Am not blogging on the site much these days as most of my time is occupied in producing the show – but I can’t stop myself from mentioning this absurd petition to ban critic Armond White from Rotten Tomatoes:
Ban Armond White from Rotten Tomatoes!
Armond is a friend of the show – he’s been on a couple of times:
TFT 105 – AVATAR with Glenn Kenny and Armond White
TFT 99 – A CHRISTMAS CAROL and Armond White
and I say absurd, because doesn’t the idea of banning someone from this critic-aggregating site due to their contra-majority views defeat the whole purpose of the ‘Tomatometer’!
We love having Armond on precisely because his views do differ from the majority of corporate criticism – and, more importantly he has ideas - theories, and personal insights that, while often disagreeing with them, I always find to be valuable in their thought provoking nature – my criticism is better as a result of hearing where he’s coming from.
I know the Petitioner is a young guy so I’ll cut him some slack – but it seems to me that we have a whole generation of folks who’ve been raised since the cold-war’s end who, raised in a world where there is no visibly prominent alternative to Capitalism, see, however unconsciously, criticism as inherently promotional – in fact, everything, and everyone, has to constantly sell itself/themselves – because there’s nowhere else to go/no other way of being – and folks like Armond rock the boat – in fact his very presence is threatening to this lock-step world of praise that… oh forget it – am off on a rant here -
Anyhew, I see they’re getting closer to their goal of 500 signatures, (what happens then – Rotten Tomatoes is bound by law to kick him off?); Why not head over there to the forum and tell the folks what you think – even if you disagree with what I’m saying – cause isn’t that the point – discussion – argument – ideas clashing – criticism people!:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by moviecritter: RT @thefilmtalk Today’s Question: Why do people want to ban this critic from Rotten Tomatoes? http://bit.ly/cFSr7X…
meh, sheeple…isn't suppression of the individual a communistic trait?? i know, i know, it's only freedom of expression if it's YOUR expression…i hate the very idea of 'banning' someone because they don't share the mainstream view in ANYthing – and why would a site, dedicated to OPINIONS, oust someone FOR THEIR OPINION?? feh…i found Mr. White to be very intelligent and entertaining when he was on the show; i've even read a few of his reviews – so i'm at a loss as to what people are on about…now, i'm going to read the discussion board on and surely get my blood boiling before breakfast! ;)
After having Armond as a guest on our show it became so clear that, unlike many people's opinion, he's not a troll. It just kinda shocks me that people just don't get it – he's viewing movies as art objects – and when you do that you open yourself up to all sorts of possibilities – folks are just being too narrow.
From listening to Armond on the show, while you may disagree with his views, he does at least have arguments to back up his views.
If he were just going around saying “this movie stinks”, with no ideas or support as to why he think it stinks, then I think the backlash would be justified. But he doesn't do that. You may still not agree with him when he's finished explaining why, but at the very very least, he will thoughtfully explain why.
Sorry Jett but I strongly disagree.
Surely that recognizing films as art and treating them as such is a pre-requisite to being a film critic? On your show I found it interesting that when White was asked about his reputation for contrariness, his only recourse was to say that he dealt with films as art objects (and, by implication, that nobody else does).
His critical stance on the majority of releases is far, far too against the grain for it to be anything but self-conscious. Case in point: http://tinyurl.com/qkf8pv
Whilst I'll happily concede that he should never be banned from any avenue of discourse, and he is an eloquent writer/speaker, I'd hesitate before giving him too much credit.
Hi Adam, no need to apologize! ;)
Re: “Surely that recognizing films as art and treating them as such is a pre-requisite to being a film critic?” – that sounds great – but if you said that to most of the critics on RT i think you'd get a blank stare.
+ i don't think that Armond implied that others don't see films as art – what i got out of that comment was his frustration with people who don't see the possibilities of cinema as an artform.
+ re: http://tinyurl.com/qkf8pv = i think that list speaks for itself, in that the person whose made the list has separated the columns into “good” and “bad” – again i really get the feeling that some of the armond-haters really have a narrow definition of cinema, (it's like their idea of the movies began with Pulp Fiction); they don't' see the value in having an inquisitive, searching and curious mind that can find see stuff in 'bad' films that makes them much more interesting, relevant and powerful than what is deemed 'good' cinema.
I can't believe you're taking this seriously. Don't waste your time on angry internet men and their petitions. (Just take a look at some of the other petitions on that site.)
also, i was thinking…you know, since film talk began i have to say that 99.9% of the time (+/- 1% for margin of error) i have disagreed with Gareth, and maybeeee .05% diagreed w/you, Jett (mostly regarding Australia being better w/Gone With the Wind, and well, w/both of ya'll on A.I. ;) ) – point is I DISAGREED WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION! does that in ANY way mean that i should discredit the good professor doctor's work? NO FREAKING WAY! Should i sit back and list out all of his documented opinions and say 'oh well, he only likes to see the underlying religious themes and approach violence in movies (which i love) as to whether it's gratuitous or not – this means I discount everything, because he does it on purpose and is a contraian to violence (which i hold dear)!' meh, no, i should not. Just because i don't agree w/Gareth's view, (i seriously did NOT mean this to sound like i was picking on him btw – I heart teh Gareth Higgins, seriously!!!) does not mean that i don't feel he's an invaluable asset to the Loe/Higgins critiquing team! In fact, i LIKE hearing other's opinions that differ from mine, because what if i missed something? what if i'm looking at the art piece and missing the point that the artist was trying to make?! what if i missed THE JOKE?! sigh…oops, sorry, this went on a little too long, but those people irked me! :)
Am sure you're right chris, maybe I should just take a deep, refreshing breath!
Armond for President!
Thanks for the reply Jett.
RottenTomatoes is an aggregator for critics from the international press. I wouldn't want to speak for them, but I can guess with some degree of confidence that they too treat film as art.
I have no doubt White is deliberately contrary. Although you astutely rubbish the diagram, looking at his profile on RT it becomes clear he has gone against the critical community on 90% of his reviews.
On a related point, film is also a commercial enterprise. People look to critics for recommendations on how to spend their hard-earned money, and their precious time, when going to the cinema. The purpose of a film review in a publication like The New york Press is to help readers be selective in their film viewing. This may be conjecture, but it appears that he self-consciously goes against the grain in order to open up conversation about cinema or challenge mainstream opinion. Whilst this is admirable, and I would argue necessary, his working (see above) is far too transparent. This is the crux of my problem with White: by being self-consciously contrary, no matter how noble the intention, he is ignoring his responsibility as a professional film critic. Imagine you took his recommendation on a film like Norbit or Meet Dave – how ripped off would you feel?
I hear ya Adam, but i never saw White as as resource for recommending which movies to see – just like I wouldn't read Dave Thomson for recommendations to see flicks but enjoyed his essay on Alien 4. I don't live in NY so I don't know if the function of the NY Press is to recommend flicks – there's an infinite amount of film reviews out on the net that do that and i find people that have ideas about film to be far more valuable then those who just say “Go see it”
re: the contrarian thing – as i said over in Reddit, other than Francis Coppola, (who has to be one of the sweetest, most modest people i've spoken to), White has been of the nicest, most sincere guests we've had on the show. When he praises the artistry of the director of THIS IS IT he is being genuine – he really sees what he sees – and while i often don't engage with his views, (his attack on Winterbottom in his RED RIDING piece for instance), nothing in my interaction with him or that i've read suggests that, in the words of Roger Ebert “he's a troll”.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Being a critic is fine, as long as you have evidence to back it up, which Mr. White doesn't have. He just rambles about random, trivial information that has nothing to do with the topic in attempt to make it look like a “review”. So why do we want him banned? Simple; he's an idiot. In his infamous Toy Story 3 review, he has many mistakes, from mispelling character names to making factual errors when it comes to important plot elements. All this suggests he wasn't really looking to review the movie, just a cheap excuse to give it a bad rating, contrary to everyone else. He can troll somehwere else.
The plot element thing is interesting in his review of TOY STORY 3 = since he refers to the Pig as a villain is it possible that he saw just the opening and closing minutes in which Mr.Hamm of the pic??
What is more illustrative and informative to me though are comments like : “excuse to give it a bad rating” – with a focus on the word 'rating' – his columns are containers for ideas – yes they can be sloppy – rushed with typos – but they have IDEAS – almost no one else does and for that reason alone I'm a fan of White.
Rating a film with stars or thumbs or percentages obviously has value if you have to make a quick decision while standing in front of a Theatre Employee asking what you want a ticket for – but otherwise i want some insight – insight damn it – is that too much to ask -
What's the big deal that Toy Story 3 could only get a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes? Who cares? 98% is great!
In terms of White's reviews being a guide for the common person, I think that's BS. I believe that one should find their specific critic that they can relate to, and not necessarily agree or disagree with. Someone out there may have actually enjoyed Armond White's review and found it helpful. Although, I doubt anyone will out themselves as a White supporter.
But there is something fishy going on. The link that adam1985 provided says what everyone seems to be in an uproar about. I mean, he liked Death Race? Really? I guess anyone can truly argue their point to liking and justifying any film's artistic merit. I'm certainly guilty of this. I think Pootie Tang is a glorious mock-Blaxploitation Sampson and Delilah story directed by the greatest living stand-up comedian working today.
i think you miss the point. armond's reviews don't contain any real ideas — just excuses for his final stance. see, armond begins with the final opinion (he will either trash it or love it), and then proceeds to validate that opinion in extremely confusing, often insulting logic, which sometimes makes some sense and sometimes does not. i would point to his TS3 review, in which he claims that the film is “drivel” (his ending opinion), and NEVER ONCE backs that conclusion up with any significant thoughts. he complains of product placement with no hint of irony in the fact that his counter-recommendation is Transformers, a movie about nothing but products. he insults the audience for being suckered into accepting the drivel, yet never explains why accepting the film's sentiments and emotions is being suckered. saying things like that don't contribute to a culture of true film criticism. they only perpetuate a negative atmosphere in which there truly is a “right” and “wrong” view on film. you see, you're defending a man who would stand to abolish all real thought on film if given the chance.
i don't want to ban armond white for holding “contra-majority views.” i want to ban him for holding them WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. i don't want a world in which nobody disagrees with me. on the contrary, i want a world in which those people in disagreement with me can provide TRUE REASONS for that disagreement, so that it fosters actual discourse on film.
i want him banned because he doesn't reflect any kind of real discourse on film. he only serves to better himself through negativity. ironic that he complains so much about the “shills” in the media who abandon real thought for corporate favoritism, because his entire modus operandi is to abandon real discourse for website hits. ironic, also, that he hates hipsters so much — when his entire existence is based upon being a contrarian, the very idea behind hipsterism.
i really believe you should rethink your defense of this man. he's only taking advantage of you and of all of us for being so in love with film. i'm not sure he likes movies. yes, he really does know a lot about them. but i'm not sure he likes them. truly, i'm not a fanboy by any means (although i'm sure many people think i am), but if somebody can watch Toy Story 3 and not feel something profound, there's no way in hell that person truly loves cinema.
ah well, i'll just keep on keepin on. it's like he's become my “white” whale.
This is an interesting thread. I suppose I'm inspired to weigh in finally because, though I only know AWhite via his TFT appearances, your succinct comment perfect captures my experience of those appearances: 'his entire existence is based upon being a contrarian…'
Whatever that means with regards to 'hipsterism' it gave me pause to reflect on the difficult task it is to be a contrarian. There may be a lot of strange territories and bizarre inconsistencies to navigate if your starting point is embracing the NO! of existence and its structures (even the structures of capital letters?;). But maybe a very different set of ideas can be mined there. This is what I found to be intriguing about AWhite. There's something about the sound of his ideas when he talks about movies that is different. And it made me think differently when I listened to him.
I suppose one approach to negating this reviewer's contributions would be to “out-contrarian” him to the point of banning him — call him an “error” and apply liberal dosages of “white”-out. But doesn't that sound an awful lot like using the same methods against him, in the extreme, that we were so worked up about him using against films in the first place?
I've already said a lot on the topic – but i'll say it again just for emphasis – if you listen to Armond's appearances on our show you'll hear a man that's passionate and good humored – he doesn't seem to be the 'contrarian' portrayed in all the 'haters gonna hate' posts – i'd ask folks who don't care for his work why they are so defensive about certain films – can it be they don't want to acknowledge that wer'e in a time of cultural decline in the west and that our popular culture just isn't very good?
(i reminded of this whenever i watch a film from the 70's – not CLASSICS mind you like Chinatown – but just middlebrow, ordinary pics – even the ordinary in 70's cinema is more invigorating, involving and full of life than today's pictures which seem to have been created by folks who spend the majority of their time staring into a rectangle: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-90-of-w…
The petition is just a sour-grapes attempt at censorship. For anyone who thinks Armond White is a hack, simply don't read his reviews. It's not as if every time he reviews a film, God kills a kitten, for chrissakes.
Hey, what goes around, comes around. Karma is a bitch.
So you're saying that your life is somehow made less bearable by the fact that Armond White, a man you don't even personally know, reviews films? Do you actually lose sleep over this? If not, then you're just on the same self-serving trip you accuse White of being on.
I guess the answer is all in the intention with what mr White writes his reviews.
If the intention is to just give is honest opinion, it is not for anybody to irrationally attack, nor censor that opinion.
But if the intention of mr White is to draw readers by giving contrary, ridiculous and dishonest opinions, which given the frankly absurd reviews I have read, in my eyes is most likely, than banning him from Rottentomatoes would be highly favorable.
He then would not make any valuable contribution to the informative site Rottentomatoes strives to be.
The link between Capitalism and censorship is too far fetched.
Oh OH OHHHHHH! YES!
THE GLOWING RECTANGLES!!!!
Lest we forget…
Which reminds me:
I don't mean to demean contrarianism, being somewhat of a subscriber myself. So I probably should have also noted my TFT impressions of AWhite as being a funny, genuine kind of guy who was enjoying the conversation with his hosts. Maybe his contrarian passion for movies came through to me as a sort of via negativa. He held out enough for the possibility of Film that he relentlessly zeroed in on movies that fell short of it…and called them crap (in interesting ways). He knows what Film *ain't*. Maybe at some level he rescues me from giving too much of myself to what I think is a good movie. I'm such a sucker for that. What Would Armond Say?
none of both, he writes to help improve the art of cinema, to help the artist and the audience. A critic is not there to please readers.
I would hope the idiot attack on one of the country’s most challenging and intelligent critics (Armond White) is over by now. I read about the absurd movement to ‘ban’ Armond White from ‘rotten tomatoes’ at “The Film Talk” nearly a year ago. I’m thinking of it again because I just listened again to the guest appearance White made on The Film Talk last year.
Also, I am motivated to revisit the issue of Mr. White because I have recently felt so disturbed by the brash insensitivity, the almost thuggish obnoxiousness, and the utter pettiness and smugness that is characteristic of the ignorance I see displayed by 20-30 year olds on the contemporary American university campus and in the university classroom of late.
The topic of how the younger generation thinks, what they value, how they see reality, and what they mock or believe in is a big issue in popular culture right now as NY TIMES, NEWSWEEK, NPR, and every other major media outlet is running stories on and analysis of the issue of the generation who will run the world as the last of the baby boomers finally die off and/or retire. I myself am on the cusp between the baby boomers and so-called ‘generation X’ which had itself aged gradually into ‘generation Y’.
Anyway, I am not alone in dwelling upon this issue, because everybody and their mama is asking lately, ‘whassup with that gosh-darn generation Y’? As Jet Loe alluded to at one point in a blog entry he authored, the younger generation is into capitalist realism. I myself call them context-challenged: they often cannot put things into historical, social, or political context, do not care to try, or are often simply hostile toward the idea that they ought to do so or that they ought to value or respect people who do (people such as Armond White). Where film, literature, art, and culture are concerned, what this comes down to is an inability on their part to understand ALLUSION in art, in culture, in life itself.
Film, as Pauline Kael, Susan Sontag, and other serious critics have urged us to see, is allusive, by its very nature, by virtue of its form (dialectical), and by its fusion of artistic disciplines.
Armond White is utterly, in fact even mundanely correct in saying that films are ‘art objects’. Of course they are. “Louis Malle’s “Au Revoir, Les Enfants” (1981), considered an ‘art film’, is obviously an acknowledged art object, but so too is “Transformers,” and so too is John Waters’ “Pink Flamingos” (1972), because no matter whether a film is foreign or domestic, funny or serious, creative or crap, it is the very nature of film as a product of a cultural moment, as an artifact of a market-driven industry, and as an art, a craft, and a production process, that each individual film whether we like it, honor it, study it, sneer at it, or hate and ignore it, is a cultural artifact and an Objet d’Art.
A confession, for illustration’s sake: for a good fifteen years I’d despised Quentin Tarentino as a schlocky, derivative, offensive dweeb whose films were, in my opinion, one step removed from auto-erotic violence-porn; they were awkward attempts, I felt, at parody as homage. Nobody could dissuade me from this belief, not even my cine-phile daughter, Lena, sympathetic as she was toward Tarentino’s then extant ouvre. (A lover of world cinema since the age of ten, she was thirteen when she blew my mind by referring precociously to “Soylent Green” to illustrate some preternaturally sophisticated analysis of a Tarentino joint. I protested, incredulous, saying, ‘You’re a child! Have you ever even SEEN “Soylent Green?” She replied, “No, Daddy. But it’s a classic.”) Well, after years of being a Tarentino hater I listened to a FILM TALK episode in which Jet articulately argued a way to look at Tarentino that pierced my own shallow pedjudice: Jet argued that T. is the ‘ultimate lover of cinema and of cinematic history,’ and that his films are more than simply homages–they are thoughtfully creative deep-text allusions to the great films, great directors, and great film grammar of the world cinema of our lifetimes. That analysis by Jet led me to go see “Inglorious Basterds” (2009) which I watched without pre judging it. I had one of the most profound cinematic experiences in my recent memory: I was astounded by the vision, subtlety, emotional impact, and masterful suspense of the opening sequence featuring the French dairy farmer who is questioned by the ‘Jew Hunter’, played by Chrsitoph Waltz. The day after I saw “Basterds” I re-screened several old Tarentino films and was amazed by what I has missed in them when I’d viewed them years before with a sanctimoniously closed mind.
There was a lesson for me in my sudden transformation into a fan of Quentin T. The very fact that a film can elicit our love, contempt, opposition, allegiance, or boredom, is what makes a film a cultural artifact, and an art object to be read as a text, to be taken seriously as itself even if ultimately dismissed. Isn’t this idea exactly why so many critics, film lovers, film artists, and cultural critics have given a strange sort of honor to one of the worst filmmakers in American history, Ed Wood? Wood’s films were so horrid, and horrid with such a grand aplomb and intensity, with so great a sense of Woods’ own devotion to the crap he made, that they are seen as attaining a sort of dignity not just as trash, but as ‘Kitsch’ (see? that’s an allusion, of the sort that my students typically sneer at because its in another language and because it’s ‘taking things too seriously’).
Capitalism, the world-view of my students, sees value only in what is ‘heimlich’ (what is familiar, easily categorizable in an endless commercial replication like mass produced objects as opposed to personal, idiosyncratic, individual art objects). History, philosophy, global difference–in short, allusion, is unheimlich, and thus too much trouble to go through, too serious, too suggestive that reality is more than a surface, and that reality has facets, complexity, depth. Jet has commented about the younger generation that:
“It seems to me that we have a whole generation of folks who’ve been raised since the cold-war’s end who, raised in a world where there is no visibly prominent alternative to Capitalism, see, however unconsciously, criticism as inherently promotional – in fact, everything, and everyone, has to constantly sell itself/themselves – because there’s nowhere else to go/no other way of being – and folks like Armond rock the boat.”
As a journalist, writer, literary critic, editor, and university professor I am appalled by the cult of stupid that holds sway over American public life lately, which has poisoned American cinema. My students are proud of not knowing things. To be stupid is a mark of honor. They openly mock me for trying to teach them things, though they are college students and I am a professor and the whole purpose of our meeting in a classroom on a campus full of books and other such references to the past and to allusive fact is…well, is for me to TEACH them things. The whole purpose of film criticism is to REFER to things–to society, history, psychology, politics, aesthetics, philosophy, race, war, love, death, etc., because film is a dialectical medium–it’s not static or flat. It is a combination of all the other art forms (dance, music, theater, literature, and painting, not to mention fashion design, set design, pantomime, folktale, mythology, and on and on! Film IS ideas). Adolescence is about ‘emotions’ and ‘experience’ (vague as the word, ‘experience’ is). Adulthood is about ideas. A “Rotten Tomato” commentator on Armond White recently betrayed the real root of the younger generation’s problem with intellectualism and intellectuals:
“He [White] is a critic, yes, of contemporary society, of certain ideas he disagrees with, of the overbearing, ill-informed white culture, of whatever ideas or concepts you choose. But to truly be a film critic, you need to critique the film in front of you, not bring in tangential ideas that have, for most of us, absolutely nothing to do with the idea of understanding how a film attempts to communicate a certain experience or set of emotions.”
And of course this disaffection with intellect, with intellectuals is automatically a disaffection with Armond, who goes far beyond the quarantine of hermeticism, and the decidedly priggish hypoallergenic quality that sometimes adheres to the worldviews and the protestations of the younger generation (and also of the older generation like myself who sometimes happen to share this disregard for the unmanageability and the challenge, the apostasy that marks real intellectualism, and that ought to mark film criticism, for that matter.
As Dean Wormser says in the film, “Animal House”, “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life’ Son.” Armond doesn’t deserve to be attacked because he is offering something more than a commercial break to sell beer and chips; because he has no interest in ‘selling’ the films he critiques (how hideous IS it that newspapers and TV now habitually limit their most energetic commentary about opening films to how much ‘box office’ ($$) each film pulls in on an opening weekend??); because he has ideas, not just ‘emotions’ and ‘experiences’.
Not that a site called ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ that is distinguished by its decidedly adolescent buffoonishness rates such an extended Philippic on my part, such a screed, such a Jeremiad (I couldn’t resist tossing in a few allusions here). Ultimately, they aren’t worth all that. As one Rotten commentator points out over there, if you are against White, just ignore him rather than drawing attention to him. I am guilty of the same hyperbolic flattery of that which I rebuke. And as far as that goes, it IS only a WEBSITE (and a poorly produced, awkwardly sophomoric TeeVee show) that in the end is guilty mostly of a sense of play, of silly fun, really. Which, I guess, is not a sin in itself.
Even Lena would say that “Rotten Tomatoes” doesn’t rate all this analysis, but certainly the subject of cinema does, and certainly Armond White deserves to be taken seriously. He sure doesn’t deserve to be maligned and mocked because he gives the cinema what the art form deserves: he takes cinema seriously.
Geez, is that so wrong??
At the risk of seeming to overpraise a comment by a listener that is so complimentary to me = Prof Ray’s comment is the best I’ve read on the site in the four years we’ve been doing TFT.
While one could be accused of the ‘kids get off my lawn’ syndrome, (and of course you have to quote this famous bit: http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html ) I think Prof. Ray is really onto something here.
I’d like to write more – but I express myself best on the show = will talk about this comment in this week’s or next week’s show
Agreed. Very thought-provoking post.
As a radical capitalist, I don’t fully agree with Professor Waller’s perspective that capitalism is somehow a cause of anti-intellectualism, particularly among 20-30 year olds. I would argue that the more correct term is ‘consumerism’.
There are those in that age group who are writing and discussing film in a fairly intelligent manner, and have expressed openness about learning more about film. But in almost all the opinions I’ve read or listened to, I’ve found that theirs is the voice of a consumer, not critic.
Film culture is not dictated by the creators (which in our Hollywood system is almost purely market-driven), but by the consumers. Thanks to broader means of communication, some consumers have become, for better or worse, influencers.
Armond White was a guest on another podcast, and he articulated the distinction between film criticism and film discussion. And he believes that in order to truly be a film critic, you have to thoroughly study the art form, not just see lots of films.
Perhaps there isn’t a place for true film criticism in pop culture outlets, but instead in more academic, peer-reviewed publications — places very, very few of us tread, particularly this age group.
In other words, the consumers aren’t interested in critical thought, and don’t look to film reviews to expand their knowledge of cinema, but rather to let them know whether a movie “sucked” or not.
>>. . . disturbed by the brash insensitivity, the almost thuggish obnoxiousness, and the utter pettiness and smugness that is characteristic of the ignorance I see displayed by 20-30 year olds on the contemporary American university campus
Ah, youth.
Wow! This can be one particular of the most helpful blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Actually Great. I’m also an expert in this topic therefore I can understand your effort.