another maniacal Armond White review, this time "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Because people are lazy and want to accept the 'truths' that other present for them :)

You may have to ask someone who thinks that it is his fault.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

oh no, please don't me bring poor Nanook back into another thread. He's tired.

Yours truly, Mister Obvious

If everyone agreed that Nanook was a documentary, pure and simple, then you're right. You could argue that people shouldn't/can't hold Moore to a different standard. But that view of Nanook isn't universal or even a majority.

hstencil, that was in reference to the "it needs to be objective" arguments. "Objectivity" is a lame bogeyman raised by the right to attack Moore, when objectivity is neither necessary nor preferable (documentary without a POV = boring/pointless).

Reference Library: Encyclopedia

Main Page | See live article | Alphabetical index

Documentary film
An incredibly broad category of cinematic expression, traditionally, the only common characteristic to all documentary films is that they are meant to be non-fiction films. The French used the term to refer to any non-fiction film, including travelogues and instructional videos. The earliest "moving pictures" were by definition documentary. They were single shots, moments captured on film, whether of a train entering a station, a boat docking, or a factory of people getting off work. Early film (pre-1900) was dominated by the novelty of showing an event. These short films were called "actualities." Very little storytelling took place before the turn of the century, due mostly to technological limitations: cameras could hold only very small amounts of film; many of the first films are a minute or less in length.
With Robert J. Flaherty's Nanook of the North in 1922, documentary film embraced romanticism; Flaherty went on to film a number of heavily staged romantic films, usually showing how his subjects would have lived 100 years earlier and not how they lived right then (for instance, in Nanook of the North Flaherty does not allow his subjects to shoot a walrus with a nearby shotgun, but has them use a harpoon instead, putting themselves in considerable danger).

Some of Flaherty's staging, such as building a roofless igloo for interior shots, was done to accommodate the filming technology of the time. In later years, attempts to steer the action in this way, without informing the audience, have come to be considered both unethical and contradictory to the nature of documentary film. On the other hand, both the story line and content of any documentary are imposed by the filmmaker.

Amazon.com description:

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com essential video
Robert J. Flaherty, who wrote, directed, produced, shot, and edited this landmark picture, will forever be remembered as the godfather of documentary filmmaking. While this landmark 1922 production, shot on the northeastern shore of Hudson Bay, isn't a true documentary by contemporary conventions, it remains the first great nonfiction film. With the help of Nanook and his friends and family, Flaherty undertook the mission of re-creating an Eskimo culture that no longer existed in a series of staged scenes. Nanook ice fishes, harpoons a walrus, catches a seal, traps, builds an igloo, and trades pelts at a trading post, all captured by Flaherty's inquisitive camera. Though he presents a "happy" culture bordering on primitive innocence (Nanook and his family were in reality quite westernized), his loving portrait is anything but condescending. Ultimately Flaherty shares his tremendous respect and awe for a culture that has learned to not just survive but thrive in such an inhospitable environment. On a purely visual level the film is a beautiful work of cinema, an understated drama in an austere, unblemished landscape of snow and ice. With unerring simplicity and directness, Flaherty re-creates the details and rhythms of a culture long gone and gives the world a glimpse.

review from Silent Film Sources:

Nanook of the North (1922)
R E V I E W 1922. 6 reels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revillon Freres present NANOOK OF THE NORTH. A story of life and love in the actual arctic. Produced by Robert J. Flaherty F.R.G.S. Pathepicture.
Opening title: The mysterious Barren Lands- desolate, boulder-strewn, wind-swept- illimitable spaces which top the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Produced for video by David Shepard. Nanook of the North was the first of Robert J. Flaherty's romantic depictions of man's dignified perseverance in combating a malevolent nature. Flaherty is often called "the father of the documentary", and he did make the first theatrical documentary feature with Nanook. But that fact does not do justice to the humanism and the technical brilliance that makes his best works -- Nanook, Man of Aran and Louisiana Story -- beautiful and enduring.

imdb:

Nanook of the North (1922)
Directed by
Robert J. Flaherty

Writing credits
Robert J. Flaherty

Genre: Documentary (more)

Tagline: A story of life and love in the actual Arctic. (more)

Plot Summary: Documents one year in the life of Nanook, an Eskimo (Inuit) and his family. Describes the trading, hunting... (more)

Shall I go on? Googling gets old.

x-post

An IMDB entry for it says documentary - OK, IMDB also lists Häxan as a doc. Is Häxan a documentary? An Amazon review, a dictionary reference that includes the line "In later years, attempts to steer the action in this way, without informing the audience, have come to be considered both unethical and contradictory to the nature of documentary film."

None of these show a consensus of opinion on Nanook that lets you use it and its methods as a standard. (Because that consensus does not exist.)

I think your error is in assuming that a documentary is about accounting history. Documentary != history book.

I'm reminded of how effective this whole embedded journalist thing worked during the war's early stages... lame ass FOX reporters felt the espirit de corps and wouldn't report anything negative... they became buddies with the soldiers.

(And my point is....?)

i am really dreading seeing this movie.

J. Hoberman

a) does he mean Garth out of Wayne's World?
b) if so, what's he on about?
c) and you know what the worst part is? I never learned to read.

No other reviews "noticed this" because he left off the last part of the reporter's statement - "it must be avenged, or at least punished." (something to that effect)

Was just thinking the other day that I haven't heard much from or about Armond lately and well, I may not get what I want but I suppose I get what I deserve.

I love Nashville so much, I'm inclined to like anything written about it that starts from the same place. Not sure about his hypothesis, partly because I'm not sure what the hypothesis is. But Kenny Fraiser/David Hayward does strike me as a credible pre-internet version of the solitary modern-day assassin.

Better Than!

The movies that saved movies from themselves

Going to the movies last year became one ideological battle after another. It was clear throughout 2025 that movies and media offended our trust under the guise of entertainment content that was often dishonest or dispirited. This year’s Better-Than List opposes that trend and those partisan/seditious lists and critics’ groups that awarded propaganda while pretending to salute art. Film culture reached its nadir immediately after the assassination of Charlie Kirk when, almost by reflex, leftist Hollywood released a particular consensus flick that encouraged racism and political violence. Otherwise, some good, honest art about the human condition awaits your attention.

Twinless > One Battle After Another

James Sweeney’s bromance asserted gender and romantic differences (not diversity) as the basis of our emotional common ground, from grief to friendship and big-L love — the most profound rom-com since Lubitsch’s That Uncertain Feeling. Paul Thomas Anderson’s shallow political farce was the unpopular — but media-favored — flick that mocked unresolved racism and sexism as the justification for civil war.

An Officer and a Spy > It Was Just an Accident

Roman Polanski’s take on the Dreyfus affair finally opened in the U.S. in time to examine rising anti-Jewish bigotry. Jean Dujardin’s commanding performance reveals complex personal integrity without the leaden ironies of Jafar Panahi’s Iranian thriller geared to self-righteous political paranoia.

Song Sung Blue > Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere

Craig Brewer finds the spiritual center of Neil Diamond’s music in the true-life tale of working-class showbiz professionals played by Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson. It shames the narcissism and phony Americana of Scott Cooper’s biopic about the country’s phoniest rock star.

Nouvelle Vague > Jay Kelly

Richard Linklater redeems his indie banality through sheer inspiration and admiration. The making of Godard’s Breathless gets deeper inside the art of filmmaking than Noah Baumbach’s trite, never-convincing imitation of Fellini’s 8½.

The Phoenician Scheme > Sentimental Value and Sirât

Wes Anderson’s rococo psychological mirth is appropriate for his great-man theory of history — a Wellesian ploy about how the world works that outclasses both Joachim Trier’s art-movie fakery and the overwrought techno display of Oliver Laxe’s globalist nihilism-adventure film.

The Empire > Weapons

Bruno Dumont counters Star Wars juvenilia with an adult eschatological perspective, a heaven-and-earth contrast that is morally piercing and visually amazing, while Zach Cregger taunts social collapse — sex, drugs, schools, parenting — as an occult game.

A Minecraft Movie > Sinners

Jared Hess makes the best-yet video game adaptation, blooming with childhood’s delight. But Ryan Coogler’s childish approach to black American culture — this time as a vampire rampage — insults authentic blues heritage while delighting only Obama-addled libs.

Eat the Night > Marty Supreme

Caroline Poggi and Jonathan Vinel capture the excitement and dread of role-playing by tech-addicted siblings, a perfect contrast to the criminal deception that Josh Safdie celebrates in an ugly biography of a ping-pong champion (Timothée Chalamet) who exploits everyone he encounters. Moral hunger versus moral bankruptcy.

Marcello Mio and The President’s Wife > Hamnet

Catherine Deneuve brings iconic grace to two portraits by, respectively, Christophe Honoré and Léa Domenach of real-life women (herself and Bernadette Chirac) as influential public figures. But Chloe Zhao’s silly, occult biopic of Mrs. Shakespeare fakes female agency merely to steal glory from the dead white male bard.

Auction > When Fall Is Coming > Misericordia

Pascal Bonitzer, François Ozon, and Alain Guiraudie prove it was such a good year for the French (unlike this bad year for Hollywood) that comparing and contrasting three movies about tradition, accountability, and eccentricity measures how a culture understands itself — the essence of filmmaking — on a sliding scale.

Eephus > Train Dreams

Carson Lund laments a season of sports tradition while Clint Bentley mourns a long, wasted life: an authentic melancholic vision versus a pseudo art-flick exercise. Both show the effect of filmmakers unable to shake the trend toward America’s fading identity.

Wild Diamond > If I Had Legs I’d Kick You

Agathe Riedinger’s trenchant portrait of a FOMO-obsessed teen Liane (Malou Khebizi) is more recognizable and universal than Mary Bronstein’s self-pitying almost-comedy about a middle-class American Karen.

Demons at Dawn > The Secret Agent

Julián Hernández expands the rom-com genre to illustrate that Millennial movies lack romance as a consequence of politicized sexuality that twists and defies natural identity. Kleber Mendonça Filho confuses genre tropes to distort Brazil’s guilt-ridden political past.

When Fall Is Coming > Eddington

François Ozon revisits the family secrets of a matriarch (Hélène Vincent) to reveal bonds of love, remorse, and forgiveness. Ari Aster’s parallel horror-flick approach — this time spooking the Covidapocalypse — makes remorse impossible, turning recent political history and panic into a disingenuous mess.

Happy Gilmore 2 > One Battle After Another

Kyle Newacheck directed Adam Sandler’s vision of American harmony-among-many — a golf-farce tournament played against the violent conflict of political adversaries. Sandler’s good humor opposed P.T.A.’s unbearable partisan vengeance.

Dracula > Frankenstein

Radu Jude misses when he targets conservative American politics, but at least his over-amped cultural metaphor recognizes there’s something monstrous afoot in this millennium’s embrace of socialist trauma whereas Guillermo del Toro’s sentimental metaphor for the Munchausen-by-proxy trans movement offers a contradiction in terms. Clever versus Unacceptable.

lol well he’s right that Nouvelle Vague is better than Jay Kelly, but that’s a low bar.

Had to remember that he hates the partially Sandler-driven Jay Kelly because Baumbach's Mom was mean to him back in the day.

“The Munchausen-by-proxy trans movement,” huh?

how does a film "distort" Brazil's guilt-ridden past

I liked Jay Kelly, also Sinners, One Battle After Another, Train Dreams, Weapons, Misericordia, and Eddington, and am looking forward to Hamnet, Marty Supreme,The Secret Agent, If I Had Legs, It Was Just An Accident, and Sentimental Value. I'm not that interested in seeing Nouvelle Vague or most of the others, but these takes just seem bad

You liked Jay Kelly?!

partisan against whom, Armond?

xp

I watched Jay Kelly with a friend who is a George Clooney stan, and he loved it! I'm not a Clooney fan, but we had a great time. It's hard not to like it under those circumstances.

I think it was beautifully photographed, and there were aspects of it that reminded me of Fellini, especially La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2. (I know Fellini films are crossed off the list for most ilxors)

I kind of liked its idea of a solipsistic actor who can't see himself for who he really is, and how other people came to see him more clearly

I find White's gadflyism so corny, that even when I agree with him--thought One Battle wildly overrated--it doesn't feel like any kind of validation (too strong a word; it's not like I need my opinions validated) the way it might with a critic I respected. I know that he'll turn his ire on a film I like next year.

I know Fellini films are crossed off the list for most ilxors

We don't like Fellini?

I do like the Bruno Dumont film, it’s wacky.

Dumont was the first person I thought of when I saw that Artists Dumbing Down and Better For It thread.

Was curious as to whether he'd reviewed The Drama and came across this:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/04/the-damage-done-by-all-the-presidents-men/

"Hollywood's worst newspaper movie"--haven't read it yet, but I know I'm going to learn a lot.