i wonder how many movies he hates he would actually love if he wasn't 24/7 aware of what other critics thought about them.
― omar little, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:21 (thirteen years ago) link
he responded to aronofsky saying "u give us another reason not to read your paper" with "“That’s all right. Darren reads me. That’s all I want. And because he reads me, he knows the truth.” which is fine, considering that's kind of vicious, what he's responding to.
kind of deserved an incredibly sarcastic "COMEBACK" from darren aronovsky but i guess ymmv
really though, "because he reads me, he knows the truth”? that's pretty weak
― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:22 (thirteen years ago) link
he went so far out of his way to say nice things abt michele williams that she made a joke of it.
that's a sweet way to look at someone introducing a woman by saying "well, i liked that movie you made four years ago" and her saying "woof, guess i won't read anything you've written about my movies since then."
― da croupier, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:22 (thirteen years ago) link
isn't it just the only way to look at it
― zvookster, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:26 (thirteen years ago) link
so why did Armond call her "naive" in his new piece?
― da croupier, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:27 (thirteen years ago) link
as in naive Michelle Williams and gullible Mark Ruffalo followed suit, perhaps nervously thinking this is what film folk do in the presence of critics: a rare chance to settle scores.
― da croupier, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:28 (thirteen years ago) link
the point is he's responding to lying, dishonest & apparently very successful hit pieces, i'm not going to defend his being butthurt that actors made fun of him
― zvookster, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:29 (thirteen years ago) link
"dishonest"
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:30 (thirteen years ago) link
"naive" for following the herd, i think, as in "i want to like her still, she was just naive"
― zvookster, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:30 (thirteen years ago) link
seems like the only real difference in perception is whether annette bening was pissed at him (their take) or her fellow actors (his take), or whether he said Kushner "surely could explain" why the Social Network was deserving (his take) or whether he said MAYBE Kushner could explain (their take)
― da croupier, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:31 (thirteen years ago) link
even without him stooping to calling a couple of other writers total racists for hating him (though w/schwarzbaum maybe it comes down to the time he called her a cunt or w/e during a NYFCC debate and then proudly wrote about it in the NY Press), he's been this kind of creep for years and well beyond the usual snark, so even if he was gracious (and according to himself he was the most ingratiating person in the room) he would still have had it coming if anyone bitched him out.
― omar little, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:32 (thirteen years ago) link
he responded to aronofsky saying "u give us another reason not to read your paper" with "“That’s all right. Darren reads me. That’s all I want. And because he reads me, he knows the truth.”
what this reads like, to me, is armond failing to understand that the role of critics at functions like this is to be affable about getting roasted. being affable demonstrates deference, and it's likewise the critic's job to defer to artists, at least in polite social/public settings. armond chafes at that. he rightly sees these demonstrations of deference as an acknowledgment of the critic's lesser status relative to celebrity artists. of course, he doesn't see the critic as any less important than what he critiques. quite the opposite. his own criticism clearly demonstrates this. it's no mere response to cinema. armond's criticism is an aggressive attempt to reshape the perceived meaning of films, essentially to remake them, to push them into shapes that only HE could or would design. cinema is the raw material from which armond creates the world, and he can't seem to tolerate any suggestion that he is not the most important being in it.
― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:39 (thirteen years ago) link
^^^OTM
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:41 (thirteen years ago) link
The art for this piece is a picture of him with Annette Bening and little hearts around them.
― da croupier, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:41 (thirteen years ago) link
Cuz, you see, otherwise people wouldn't know she was on his side.
cinema is the raw material from which armond creates the world,
Armond would totally use this as blurb material for his next book.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:42 (thirteen years ago) link
so while he infantilizes himself in describing his relationship w/Bening, he also refuses to cede any authority - the infant is the mother's equal, but it is also paradoxically the center of the world
xp
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:42 (thirteen years ago) link
I hope he and John Simon drink at the same watering hole.
― From the guys who brought you Fay Weldon (Eazy), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:43 (thirteen years ago) link
starting to seriously think this dude needs psychiatric help
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:45 (thirteen years ago) link
He got the old antagonisms rolling, then naive Michelle Williams and gullible MarkRuffalo followed suit
Mark Ruffalo, well known victim of Rick-Rolls.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:46 (thirteen years ago) link
She has a heart on for Armond.
― not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill (Nicole), Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:58 (thirteen years ago) link
what this reads like, to me, is armond failing to understand that the role of critics at functions like this is to be affable about getting roasted. being affable demonstrates deference, and it's likewise the critic's job to defer to artists, at least in polite social/public settings. armond chafes at that. he rightly sees these demonstrations of deference as an acknowledgment of the critic's lesser status relative to celebrity artists. of course, he doesn't see the critic as any less important than what he critiques. quite the opposite. his own criticism clearly demonstrates this. it's no mere response to cinema. armond's criticism is an aggressive attempt to reshape the perceived meaning of films, essentially to remake them, to push them into shapes that only HE could or would design. cinema is the raw material from which armond creates the world, and he can't seem to tolerate any suggestion that he is not the most important being in it.― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:39 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark
― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:39 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark
"being affable demonstrates deference", no it doesn't!
darren aronofsky's zing was merited wasn't it? no-one takes armond white seriously as a critic.
― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Thursday, 20 January 2011 22:01 (thirteen years ago) link
i don't have the energy to argue the point. can we just agree that i'm right?
― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Thursday, 20 January 2011 22:30 (thirteen years ago) link
or what -- you'll insult us at the next New York Film Critics Circle meeting?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 January 2011 22:30 (thirteen years ago) link
it's no mere response to cinema. armond's criticism is an aggressive attempt to reshape the perceived meaning of films, essentially to remake them, to push them into shapes that only HE could or would design.
I have a certain affection for Armond because of this. He comes out with a lot of absurd reviews that bring the lolz, but I like (at least, on a conceptual basis) this notion of reshaping (or, rather, finding new perspectives on) the meaning of films. He makes intriguing arguments from time to time, when he's not being all the things this thread is saying. All those problems get in the way, of course, but it would be great if he would focus in and open up a debate about some of the films he champions that nobody else does.
― Gukbe, Friday, 21 January 2011 06:46 (thirteen years ago) link
^ agree with much of that. wish he were less aggro & egomaniacal about it.
― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Friday, 21 January 2011 09:47 (thirteen years ago) link
City Island > The Social NetworkGotta have at the Facebook movie once again, if only to counter the fallacious consensus that no other movie dealt with the Internet phenomenon. Ray De Felitta's emotionally large family comedy and Andy Garcia's warm comeback performance epitomized timeless, non-cyber interfacing.
i saw city island. it's bad. juliana margulies is good in it. the only thing about it that "dealt with the Internet phenomenon" was a lame subplot where the weird son is secretly into fat girls, and finds out the online performer he's obsessed with actually lives next door to him. what are the chances?
― goole, Friday, 21 January 2011 15:05 (thirteen years ago) link
"the internet phenomenon"
― max, Friday, 21 January 2011 15:57 (thirteen years ago) link
this whole internet fad
the phenomenon of distracting people so they can't watch foreign films w/ subtitles
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 January 2011 16:03 (thirteen years ago) link
its not my fault i cant speak all the languages
― max, Friday, 21 January 2011 16:10 (thirteen years ago) link
city island was set in queens but it wasn't subtitled
― goole, Friday, 21 January 2011 17:20 (thirteen years ago) link
for some reason i find julianna margulies a total babe w/ straight hair but not w/ curly hair. and usually i like curly haired chicks
― max, Friday, 21 January 2011 17:21 (thirteen years ago) link
just adding another data point 2 this informative discussion
*concurs*
― goole, Friday, 21 January 2011 17:31 (thirteen years ago) link
thirded
― Gukbe, Friday, 21 January 2011 17:42 (thirteen years ago) link
http://mattsmoviereviews.net/Images/whitearmondstartrekcritic.jpg
Ream me up.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 21 January 2011 17:43 (thirteen years ago) link
Armond wd make a fine ST villain, if JJ Abrams is lurking
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 January 2011 18:07 (thirteen years ago) link
Should at least be Ming The Merciless for Halloween
― da croupier, Friday, 21 January 2011 18:30 (thirteen years ago) link
reminder: you are stanning for a douche who pretends to love the transformers movies for fun & profit
― chev rivera (stevie), Saturday, 22 January 2011 12:39 (thirteen years ago) link
that was mostly a max joke, genius
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 22 January 2011 15:01 (thirteen years ago) link
I have no idea how ppl know that AW doesn't actually like Transformers.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 22 January 2011 15:02 (thirteen years ago) link
same way we know moon landing wasn't real
― i love tampon spaceship (San Te), Saturday, 22 January 2011 15:04 (thirteen years ago) link
"real" as in it actually happened or "real" as in it was all a front to check out the Transformers wreckage on the other side of the moon?
― Gukbe, Saturday, 22 January 2011 16:04 (thirteen years ago) link
Well there's certainly nothing racially offensive in those Transformers movies!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 22 January 2011 16:29 (thirteen years ago) link
yea Optimus Prime is totally sporting Latin Kings colors
― i love tampon spaceship (San Te), Saturday, 22 January 2011 16:45 (thirteen years ago) link
well actually no that'd be Bumblebee
― i love tampon spaceship (San Te), Saturday, 22 January 2011 16:47 (thirteen years ago) link
― max, Friday, January 21, 2011 12:21 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
same here, my wife has curly hair, but i never gave JM a second look until when she was on scrubs and i was like woah
― gosamosapodin simgibmelreel (some dude), Saturday, 22 January 2011 17:24 (thirteen years ago) link
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 22 January 2011 15:02 (5 hours ago)
you mean Transformers II, of course, because somehow he didn't like the first one but felt the second was good. Which is completely ridiculous and unbelievable.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 22 January 2011 20:15 (thirteen years ago) link
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:29 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
Pretty sure Armond loves racially offensive movies, considering his positive review for Norbit.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 22 January 2011 20:16 (thirteen years ago) link