Armond White Now Contrarian Enough to Claim Roger Ebert Destroyed Film Criticism
There are two things you can count on with NY Press film critic Armond White: he loves to go against the tide of popular opinion, and he's not afraid to pick a fight. This time, though, has he gone too far?
White appeared on the /Film podcast last night to discuss film criticism, and when the site's David Chen asked him what he thought of the almost universally beloved Roger Ebert, White launched into his most contrarian broadside yet:
I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all...I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I'VE got the training. And frankly, I don't care how that sounds, but the fact is, I've got the training. I'm a pedigreed film critic. I've studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who've studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he's had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you've ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, let's say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That's what's called being a shill. And it's a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn't practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That's not criticism. That's really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
Ebert himself was relatively sanguine, tweeting a link to the podcast and writing, "Did I act alone in destroying film criticism? Armond won't name a critic he likes other than himself." As for White, I can only hope that he is busy preparing the only attack that can possibly top this one: a brutal, ten-page evisceration of Betty White.
Armond White: "I Do Think It Is Fair To Say That Roger Ebert Destroyed Film Criticism" [Slashfilm]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
He may be right. Ebert is too much of a movie lover to be in the same stodgy category as some highly trained film critic who views films as something to be scientifically dissected and examined.
Armond White is a desperate, attention-seeking contrarian - but he does make a valid point about Roger Ebert. While he has earned (and certainly deserves) his "universal beloved" status - Ebert's thumbs up/thumbs down style of movie-reviewing was the very definition of pandering to the lowest common denominator, short-attention span masses.
Well, he and Gene Siskel had to develop a shorthand for television. A written review and a television review are two vastly different things and they concocted a shorthand system that left a far more lasting impact on public consciousness than any star-rating or number rating has.
If anything, Siskel and Ebert made film criticism more relevant to average moviegoers, at least, more so than it had been before (and certainly since).
Ebert recently lambasted the RottenTomatoes' Tomatometer concept. But I guess you could say Ebert's Thumbs Up/Down was indeed the 1st Tomatometer. I'm glad both Ebert and Armond are honest with themselves though.
So true.
Newspapers are (or were, at one time) read by the masses.
How many "common" movie-goers enjoy hearing someone lambaste or praise a film based on their incredibly educated opinions?
Very few.
If you're reviewing an art-film, go ahead.
But if you're reviewing a popcorn flick? - That demands a slap to the head.
While I agree with White's general point that a film critic isn't just a dude who writes an opinion, I love the silly insinuation that film critics must undergo rigorous training and cannot like the majority of films.
"Today, class, we're going to deconstruct the art of link baiting."
I guess that's supposed to be 'the problem'. I mean, I kinda get what he's saying, but...Armand White sucks. As a reviewer. As a bulls*****r he's amazing, but I feel like the word 'ruined' is kinda broad and shows the desire for attention here. There's probably a more accurate way to describe Roger Ebert's effect.
I prefer a movie critic that has SOME film or stage experience....whether they went to school to study film, to write, or even design costume. At least they know the mechanisms....and Armond, to my dismay, is right. Ebert is a film "lover" and not a true critic.
However, the film critic need not be a film school graduate. One of the best film critics was William Goldman, he wrote a column for Movieline (I think all this is right) and he looked at movies with such a keen eye and wrote about the movies and the actors it definitely made you take a second look.
All that training ... and look at the results.
Contrarians bore me.
The original "Siskel & Ebert" show was brilliant. Two movie lovers who could argue their points well hammering each other without resorting to ugly name calling or "Crossfire"-style theatrics- who didn't dig that?
Movie fans ate it up, and rightfully so. And when the powers that be tried to replicate the formula with different critics, it failed. That speaks to the S&E chemistry.
No wonder White was so eager to lay into Ebert yesterday; two days ago, Ebert wrote a blog post about _Inception_, and in it he dissects some of the negative reviews. He points out the flaws of White's review, totally undermining some of the assertions White makes:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/the_myth_of_a_perfect_film.html
Team Ebert.
You're misrepresenting what he actually wrote about Rotten Tomateos. He was making a thoughtful point about people relying strictly on the Tomatometer rating rather than actually reading reviews:
"There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication. In the area of movies, no phenomenon has dramatized this more than the rise of Rotten Tomatoes. When a movie is running at 100% on the Tomatometer, an inevitable death watch occurs, as readers await the first negative vote. Recently the perfect ratings for "Toy Story 3" and "Inception" were "spoiled" by Armond White. There was outrage. The Twitterverse was in flames. A. O. Scott and 22 others also disliked the film, but it was White who got the attention, because he has been cast as the spoiler. As many actors will tell you, it's more fun to be the villain than the hero. Actually, the Meter on "Inception" is holding at around 84%, but that's small consolation for some of its fans. They require perfection.
It's possible that if the Tomatometer didn't exist Armond White would attract attention only from those readers who actually wanted to read what he wrote. There would be a lot; he's not boring, and is capable of wicked insights. It's also possible that there's a method in the manner he uses to assiduously vote against the grain--which is why the Tomatometer can be mischievous.
In the "open marketplace of ideas," it is believed, the better ones will eventually rise to the top. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are where critics bring their ideas to market, but some readers come only to window-shop. It is a melancholy fact that for some, ideas have been replaced by the Meter reading itself. It doesn't matter nearly so much what anyone actually said, as whether "everyone" agrees with you. "
What difference does it make? To me, no difference, if a person is a so-called "critic" or a "movie lover". Its all subjective. Its one person's opinion. When I watched "Siskel and Ebert" I heard them criticize films, or what to me was their critical opinions about a movie. I didn't know that that didn't make them "critics", I didn't know that they never went to school or took the class's needed to really be a real "critic". And I sure didn't know that it was Roger Ebert who destroyed film criticism. So, I now wonder what it is that I'm reading when I read a "critic's" (the person who has gone to school and taken all the right class's and is a bonified, certified, real "critic")review of a movie. If Mr. Ebert destroyed film criticism, then what am I reading if its not film criticism. Should I not call that person a "flim critic", because it would seem that if "film criticism" has been destroyed then so has the "flim critic". This piece was started with the words: NY Press film critic Armond White, film critic? Now I'm confused, if Mr. White is the one who claimed that Mr. Ebert destroyed film criticism, and by logical conclusion, the film "critic" as well, how can Mr. White be called a film critic? I could keep going, asking question after question, like, "if Mr. Ebert really destroyed film criticism, then when a "critic" write's a review of his opinion of a movie, we can't call it criticism, right?, since film criticism has been destoryed, so do we just call it a "movie review" and therefore call that person a "film reviewer"? It would seem then, to be more appropriate to start this piece, "There are two things you can count on with NY Press film reviewer Armond White: You can't call him a film lover, he is above that, and since film criticism has been destoryed, I like to complete my review of Mr. White's criticism of Mr. Ebert for destorying film criticism by suggesting that all film critic's now be called "film reviewer's", I mean they have to have a title of some sort, right? I also think they should keep the same qualifications, same amount of schooling, classes etc. Well, I've done about all I can do to help resolve this issue and I hope I have helped even if this is just my opinion.
Though outside of their genre, I personally would like to hear Messrs. Ebert's and White's sure-to-be competing critiques of the latest Mel Gibson tape sequel.
Also, I miss John Leonard.
It’s daft to single out Ebert because if according to White his style of reviewing is not right then there are thousands of others who are equally at fault. To me there is a difference between writing an ego inflating review of a movie which dissects every single flaw writing a review for the masses whose only concern is whether the movie will entertain them not whether or not it is an original masterpiece. And let’s be honest most movie goers couldn’t give a hoot if a movie is a remake of such and such or whether the plot device was flawed.
Congrats, everyone! You've all been duped! Armond White isn't a real person. Look really close at the picture above. Armond White is really....Tyler Perry!!!!
He was just trying to aggrevate movie-lovers by creating a crappy hack of a movie critic. And he would've gotten away with it, had it not been for us snooping kids!
Ebert has a Pulitzer. And scene.