never even considered half the things about which you spoke so eloquently.

I will admit, I don't read Armond White's reviews, as I only learned about his schtick a couple years back. I find the guy's contrariness feels silly and forced, and thus I tend to dismiss his reviews as being little more than ammunition meant to upset the status quo. That's probably unfair of me, but then, I'm not that emotionally invested in film to the point where I would get offended by the things he says. This is not to say that I don't love the medium, because I do, but I'm comfortable enough in my knowledge of cinema (thanks in large part to places like CHUD) that I don't feel like I have to pick sides in a fight over which movies are valid.

What it boils down to for me is this;if I like or dislike a film, I don't really care if someone feels the opposite (although, I do have exceptions to that rule on both sides of the coin), but I love having REASONABLE discussions with the people who disagree with me. Furthermore, there are a small number of critics I respect and trust (Nathan Rabin, Devin, and Roger Ebert are probably the top three for me), and I love reading their reviews about a particular movie after I've seen it.

I know this has been said many times before, but I really do think it's refreshing to discover what these other people think about a particular movie, even when I disagree with them. The opposing thoughts can challenge our perceptions, and make us view a movie in a different light, or cause us to reflect on why we enjoy a particular film, song, piece of art, what have you. That's why I love criticism, and why a guy like Armond White doesn't bother me. Ultimately, the things he (or more to the point, critics in general) writes don't alter the films I love, but they can make me look at them in a different way, and make me think about WHY I love these things.

Just wanted to point out that following box office stats and loving movies as an art form aren't mutually exclusive. I enjoy Andre Dellamorte's columns as much as I enjoy Devin's writing. Thing is, Devin also writes a lot about box office business (just not always in terms of numbers) and award predictions. And Dellamorte writes a lot of film and cultural criticism.

The numbers-watching can be entertaining in itself, even if there isn't any emotional investment in the movies. The biggest/smallest/first/last/most/least aspect of virtually anything can be interesting. Ask Guinness.


Also, I think the whole idea that the ignorant masses perceive box office receipts as a sign of quality is deeply, deeply overstated, and irrelevant to any sort of discussion among readers of CHUD. Few people out there think that. Nobody here thinks that.