Getting to the Bottom of the Great Armond White/Greenberg Meltdown of 2010
So why even screen the film for White at all at this point? After all, you have to know that enacting such a dramatic measure could polarize White's peers way more than he ever could himself. And indeed, the backlash is on, with one anonymous, currently circulating screed encouraging a boycott of Greenberg and all of Rudin and Focus's respective upcoming films. That'll never happen, but the impression is made nevertheless that Greenberg is on the defensive or just plain bad. And it's not. It's a little precious and dramatically suspect at times, but Greta Gerwig (right) is stellar in her mainstream acting debut. The thought that she should endure repercussions for what (publicly, anyway) amounts to a strategic statement against White is just... unpleasant.
"I just felt that he crossed the line," Dart said. "He was personally attacking someone he had no personal knowledge of. And I just didn't see why you would reward that behavior. He can see the movie, he can write his review."
This has happened before with another of White's bêtes noires, Spike Lee, but White told me cooler heads prevailed. "In the case of Spike Lee's films," White wrote in an e-mail, "the problem was resolved by studio publicists who swiftly, courteously, professionally allowed me the access that the personal publicist had withheld." He also called his treatment "shocking and disrespectful --to me and the profession," adding: "This seems like a case of 'If they can do it to me, they'll do it to you!' As a Journalism school grad and a practicing critic, I've got to say I'm appalled."
As for the Greenberg team's implicit certainty that White will dislike the movie, the critic responded: "I give every film I see a fair viewing. Publicists and critics have a special symbiosis: they promote, we write. Critics must be free to write their honest responses. Don't get it twisted: Publicists who try to control what critics write disrespect the profession and do a disservice to the public."
So anyway, that's that. I hope White likes it, for everybody's sake. Because seriously -- Greta Gerwig, I'm not even kidding.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Well, he's not "one of the first people to see this film," right? They did premiere it at a major film festival, like, last month?
"I give every film I see a fair viewing."
Forgive me if I remain skeptical of White's unbiased opinion of films made by someone he wishes to see aborted. Dearest Armond, you're 100% entitled to think Baumbach is an asshole, and he's 100% entitled to not invite you to the first ever screening of 'Greenberg'. Move along.
Love him or hate him, at least he has an opinion. I'm so tired of the drivel and pablum that substitutes as film criticism that most critics write in exchange for studio swag or trips or gifts. I mean for crying out load, when you see critics proclaiming Transformers as the "best action film of the year", ya gotta know they ain't doin it for nothin'!
You obviously never read Armond White's love letter to "Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen." The opening paragraph of his review: "WHY WASTE SPLEEN on Michael Bay? He’s a real visionary—perhaps mindless in some ways (he’s never bothered filming a good script), but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof he has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement. Bay’s ability to shoot spectacle makes the Ridley-Tony-Jake Scott family look like cavemen."
I swear, White seems to write all of his reviews based on what will give the most coverage not to the film or the review, but to himself. Stu nailed it, he is a contrarian. While every critic was getting scoliosis trying to bend over backwards for "Preciious" he dumped on it. And that "Transformers" review clinches it; it was universally loathed by critics so he becomes distinguished from the crowd by finding it worthwhile.
The result is you cannot give his reviews any credence because it needs to be filtered through the prism of what grants him better PR.
Can Dart point out any specific instance in an interview or on a blog where Armond White directly said Baumbach's parents should abort him? Because it's not in the interview you linked to (though the "asshole" comments are). When Googling around, I can only find it regurgitated as hearsay in blog comment sections.
The abortion comment, apparently from a 1998 review of "Mr. Jealousy":
"I won't comment on Baumbach's deliberate, onscreen references to his former film-reviewer mother except to note how her colleagues now shamelessly bestow reviews as belated nursery presents. To others, Mr. Jealousy might suggest retroactive abortion."
I don't blame the publicist for witholding an invite to the screening from a guy who actively hates and maligns her client.
Note to Mr. White: first amendment rights protect you from governmental censorship, not from private censorship. In fact, the same first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of association (per Supreme Court interpretation) which means, "I can put together any group of folks I desire and am granted that right BY the government." So technically Ms. Dart is exercising HER first amendment rights.
Go find something else to be bitter about.
The focus on whether or not Armond White seriously called for Baumbach's abortion is beside the point: he clearly has a personal animus against the director and his family: http://tinyurl.com/yjtkgew
Now, he may honestly think Noah Baumbach's films are terrible, but that's beside the point: standard journalistic practice is that when you have a conflict of interests like this in any situation, you step down and let someone else deal with it. By continuing to review Baumbach's films and pretending he's the victim when he gets barred from a film screening for this unprofessional behaviour, White is tacitly admitting that he's not a journalist any more but is in fact some sort of internet lightning rod designed to attract people to his columns by posting obviously indefensible stuff.
I have a lot of sympathy for the beleaguered critical fraternity these days, but it's not worth going to bat for White on this issue because he is so clearly in the wrong. And nobody has a First Amendment right to catch a preview screening of a film, for god's sake.