Shocking news of the day: Armond White is a contrarian. This time he’s taken the opposing view on Toy Story 3, which had a 100% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes until he dared to dislike it.
And then came the uproar. Like clockwork. People who don’t understand what an opinion is have been up in arms all day, Tweeting and writing blog posts about what a monster this man is that he should break Toy Story 3‘s streak of positive reviews. Apparently Toy Story 3 was on track to be the most positively reviewed movie in the history of Rotten Tomatoes, which is some major achievement if you treat movies like a sporting event.
White is a critic at The New York Press, an alt-weekly that a few years ago I thought was going to become the new Village Voice. It never quite happened, and White, who was always a little… off, seems to have slowly drifted into sheer insanity. According to Rotten Tomatoes he agrees with the Tomatometer 52% of the time, which is I’m sure meaningful to someone who thinks statistics has a place in the discussion of art. The fact of the matter is that White seems to embrace movies that most folks hate while shitting on movies most folks love; this week he trashed Toy Story 3, as mentioned, and gave the awful Jonah Hex a glowing review.
So here’s the thing about White: either he has awful, crazy taste or he’s just fucking with you. Either way, there’s a question that must be answered:
Who gives a shit about Armond White?
If he’s just fucking with us, which is what many people say, then you’re playing right into his plan when you get outraged that he dared, that he had the audacity!, to give a negative review to a movie you liked. If he’s just fucking with us, the obvious answer is to quit paying attention, to not link to his outrageous reviews on Twitter or Fark or Reddit or whatever, to just let him howl into the night and get no response. Don’t feed the trolls, we say, and this would be a prime example of that. People cry out ‘How can Armond White have a job as a film critic when his opinions are like this?!?!” and the answer is “Because you keep driving traffic to his reviews every time you get up in arms that he shat upon another mainstream movie.” So ignore him, and he’ll go away.
What if White is dead serious? What if he honestly believes, as he says in his Toy Story 3 review, that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen did the same story but better? Is it somehow worse if he truly believes that and isn’t just juicing it up to get outraged hits on his reviews?
Of course not. The same question applies – who gives a shit? Nothing Armond White says about a movie matters, whether he means it or not. Let’s for a moment assume that the opinions of critics are actually important. Even if you take that concept as a truism, White’s positions of ultimate contrariness – such as being apparently the only human who didn’t like Toy Story 3 – are just as ultimately marginalized. He’s not leading the discussion or setting the tone, he’s the lonely guy screaming at a brick wall. Will Toy Story 3 somehow be less beloved by audiences because it has a – gasp! – 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Will the movie somehow tank as a result of the one lone negative review?
Basically the only power White has is when he gets the internet all riled up to yell at him. All of a sudden the discussion is no longer about how good Toy Story 3 is, it’s about this one single opinion, and that’s completely and totally because of you (the rhetorical you, of course). Armond White isn’t cluttering Twitter with discussion of Armond White’s negative review, it’s the people who ostensibly love Toy Story 3.
This all raises an interesting question for me, which is why people care about this stuff in the first place. Why do people care if a movie has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes? It’s especially baffling for a movie like Toy Story 3, which is going to be a huge moneymaker even if it had a 40%. This is a massive, blockbuster, mainstream film; the third movie in a series that founded an entire empire that eventually went on to take over the Disney empire. Think about that – this isn’t exactly the underdog you’re rooting for here. This isn’t some movie that desperately needs good word of mouth to open. Pixar could likely release a wire frame movie and with the Disney marketing machine push it to a 150 million dollar gross in three weeks.
Part of it must be insecurity. Writing on the internet for a decade has taught me one thing – people hate seeing opinions that disagree with their own. Folks get downright furious when confronted with a dissenting opinion, no matter how well written or argued (and the obverse is true as well – people have applauded poorly written reviews of mine that they agreed with by saying it was great writing). I don’t know if this tendency was always there within us as people, to react so negatively against opinions (on the slightest things) that clash with our own, or if the internet has exacerbated it to the current level, but if White is a troll, it’s this tendency upon which he counts.
Part of it is that there’s a growing contingent of self-professed film fans who just seem like statistics junkies to me. Every time Scott Pilgrim vs the World comes up on this site we get people dissecting its box office chances. Folks love talking about – and getting upset about – what movies earned what each weekend (I rarely even know what came in first, to be honest). And then there’s the whole arm of the movie blogosphere that is obsessed with awards season, the most crass and meaningless aspect of the movies. I’m always confused when Slashfilm runs a story about some movie getting some extreme user rating on IMDB – I honestly can’t see why anyone would care. I’m doubly bemused when people get all worked up about the box office of mainstream films, as if Avatar being the number one grossing movie of all time means anything about the movie. I do get people rooting for underdog films – hell, I was just doing that for Splice – but there’s a motive behind that, and it’s supporting good movies and filmmakers so that more good movies get made and more good filmmakers get work. As movie fans that’s in our self interest. But getting caught up in the box office or the Tomatometer rating of a massive, mainstream, crowd pleasing, guaranteed smash hit like Toy Story 3? It doesn’t make any sense to me on any real level, except that there are people who love statistics and not movies. These people should go watch baseball instead.
Honestly, I’m most worried about the people claiming Toy Story 3 is the best film of the year (it’s the third best of the franchise) or giving it perfect scores. It’s a very good movie but it’s not a Great Film (my review is coming) and I think overselling a movie actually does it a greater disservice that panning it. Even still, who really cares – I love a good argument as much as anybody else, if not more than most, and I think that arguing about film reviews is fun and educational. But I also understand that people have opinions and that they may not always agree with mine.
So let Armond White hate on good movies and love bad movies. He’s not hurting anybody. He’s not making you wrong. He’s not destroying careers or forcing changes on films. You’re still seeing the final work of filmmakers, and you’re still allowed to make up your own mind about it. And if you’re a smart person and a good thinker, you’re going to be secure enough in your own opinion that someone else’s won’t make you furious. And if you’re a really smart person and a good thinker you’ll be able to take even the opinions of those who disagree with you and learn something from them and make your own opinions better and smarter and more well reasoned.
47 comments
I don't think this is about opinion — I think it's about the I'm-against-all gimmick this guy seems to do..
Hello Devin – thank you for your piece. I want to say though that people care about a 100% score not because they are insecure, nor necessarily because they are huge Toy Story fans, (yes, somewhat because they like stats, I'll give you that) – but mostly because people just enjoy the allure of something being perfect. 100% is just nice, neat and clean – it's just cool to have a perfect streak, not just with one item, but three. Maybe its because our lives are so imperfect or maybe it's just a fun thing to follow and rout for. I'd say, that's it. Mr. White is entitled to his opinion, but if he's doing this for fame, a little extra bucks or because he enjoys being troublesome, well, that's not cool.
Way to give him MORE attention. For fucks sake! Ignore this motherfucker.
Thank you for writing this article. I honestly can't believe he isn't discussed more by critics as he seems, in my opinion, to be the most bigoted, self-absorbed, and ass-holish critic I've ever read. He comes off like he's living in his own imaginary world where movies like District 9 are literally destroying society. The things he says not only about the films themselves but about the creators of these films makes me scoff. I cannot even read his "reviews" for a laugh because they're not funny, their just…bad. He seems like a miserable person and I can't believe he actually gets paid for the bullshit he writes. Seriously, go read his District 9 review and try to tell me he doesn't have more than a few screws loose.
The obsession with numbers argument is very interesting. It seems to be something new and different in today's culture across the board of entertainment, politics, education, etc. There's the old examples of politicians obsessed with polls instead of coming through on promises and trying to do good while they're in office. And there's the educational system obsessed with standardized test score instead of how much children learn. The more interesting comparison to me that has caught on in the last few years sort of coinciding with the obsession with movie numbers and best first weekend grosses is fantasy sports. Fantasy football and baseball are overtaken the sports landscape. People root for players numbers instead of teams. In this world people say Philip Rivers is a great quarterback because of his numbers even though he hasn't ever won anything. That Adrian Peterson is a great running back regardless of how many times he fumbles and singlehandedly loses games. It's the same with movies and the obsession with grosses being a yard stick to how good/influential a movie is instead of looking at the whole to figure out what it actually accomplished. Sure say…Titanic won awards and had a huge gross. Does that make it the best movie ever? How many times recently have the Cowboys spent the most money, had the most talented individual players, and not gone to the Super bowl? response too long?
Hates gonna hate.
Random two cents – For me personally, I'm only annoyed when critics trash a film for things that are either false and imply that they didn't pay attention or just reviewed the trailer (ie – calling any R-rated horror movie 'torture porn' regardless of its content) or when they trash a film because it breaks some kind of arbitrary rule that only they believe in. Armond White's (expected) review was far less personally offensive than Cole Smithy, who's reasons for panning the picture were A) it's in 3D and B) it's dark and sad. It's not the filmmakers' fault that the film didn't get a PG, there's is no law saying that family films shouldn't be sad/dark, and we all have the option of seeing the film in 2D if we wish. Criticizing a Pixar film for having emotionally-draining subject matter is like criticizing a Saw picture for having gore. Kinda comes with the territory.
Armond White is an a pseudo- intellectual jerk-off and his handy thesaurus doesn't make his reviews any better. I'm a little perplexed how you couldn't follow the simple thought process that would have people upset about something like this. When people are in love with something they'll fight for it. White gives a negative review, yes, but also seems to lack understanding of what the film was even about. It's meter doesn't change anything but people want to see a good film rewarded. Personally, and I don't mean this to offend, I believe you have a lot of trouble admitting when you are wrong and that's why you are saying that you only thought Toy story was "very good." What also might upset people about the way YOU write is your very "matter a fact" style which is obnoxious, ex: the way you just stated Toy Story 3 is not as good. Obviously I loved the film from the way I'm speaking here, and I knew you wouldn't from the fact you speculated a few months back you thought it'd be a miss or that you were nervous. I also knew you'd be enthused about "the Wolf man" and "Friday the 13th" when you gave them non-stop coverage. I like your reviews but almost like Armond I don't feel I can trust you, just for different reasons. Sorry for rambling, I've been reading for 2 years and it always frustrated me. Then I see a movie that has very few minor flaws but is filled with such raw emotion and love to it (creating IMO the greatest film trilogy to date) and you would appear to write it off as a mainstream crowd pleaser.
I think you overestimate the reasoning behind the outrage, Devin. No one really gives a shit about the percentage. Rather, they just fucking hate someone purposely being a contrarian, and rightfully so.
Lloyd, you took the words right out of my house.
I agree with Lloyd. I also agree with Nah. Even in Devin's own piss poor review of the film i couldn't help but think that he was beating up on it because he gets a joy out of being the guy who didn't really like toy story 3. I happened to love it and can't imagine anyone who loves movies not enjoying it. Armond's review is nonsense and so is Devin's…to call the film weightless just doesn't make any sense.
Who cares? Really? Who gives a crap about a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes. The guy is a joke critic. Fuck him. Honestly, stop paying attention to this idiot.
Victoria Alexander falls into this category as well.
More power to Armond White say I , some of his reviews I can't get my head around, he often seems to approach films from a cultural perspective that I have no real reference too (me being a white Australian).
Other times he makes some good points.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can refuse to believe that anothers opinion on a film, music or whatever can substantially differ from their own.
Nice defense of white, but really, Devin, you know if he was a participant in these forums you would ban him.
Devin, I don't think it's difficult to see why people got behind Toy Story so much. Part of it was keeping the 100% t-meter most likely (yes, people like stats; they're not exclusive to baseball), but in spite of your own opinion on the film Pixar has produced some of the most beloved animated movies of the past decade. It's that "crowd pleasing" distinction of Toy Story 3 that has generated this backlash.
The reason this slightly bothers me is that I look to Rotten Tomatoes as a legitimate source of information regarding critical consensuses. If I start seeing the inclusions of reviewers who aren't taking their job seriously or are obviously off their meds it devalues it the site and I would find it harder to take RT seriously.
First time I've heard of this guy: this article. Way to play into this guy's plan. *golf clap*
There is one aspect of box office which does matter–at least in the hinterlands where I live–and that is the fact that here, only big first weekend successes get to continue playing on the 24 available moviescreens in my town. And, being an old working mom who doesn't get to go to grown up movies as often as I'd like, my chances of seeing films that don't have that huge monetary potential get smaller and smaller. Perhaps, Devon, you'd like to weigh in on this subject?
Armond White is annoying and difficult to ignore because is contrary just for the sake of being contrary. He never posts a review before the consensus is in. And he's contrary with such consistency that it comes off like a joke gone out of control; a joke he's told so much that he now believes. No, in the grand scheme, he doesn't matter, but he's so fucking annoying that you just want to yell at him.
Armond White is so out of touch with reality that I'd rather read one of his insane reviews trashing a movie I dig than read some bland reviewer who gushes over said movie. He's just a crazy old man who's paid for his unhinged opinions; sit back, relax, and enjoy the clown show.
Fuckin' A. To anyone who geniunely loves and understands art, statistics have no place in the meaningful discussion of art. And if you get angry at the opinions of people like film critics, who can't hurt you (or the things you love), then you have a problem and that problem is your own insecurity and lack of self. Armond's reviews have no evvect on the films or the film-makers, they only have an effect on the retarded, impotent suckers who fall into his trap and get their panties in a twist about him.
I heard Armond White wrote a similarly titled piece about some guy called Devon Faraci following his Dark Knight review.
I fucking LOVE Armond White.
He's a goddamn troll extraordinaire. He is to film fandom as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to world politics.
Even if he's not a troll, and he's dead serious, that makes him so fucking amazingly retarded that it's still hillarious.
Also, I agree with him about formulaic, lazy corporate merchandising juggernauts that get shat out yearly by Pixar.
i loved TS3, but prefer reading Armond White to 99% of the knuckleheads writing about movies on teh internet. Actually, I prefer reading White to watching 99% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood. fuck the haters.
"And if you're a really smart person and a good thinker you'll be able to take even the opinions of those who disagree with you and learn something from them and make your own opinions better and smarter and more well reasoned." Really Devin?
Damn. Way to crap on what Andre Dellamorte does for this site.
Whites reviews have never made me angry or compelled me enough to elicit a response, but its terrible that a review is entirely based on how much the reviewer has to gain personally by giving a negative mark, not the actual merits of the film.
Devin, don't you care that he cheapens and ghettoizes your profession? The more that Armond White is irrelevant and doesn't matter, the more YOU don't matter. And you need to rail against that for the sake of your own legitimacy – and that does not mean you're being insecure.
Following the stats of the movie business is a natural extension of loving movies as box office is the sign of things to come. I don't believe you are unaware of what movie is number one each week. You didn't check in on the numbers for Kick Ass?
So does this mean that Devin will stop lecturing people what to like and not, and let people like what they want to without being criticised? Yay!
One can question Msr. White's motives and take issue with them, but he actually offers opinion and justification of that opinion. You may not accept the justification but it's at the heart of good review.
There are more mainstream examples of reviewers who epitomize laziness. Someone here offered up the example of the summer of "torture porn" in which every film involving thematic similarities were lumped together. Fair enough, but these reviews rarely dealt with why the film itself was bad. EW's Lisa Schwarzbaum (sp?) comes to mind. Her cohort Owen Glieberman is another who seems to kill a movie, but you're not ever entirely sure why. He'll go on about the subject of the film or the director but never actually address why he likes or dislikes the film. Kind of pointless.
Armond White basically tells you why he likes or doesn't like a film. I rarely agree with it, but at least there is a justification.
#31, you could not have said it better. Is anyone up in arms about Devin thinking this film is the weakest of the three. Of course not, so why are we raging at this other guy for hating the film a little bit more then Mr. Faraci? Because we have just been told to do so. I used to think C.H.U.D was a site ran by fan's. But honestly, over the last few years, the snob level has gone through the roof.
There should be a neo "At the Movies" show with Devin, Armond White and Walter Chaw. Neds would fucking spontaneously combust weekly.
I was with you up until…
"Let's for a moment assume that the opinions of critics are actually important."
Does that need to be assumed when you have a site which is nothing BUT the opinions of critics?
There's a very similar thing going on in the gaming industry to the point where video game publishers/developers openly talk about metacritic scores being the be-all and end-all of a review. The Jeff Gerstmann incident is an example of that kind of industry attitude pressurising someone out of a job. Of course fanboys for particular games/movies will always be craving for validation and will take it as a personal insult if a review doesn't agree with them. But fuck those guys.
Armond White is the troll of movie criticism. It's all an act and it's working.
This article is exhibit A. If we just ignore him, he'll go away eventually.
Hahahahah … I think its actually funny that this dude dares to go counter-culture with most critics and goes against them! Obviously, that makes them real happy. So let me make sure I understand this … instead of looking for uber-obscure films to sing to the heavens while destroying "mainstream" movies like every other critic, he may actually like some of the genre stuff? Hilarious!
I've tried to watch the Toy Story movies, but after 5 minutes I have to tell you I wasn't feeling it. Grow up man-children.
Armond White does not back up his assertions in his most stridently contrarian reviews. He just makes knowingly outlandish assertions, name drops or makes connections that simply do not exist. Look at his review for Transformers 2. He refers to "Torque" as "near-miraculous," but doesn't really elaborate on why, other than saying that the characters live through their machines. (http://www.nypress.com/article-20003-bad-boys-and-toys-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen.html). And then, in his review of Godard's "Made In USA" Criterion DVD, he lays this one on us: "Made in U.S.A. and 2 or 3 Things have more in common with the visual wit of Michael Bay’s Transformers 2. It is Godard’s bold example that taught Bay to love sound and image. All these films share a visual language and a way of seeing the world that is rooted in an artistic use of technology. What a triple bill." (http://www.nypress.com/article-20101-dvd-review-godard-x-2.html) What's the basis for that statement? He pulls this kind of shit all the time.
America needs Armond White. We need someone who isn't going to fall in line and gush over the latest masterpiece from the trendiest auteurs or favored studio. White is not a troll; he has a well-developed aesthetic and sensibility about cinema. It may not be yours nor mine. But even when I disagree with him I often find that he has an interesting point to make. So why the baying for his blood, the vicious insults every time he disses Pixar or a golden boy like Tarantino? Is your identity and security that dependent on the the uniform adulation of a favored movie? Then you need an iconoclast all the more.
great article. I've had trouble understanding why people get so worked about getting a perfect score on RT. Plus, I like Armond's reviews. He seems to look at movies by seeing what they say about and add to our culture. This view is hard to find with a lot of reviews. Also, you never find these complaints when regarding the other films he reviews – only on the latest, greatest Mainstream movies.
Armond White is head of the NY Critics Circle. I imagine this position was gained by telling his fellow critics that their opinions were wrong in ways that impressed them because they could only barely understand what he was blabbering about – problem is neither does he. His reviews point towards a moral view of films down conservative lines, but closer inspection reveals so many contradictions in his worldview that there is simply no way the man actually believes what he is saying. He really is a pseud, he maintains his position by delibarately being contrarian whilst window dressing his reviews with references to persuade the easily influenced that he has a real intelligent point to make. Its all very annoying.
@Tim
I don't think you should see White's position as NYFCC head as an endorsement by his colleagues. Its a really thankless, unpaid job and many years the circle has a lot of difficulty even filling it. If someone wants to take it no one is going to fight him or her for it. Judging by the intra-critic spats over the last few years, it's clear that White has alienated himself from his peers.
Devin, as someone who works in the same profession, doesn't it irk you that a smug, up-his-own ass reviewer that gets off on calling his reader morons is getting PAID (probably more than almost every web journo out there) to spew this tripe out in major publications? It's like Ben Lyons hosting At The Movies.
I had the same thing happen with another reviewer (Walter Chaw) who seems to dislike certain flicks for the exact same reason – to be contrary. I tried to get over that and give him some room, give him the benefit of the doubt. . .but then the final straw was him giving Inception only two stars (and his use of the phrase "my uninspired eyes in his piece). So I'll simply do what I do with White: never read a single word he has to say again. Life's too short to try to gain any insight from pretentious dickwads.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.