tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post1690758044119690231..comments2024-03-12T12:38:23.542-04:00Comments on The Kind of Face You Hate: Our Armond White Problem, and Hisbill r.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-77345133693199416182010-05-07T02:50:08.133-04:002010-05-07T02:50:08.133-04:00I have been visiting various blogs for my term pap...I have been visiting various blogs for my term papers writing research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... RegardsTerm Papershttp://www.usatermpapers.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-1081476364386655692010-03-19T06:44:09.755-04:002010-03-19T06:44:09.755-04:00Fair enough, David E. It's an honor to debate ...Fair enough, David E. It's an honor to debate (and get razzed by) you. Looking forward to your review.<br /><br />Shouldn't that be Craig <i>Ciccone</i>?Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-70718782735761068572010-03-18T22:10:00.610-04:002010-03-18T22:10:00.610-04:00First of all, apologies for coming in so late to t...First of all, apologies for coming in so late to the discussion and using this horrific old Google Account, as apparently it's the only way I can post a comment here.<br /><br />I'd like to chime in with some support for this article as well. I, too, once had hopes for Armond White. He's got an obvious wealth of knowledge regarding cinema history, he comes from an unusual perspective and he certainly appears to have a great amount of passion for the work.<br /><br />But Jesus. It doesn't take long for disillusionment to set in with White. I agree with most of the other comments, and would merely like to add that my personal massive frustration came from his ranting against his two favorite cinematic crimes: cynicism and nihilism.<br /><br />The problem is that White, more than any other critic, exhibits an extraordinarily cynical and nihilistic approach to cinema. His trumpeting of absolute dreck like Little Man and Transformers 2 while systematically slamming P.T. Anderon and Quentin Tarantino, to my mind, comes from a place of extreme cynicism. It's not that I'm angry that he disagrees with me, it's that he disagrees for reasons that are at best obtuse, illogical and poorly stated, at worst as a conscious subverting of the critical norm such that it betrays a cynical manipulation of media to gain his coveted outsider status. <br /><br />And all of that misdirection, that toying with perceptions and engaging so entirely head on with the critical world in general, leaves his beliefs regarding cinema itself meaningless. Nihilistic. Cinema is merely the acrylics he uses to paint his own distorted, contradictory portraits of class warfare, disenfranchisement and abuse. <br /><br />I should also say that I agree with that person over at Glenn Kenny's blog who says that White is now basically being exploited by The NYPress. That rag in general has become a contrarian, reactionary bit of bile-spewing, but White goes above and beyond. I think it's telling that their number one "most read" story on their website has been, for MONTHS now, the insipid and disgusting article wherein a horrific amalgamation of cougar-esque cliches writes a personal ode to why she likes getting screwed by black men only, and paints all black men in the most backward, racist, disgusting way imaginable. <br /><br />They know what gets the hits, and they've sold out all integrity to keep them coming, including allowing a critic who barely even qualifies for that title anymore to continue filling their pages with rubbish and vitriol.<br /><br />He gets to me sometimes, he does, and I agree that it's about time somebody says something.Jake T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18309724089923787456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-51424184723173433042010-03-18T22:09:28.648-04:002010-03-18T22:09:28.648-04:00There's nothing more to say, Craig Madonna. Tu...There's nothing more to say, Craig Madonna. Tug my collar, time to go home. I don't like taking pot-shots at other critics unless they're my friends and in that case it's ribbing. I have never written a bad word about Hoberman, a former colleague, in my life (and check out my very long and very breathless discussion of The Dream Life, one of the best books about film and culture I've ever read, with A.O. Scott in Slate) and so I really DON'T have a dog in the fight between him and Armond. As for Armond, I suspect I am just as much the object of his "official" contempt as anyone. He once asked if his readers knew one intelligent person who liked--and he named three films. I liked two of them. I went for a few years without talking to him and then patched things up and now really respect him for standing up to films like The Departed and many many many of the bad films in this year's New York Film Festival (programmed by Hoberman and three current or ex Voice colleagues). He and I were lone voices on behalf of Gentlemen Broncos. I wish, as I've told him, he didn't frame every piece as about a masterpiece the corrupt critical establishment ignored or a piece of crap the corrupt critical establishment praised--not because it's not sometimes true but because it has become reflexive for him (and often I consider myself directly insulted). Do I condone what he wrote about Baumbach or Hoberman? No. Would I have vocally and strenuously objected if he'd been kept out of Greenberg? Yes. (I did, actually.) Do I think he went a little hard on Greenberg? Emphatically. Do I think Hoberman went a little easy on Greenberg? Emphatically. When will my review be up? Soon. Is anyone even still reading thisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-27242235965571103172010-03-18T21:43:47.224-04:002010-03-18T21:43:47.224-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jake T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18309724089923787456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-48048028767751241032010-03-18T19:06:07.343-04:002010-03-18T19:06:07.343-04:00Dennis,
I guess the difference for me is that Da...Dennis, <br /><br /><i>I guess the difference for me is that David Edelstein is not using column inches in his actual reviews as a pulpit for interacting, however positively or negatively, with those with whom he may have issues. When he has called someone out or joined in an argument, it's been in the comments column of a blog, where the tenor of the comments are often dictated by the blog itself, and where the comments column itself is designed for such exchanges.</i> <br /><br />We're actually in agreement there. You're right, Edelstein usually doesn't waste space on that sort of thing in his own writing. (I may be thinking more about <a href="http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2009/11/if-you-say-so-dear/" rel="nofollow">others</a> in that regard.) I just find his comments -- and even his blog-writing -- disappointing compared to the quality of his criticism.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-78998276751928011852010-03-18T17:41:09.708-04:002010-03-18T17:41:09.708-04:00Craig, I guess the difference for me is that David...Craig, I guess the difference for me is that David Edelstein is not using column inches in his actual reviews as a pulpit for interacting, however positively or negatively, with those with whom he may have issues. When he has called someone out or joined in an argument, it's been in the comments column of a blog, where the tenor of the comments are often dictated by the blog itself, and where the comments column itself is designed for such exchanges. And however I may or may not feel about his comments on the <i>Voice</i> blog or his official response in his own blog, at least that's where he chose to make it public-- a blog, not tucked into a review or a piece written for <i>New York</i> magazine.<br /><br />Full disclosure: I, like you, admire Edelstein's writing a lot-- I have ever since his apparently beleaguered <i>Voice</i> days. And I also consider him a friend, though I know next to nothing about his history with the main players in this drama. So I may not be the least biased person to speak on this issue. But I will say I'd take Edelstein and his writing, and his way of going about expressing his feelings regarding these sorts of weird personal fracases (or should that be fricasees? Fricassi?) over White's boorish manner and graceless writing any day.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-16320573412568043192010-03-18T17:05:54.347-04:002010-03-18T17:05:54.347-04:00I read a couple of comments over at Glenn Kenny...I read a couple of comments over at Glenn Kenny's site that put forward the idea that the NY Press's continued publication of White essentially amounts to exploitation. This is an interesting idea that I hadn't considered, and depends, I suppose, on how truly warped you think the guy is.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-981447849730286692010-03-18T16:12:46.802-04:002010-03-18T16:12:46.802-04:00Dennis,
I wouldn’t presume to speak for any of Wh...Dennis,<br /><br /><i>I wouldn’t presume to speak for any of White’s colleagues who have been pinned with the “Paulette” label, but I think it’s entirely possible that those writers to whom Pauline Kael was important may have feelings on the matter, ambiguous or not so ambiguous, and have just made the decision to, as Tom says White should have, let the work speak for itself.</i><br /><br />I hope you're right. What bothers me, though, is they're typically not shy about calling out colleagues who have done a lot less harm (and are far better writers) than White. Edelstein, in particular, has been a disappointment with his comments at the <i>Voice</i>'s site, when all Hoberman did was support a claim with factual evidence. (What used to be called journalism.) He'll take on Hoberman for that, or Georgia Brown for something she did a zillion years ago, or Glenn Kenny for an offhanded remark about Pauline Kael, or a random commenter like Bill over at your blog....yet with Armond's long-term pattern of behavior, the best he can do is <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/movies/2010/03/white_vs_hoberman_my_take.html" rel="nofollow">tug at his shirt-collar like Rodney Dangerfield.</a> It's a feeble refusal to acknowledge the obvious.<br /><br />And I <i>like</i> Edelstein as a critic. I like reading most of the Paulettes -- for their fearless commitment, if nothing else, so why are they suddenly bashful now? I guess what I'm saying is what somebody suggested elsewhere: Armond needs an intervention. He needs a little help from his friends.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-90054036726273174662010-03-18T15:22:04.455-04:002010-03-18T15:22:04.455-04:00Well said sir,
Its funny, White first came to my ...Well said sir,<br /><br />Its funny, White first came to my attention when I read an interview he did at the De Palma retrospective praising Mission To Mars. <br /><br />That really should have been a sign right there. <br /><br />The problem with White is he's a film critic who made his names by taking bold unpopular opinions, and then just decided to take the film critic part out of his title. <br /><br />For him being in the minority is an endgame, not a result. <br /><br />My solution is to take a giant jar and place both White and Schiekel in it, shake it, and then watch them fight. <br /><br />Who will win?<br /><br />We will.<br /><br />And yes I'll be happy to go on Glen Beck and defend my giant jar fights to the death position.Bryce Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17040954580033470664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-88357424827600767032010-03-18T14:48:37.533-04:002010-03-18T14:48:37.533-04:00This whole incident just points up the desperation...This whole incident just points up the desperation of major media outlets to be heard and make money. When Glenn Beck, a man with an open history of mental problems, becomes the leading spokesperson for his network; when "liberal" media commentator Eric Alterman wishes on camera that the sleazy Lee Atwater had been on "our" side instead of the GOP's; when Ann Coulter, a best-selling author for her publisher, is called out by conservatives because her "fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value"; when professional rich flip-flopper Arianna Huffington runs the most popular "liberal" blog in America by giving play to Deepak Chopra's trenchant analysis of the Iraq War and refusing to pay <i>anyone</i> for anything - well, Mr. White is relatively small potatoes.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18263230958297383590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-80027482759964518622010-03-18T13:35:41.526-04:002010-03-18T13:35:41.526-04:00Craig said: “Speaking of sycophants, it's reve...Craig said: “Speaking of sycophants, it's revealing as ever that Armond's fellow Paulettes remain conspicuously silent over his shenanigans. I can sympathize with the impulse to defend a friend, but you'd think a pack of good writers like them would at least object on an aesthetic level to his prose.”<br /> <br />I wouldn’t presume to speak for any of White’s colleagues who have been pinned with the “Paulette” label, but I think it’s entirely possible that those writers to whom Pauline Kael was important may have feelings on the matter, ambiguous or not so ambiguous, and have just made the decision to, as Tom says White should have, let the work speak for itself. If White felt he was sole occupant of the high road to begin with, then he should have continued on his way, let sleeping rabid dogs lie and not commented on any of it. Unfortunately, he seems unable to do that, and any defense on his part, let alone one as perforated with contradiction and illogical passages as the one he offered, is going make him look worse.<br /> <br />I’m certainly only speculating, but White’s take-no-prisoners attitude in his writing may have created a wall between him and even those one might presume would find reason to sympathize him on even a level of camaraderie. Perhaps his obvious desire to use the pretense of a review as a launching pad for ill-considered and often random-seeming comparisons and, much worse, personal attacks—the specific kind, like the ones on Baumbach, and the more general kind, where he vilifies fellow critics in print as blind or corrupt or otherwise lacking in proper stature and awareness if they don’t see things his way-- have made other critics realize the lack of up-side in getting involved in trying to defend White’s writing. In a situation like this, silence can be just as damning as a blistering retort. It seems Hoberman understands this as well, given his short, bemused response.<br /><br />By the way, as one who has taken certain critics to task on my own blog, and has mentioned and responded to other critical responses to films as part of digesting and expressing my own point of view, I might myself be expected to be sympathetic to White’s tendency to drag others into his own arguments. But I like to think I’ve done so without resorting to the kind of denigration and humiliation (which goes hand in hand with placing oneself on a pedestal) that seems to be such an integral part of White’s scorched-earth manner of reviewing films. And I think you’re right, Bill—any critic’s perspective is out there in the culture for a reason, and I think responding to those points of view is fair game. The only way I can conceive of to understand the objections of those who complain when a writer engages the points of view of others, one which definitely seems on point here, is if that writer were to take a contradictory, defensive, mean-spirited stance without adequately and cogently expressing his/her own view and backing it up properly with evidence taken directly from the screen. How well White does this ought to be enough of a determining factor as to whether he’s a good critic. The rest of this is just an increasingly unpleasant freak show.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-19792376741203221952010-03-18T11:55:03.331-04:002010-03-18T11:55:03.331-04:00Tom, I didn't say your comment was meaningless...Tom, I didn't say your comment was meaningless -- I said my response to it had been rendered meaningless. Sorry for the confusion.<br /><br />Anyway, as you implied in the comment you deleted, White puts it out there, and he sets it up in a way that "excuses", if that's the way you want to look at it, these sorts of responses. Besides that, I see no problem at all with criticizing the critics, and the core of my whole post was his actual writing. I went beyond that here and there, but the bulk of what I say here was directed at what you consider the only aspect of Armond White that is fair game.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-73924923442423140062010-03-18T11:41:42.561-04:002010-03-18T11:41:42.561-04:00It's like he knew no one was going to buy it, ...<i>It's like he knew no one was going to buy it, so he decided to add a layer of confusion, as well.</i><br /><br />Exactly. And also this:<br /><br />At best, White's initial abortion comment has been misinterpreted from its intent because he wrote it in such a vague way that it left itself wide open to alternate interpretations. (That's bad writing, but never mind.) White's defense is that anyone who is intelligent wouldn't have thought the statement is vague at all. So what better way to defend the first line than by using an equally cryptic phrase. It's as if White is saying: "If you didn't get what I meant the first time, and now you still don't get it, it's because you're a moron."<br /><br />So, that said, I disagree with Craig. I think you're right the first time: A vast majority of the time White doesn't mean what he says, first because he often doesn't understand what he's saying, and second because there's a pattern here that suggests he often has an intent (being contrary, say) that's counter to what he articulates as his intent ("I have no interest in being contrary.").<br /><br />Of course, sure, sometimes White says exactly what he thinks and means it (Baumbach is an "asshole"), even if later he tries to change the definition. But the pattern with him is stuff like, "I say I'm reviewing <i>Caroline</i> but really I'm talking about this film only in an effort to slam Pixar."<br /><br />OK. I'm done ranting.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-70271663990824193742010-03-18T11:33:17.623-04:002010-03-18T11:33:17.623-04:00Bill:
I'm saying that Armond White's issu...Bill:<br /><br />I'm saying that Armond White's issues are his own, and that if anyone is in a position to engage him on this matter it's Noah Baumbach and/or his moms. It's nobody else's business.<br /><br />What does it say about the FilmCrit community that we can, with little self-reflection, raise our voices <i>en masse</i> like courtiers defending the honor of their sovereign, to avenge a wholly <i>personal</i> insult one of us has rendered unto a movie director; as if his interests were in no way dissimilar to ours (which, as an institutional matter, they ought to be, otherwise no critic has a jot of credibility).<br /><br />As for the analogous example you cite, no, I think not much, if anything, would be said in that instance.<br /><br />I deleted my earlier comment, 'meaningless' as it was, because on re-reading it I found that I'd been a bit too direct in my remarks, which I should not have been, as it's something that normally gets me into a lot of trouble I really can't afford. My standing on this field of play is admittedly pretty dismal, I don't need to be further condemned for not knowing my place; for speaking out of turn in the presence of those above my station.TAShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15630234799410505676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-10941469663499925972010-03-18T11:08:54.849-04:002010-03-18T11:08:54.849-04:00Bill,
A couple of things even though this is prob...Bill,<br /><br />A couple of things even though this is probably tired and you're tired and I'm kind of tired, but I'll write it anyway.<br /><br />I think one of the reasons White was banned from Greenberg had nothing to do with "abortion" comment and everything to do with the fact that his reviews are less "critique" and more personal attacks. That's just not good criticism. So for that reason, I dismiss the argument that this is publicists and critics getting in bed with eachother.<br /><br />Second, and you made mention to this, I do like all this bitch slappery because there's far too little of it now a days. We need more of this stuff. Too often we shy away from confrontation such as this, so I'm glad it's still alive and well.<br /><br />Third, this is a classic example of where we are now. The "abortion" comment could be dismissed earlier because people didn't "chat" the way they do now. And instead of White owning up to it, he tries to defend it with idiotic banter. <br /><br />Fourth and final, this is a very well thought out piece. And thanks to Jason for turning me on to it.PIPERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13054305230216613759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-66034036995384856242010-03-18T10:54:45.091-04:002010-03-18T10:54:45.091-04:00Bill - Impossible to understand is how academics a...Bill - Impossible to understand is how academics and lawyers have kept themselves in business. I don't know how many academic papers I've have to unscramble for publication. Speaking in a specialist language is nothing new. We've got a guy in town named Ray Pride whose helium-filled prose drives me crazy. I personally think the subject of your post never learned how to write well.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18263230958297383590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-43899771060014288682010-03-18T10:50:19.375-04:002010-03-18T10:50:19.375-04:00Marilyn - once I figure out how to do that, I will...Marilyn - once I figure out how to do that, I will.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-1000762027667959312010-03-18T10:47:17.861-04:002010-03-18T10:47:17.861-04:00Well, Tom deleted his comment, so my response to h...Well, Tom deleted his comment, so my response to him is meaningless now, I guess. But it was only partially meaningless before, I promise.<br /><br />Marilyn - Thanks. That really was the impetus to write this: White's twisted use of language. I can't believe anybody in the world of professional journalism -- I mean editors, not just White (and also readers, while I'm at it) -- can possibly let this sort of writing fly. People don't know what good writing is anymore. It's like they've been bullied into thinking that if it's impossible to understand, that must mean it's good.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-91931995077490905652010-03-18T10:42:39.303-04:002010-03-18T10:42:39.303-04:00I think he has issues beyond his bad writing. I...I think he has issues beyond his bad writing. I've seen this kind of behavior before.<br /><br />And Bill, sign-in on this site is difficult for me because of the plethora of passwords I can no longer keep track of. If you can add sign in by name/url like Greg has on his site, I'd very much appreciate it.<br /><br />MarilynUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18263230958297383590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-33432596965040191062010-03-18T10:39:34.249-04:002010-03-18T10:39:34.249-04:00Craig - I probably should have shortened my point ...Craig - I probably should have shortened my point to merely "he doesn't care what he means", which I think is as close to accurate as I'm likely to get regarding White. He doesn't think that what he says matters, except when he says it matters. He can abuse people all day long -- and does -- but he doesn't think anyone should care about that, at least beyond finding it all terribly witty. To get distracted by his call for a filmmakers abortion is to be illiterate.<br /><br />Tom - I don't know about that. You don't think that if, say, Dave Kehr (a name I pulled out of the hat; pick someone you don't find so contrarian, which might be subjective anyway) had suggested Lars von Trier's (ibid) mother have a retroactive abortion, nobody would have said anything? And if you think yes, but not at anywhere the same level, don't you also believe that the uproar surrounding White's article has more to do with White's history of exactly this sort of thing?<br /><br />I didn't need anybody to tell me that something was wrong with Armond White -- I've read enough of his stuff over the years to come to that conclusion on my own. And while I realize you're not saying otherwise, how can you not see the justification, based on his past statements, and calling for someone's abortion (I know, it was a joke...) in calling White out on this sort of thing?<br /><br />You really don't think White has issues beyond his bad writing?bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-41607024634741398302010-03-18T10:25:22.824-04:002010-03-18T10:25:22.824-04:00Bill - This is a great piece, but from my point of...Bill - This is a great piece, but from my point of view, not because it takes on a specific person. What you give here is an excellent primer on writing - how to do it well, how to do it badly, how to sift through a quagmire of words for meaning or meaninglessness. This is exactly what every school should teach every child so they don't get snowed by the millions of messages designed to do just that and learn to reason and think for themselves. When a writer makes sense only once in a while, or for two sentences in a review, that only goes to show that a 12-hour clock tells the right time twice a day. I'm really starting to believe that people like this are neurotic at best, and psychotic at worst. These days, such people are being given platforms in the media and politics from which to foment insanity. As former actress Nancy Davis said, "Just say 'no'."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18263230958297383590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-16522557362115331972010-03-18T10:21:49.244-04:002010-03-18T10:21:49.244-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.TAShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15630234799410505676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-90408823305218367162010-03-18T10:07:24.927-04:002010-03-18T10:07:24.927-04:00Thanks for doing this, Bill. I'd considered go...Thanks for doing this, Bill. I'd considered going through the piece with an editor's comb myself, but the mere thought was making me physically ill.<br /><br />I only disagree with one point: I think Armond means exactly what he says - at least up to the moment he says it. How else to explain how he can deny calling Baumbach an asshole in one sentence only to call him an asshole in another one? White's rhetorical question about halfway into the screed -- "So what if I said something rude?" -- is actually his most revealing statement. It's not much of an argument, but at least it's honest.<br /><br />Like you, I'm frustrated that he lets vitriol overwhelm his more salient points. His accusation that Hoberman doesn't bother with "black films" may have some validity. I went through Hoberman's list of reviews (as did coincidentally Andrew over at Film Brain) and found only two out of nearly a thousand: <i>Killer of Sheep</i> and <i>When the Levees Broke</i> (though he loved both). Too bad Armond uses it as a cheap race card, and then contradicts it by insinuating that Hoberman and his minions are behind the glorification of <i>Precious</i>.<br /><br />Speaking of sycophants, it's revealing as ever that Armond's fellow Paulettes remain conspicuously silent over his shenanigans. I can sympathize with the impulse to defend a friend, but you'd think a pack of good writers like them would at least object on an <i>aesthetic</i> level to his prose.<br /><br />Regarding Hoberman, I'm only remotely familiar with his work and was hitherto unaware of his imperial dominance over the critical establishment. I will say that he seems engaged with foreign films more than any critic in the business. And tracking down Armond White's abortion piece was simply good detective work. I imagine Robert Downey, Jr.'s character in <i>Zodiac</i> shaking his head in admiration and muttering, "The fuckin' library."Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-36714602556031787862010-03-18T08:51:45.295-04:002010-03-18T08:51:45.295-04:00Jason - Thanks very much, though I should remind e...Jason - Thanks very much, though I should remind everyone that I did resort to calling White bitter and hateful and small, which, while accurate, I maybe should have avoided.<br /><br />As for the "natal congratulation" line...yeah, it honestly took me a while to figure out what the hell he was saying there. When I originally planned to write this, I was going to approach that explanation from the angle of complete mystification (as opposed to complete dishonesty). But then the tumblers fell into place, and I was able to decode it. Either way, you're absolutely correct that he couldn't have made his "explanation" more obscure. It's like he knew no one was going to buy it, so he decided to add a layer of confusion, as well.<br /><br />And your point about the general status of newspapers, not just film critics, is very well taken, and I hadn't even thought about that part.<br /><br />Jake - <i>I've known people to defend White on the basis of the occasionally insightful criticism he's capable of, but how can you even be sure now that even the seemingly astute pieces are written from a place of honesty</i>...<br /><br />That's exactly it. I used to read White without irony, or try to, for just those moments, but after a while, you start to think "Well, I don't believe a word of any of <i>this</i>, but I believe <i>this</i> part, because I agree with it." White has so thoroughly soiled everything that you can't treat him like another critic, with whom you're going to agree and disagree with from time to time, because you're both human beings. Nothing he says can be taken at face value, so I can't give him credit anymore for the stuff I like.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.com