So, what's Armond White's motivation anyway?

[Argus Skyhawk]

As many of you know, Armond White is the New York Press movie critic who goes against the general consensus on most big budget Hollywood productions. For example, and these are NOT isolated cases, he claimed to hate Inception, Toy Story 3, and The Dark Knight, while saying he liked Grown Ups and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. His review of the new remake of Clash of the Titans contains this quote:

Leterrier certainly shows a better sense of meaningful, economic narrative than the mess that Peter Jackson made of the interminable, incoherent Lord of the Rings trilogy.

The question is: What's his deal?

His reviews of major releases are so consistently against the grain that I think we can safely rule out the possibility that these are his honest opinions. That would fly in the face of the law of averages.

Perhaps he is trying to inspire people to think about their opinions by playing the Devil's Advocate. Perhaps he is trying to shake up movie criticism by providing alternate viewpoints. Or perhaps he is just a troll, trying to stir up controversy or at least grab attention. What do you think?

 

[Aragorn]

He's a contrarian attention whore looking to get readers and web hits (so don't click on his reviews from Rotten Tomatoes). Toy Story 3 is commercialism, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is not?

Ebert defended him against accusations of being a troll, then changed his mind and now believes White to be a troll. Recently White went on this academic tirade of what a true scholastically-trained film critic is supposed to be, which apparently only he can attain. Then he said Ebert is not a trained film critic.

The most obvious example of White's song and dance is when he praised The Hurt Locker. After it became a critically-acclaimed movie, he called it overrated.

When Inception, Toy Story 3 and Star Trek were at 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, that site's users correctly predicted White would be the first negative review.

Don't forget he loved Jonah Hex and G.I. Joe.

 

[byron lomax]

Pretty much everything Aragorn says. It's a shame, too, because White by evidence wasn't always like this. There's a list of his favourite films by year somewhere on the internet (wasn't able to find it again, sorry) which showed that he actually had some good taste in movies, at least before he became notorious.

Here's a good article that tries to assess him as objectively as possible: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/...losing-the-game-the-armond-white-meta-review/

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I have to say... I don't mind White as much as the mob mentality that ensues when he dares to give a negative review to an over-hyped film. I admit his reviews don't really make much sense, but nobody's really responding to the specifics of his opinions. They're really just outraged that someone has dared to not have the "right" opinion about a disposable summer blockbuster. It's like movie fans these days have this infantile need to believe their opinions are 100% correct and perfect, and anyone who disagrees is a blithering idiot who deserves to die in a fire.

 

[Kegg]

I They're really just outraged that someone has dared to not have the "right" opinion about a disposable summer blockbuster.

There's an element of that (isn't there always?) like when people hit on Ebert for not liking a given movie. But given Armand White's pretty consistent pattern of being contrarian often in defiance of any conventional taste to the point Ebert concedes he's trolling, well. I've read a couple of his reviews and I found them grandoliquent and turgid.

On the other hand, when Armond White was just a film critic who was saying what all the other film critics were saying, who cared if he was saying anything? I guess notoriety is better than anonymity for some.

 

[stj]

Reviewing the reviewer is absurd. Maybe the guy takes a date and favorably reviews the movie if he gets laid. If what he says is gibberish, then don't waste time reading him.

 

[Jack Bauer]

He makes contrary reviews simply to get noticed otherwise he's just another reviewer. He's an attention whore.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Never heard of him.

 

[Goliath]

Here's a good article that tries to assess him as objectively as possible: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/...losing-the-game-the-armond-white-meta-review/

That's a very interesting read. I liked this part especially:

Is White being sincere? I think so. I think he sincerely despises his "shill" colleagues and the "brainwashed" audience. I think he sincerely sees himself as a maverick outsider to the media establishment ("They don't see what I see, where I'm coming from—they couldn't") and that he is sincerely invested in this narcissistic fantasy to the exclusion of most everything else. Reading White, I am constantly reminded that the human intellect, which we often analogize to a courtroom judge dispassionately weighing arguments and evidence, actually operates much more like a lawyer-for-hire, rationalizing and enabling our emotional narratives. What makes Armond's reviews perversely fascinating is that he is so obviously intelligent, yet this intelligence has been harnessed to the warped imperatives of an increasingly frustrated personality. Where your average critical hack job is just banal, White's ability to disconnect the dots exerts a kind of bizarro brilliance.