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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
There's probably a good point or two buried in here, but who can tell?

FILM OF THE FASCIST LIBERAL
Michael Moore mistakes image for message, panders, gloats.

By Armond White


Before Quentin Tarantino and his fellow Cannes jurors passed judgment on President Bush by awarding Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 the Palme d'Or (thus inflating the film's importance), they should have queried themselves: Have they done anything in their own films to tame the arrogance of a man, a moviegoer, like Bush? Not much in the careers of American jurors Tarantino, Kathleen Turner and Jerry Schatzberg encourages audiences to think or behave politically. American cinema in the Tarantino years has pandered to violence, racism, greed and self-satisfaction. It's not impossible that the torturers at Abu Ghraib—including even Saddam Hussein's own precedent-setting torturers—were inspired by the torture scene in Reservoir Dogs. QT made sadism hip and sent it 'round the world. Now we're stuck in the middle of a global crisis for which neither he, nor Michael Moore, have an answer.

To pretend that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a work of art is disingenuous. Moore himself is part of the punditocracy that, like unscrupulous politicians, solicits trite sentiment. His exploitative title doesn't measure temperature; it disgraces that sorrowful date just to inflame liberal guilt. For Moore, guilt covers everything that stemmed from Bush's election and is only eased by blame. Moore doesn't separate the election from the terrorists' attacks or from the war on Iraq. As in Bowling for Columbine, he lines up unrelated points for a domino effect of dissatisfaction. This is not historical context; it's a harangue.

But in the Tarantino era, film folk seldom look at movies intelligently—or politically. They become dupes for the sarcastic invective Moore offers in place of argument. His supposed "coup" of Bush visiting a Florida elementary school after being informed of the first World Trade tower hit turns out a dud. Moore times Bush's visit with a digital counter but clearly we're not watching Bush wallow in playtime or indecision. It's seven minutes of the most powerful man in the world suffering. He's miserably distracted. Moore's insensitivity—certain to the point of hostility that he alone is right—amounts to liberalism with a fascist face.

The orgy of self-congratulation at Cannes proved film culture has lost the imperative of humane understanding. The lunacy was repeated stateside with local acclaim for Jehane Noujaim's specious Control Room. Apparently, the double whammy of 9/11 and the Iraq War has so rattled modern moral conscience that American self-hatred is the new documentary mode. No one required Noujaim to trace the history of Al Jazeera or examine its standard content. Her celebration of Al Jazeera (as opposition to any media representing American interests) was carelessly praised as some kind of palliative: "The number one must-see film of the summer." "An essential movie [that] not only goes through the looking glass, but turns the mirror back on us."

As Kevin Costner worried in JFK, we are indeed through the looking glass now. Political paranoia has turned critics and festival jurors into small-minded esthetes who prize their own objection to the Iraq War over their obligation to truth. Through Noujaim's ineptitude (or is she just biased?) the propagandists of Al Jazeera are defended simply to please Bush's opponents, those willing to believe that Americans are always wrong, always to blame, never to be trusted. It's unbearable to sit in a Control Room audience full of masochistic Americans lapping up the calumny.

Of course, Noujaim heroizes journalists, the most duplicitous of modern professionals, on both sides of the war. She humors the U.S. military spokesman at Centcom in Baghdad as well as the very Westernized Al Jazeera employees. Her naive suggestion that journalists are apolitical matches Moore's disregard of journalistic accountability. (That's one way to guarantee good reviews.) She cannily keeps her distance from those Al Jazeera employees who wear robes and turbans. Noujaim wants to make Arab reporters seem just like ours—an elite class—so she refrains from asking about their politics. This ruse of journalistic fairness and impartiality links Control Room to Fahrenheit: They're sham docs for gullible viewers. Both films use non-inquiring "entertainment" devices (talking heads as celebrities) at precisely the moment we should be looking at the world more seriously, delving into personal motive.

The corruption of documentary with entertainment is at the heart of Michael Moore's style—it's also his failing. Cheap, easy laughs don't constitute an argument; like pity and self-righteous anger, it all stems from simplistic outrage. His best moment shows a phalanx of black congresspersons protesting the 2000 presidential election and being undermined by the Senate (Al Gore presiding). By targeting Bush, Moore absolves all those bad senators of their responsibilities.

But Moore neglects the real journalistic work of seeking out why this intramural betrayal happened. He's after an effect, not the facts. Difficult, gut-twisting and disillusioning as politics are, Moore never inquires into the human basis of political behavior. Such revelations once distinguished the documentary as an art form; now the genre is merde. There's no insight into the political process or why politicians routinely cheat their constituency—such as Democratic congressman John Conyers Jr. admitting, "We don't read most of the bills!" Thus Moore lets a soundbite explain why the Patriot Act passed.

As facile as the makers of The Blair Witch Project and Capturing the Friedmans, Moore's doc method avoids complexity. He makes trite points (Bush golfing, politicos putting on make-up) that vitiate his professed seriousness. Like Noujaim, Moore knows that his pseudo-serious audience doesn't want debate. Their mandate is for superficial provocation: Slam Bush and the war so we don't have to ponder our own capitalism or unwillingness to fight.

Neither Fahrenheit nor Control Room tell us what life is like now, in what the West knows as the Terrorist Millennium. Glossing the issues of "a staged war," emphasizing Bush's incompetence and the mendacity of his cabinet (even Noujaim offers distanced ridicule of Bush policies) is, essentially, an ad hominem attack, not ideological or moral reasoning. Merde. These filmmakers practice the lazy tactic of cutting from an inane Bush speech to screaming, injured Iraqi women or children. This obfuscates the war with sentimentality. (Not just morally offensive editing, it hides behind the notion that killing men is an acceptable consequence of war but only a monster would harm women and children.) Moore and Noujaim's "entertaining" sallies (gotcha shots of Bush père et fils shaking hands with Saudi business partners; grieving mothers of U.S. soldiers) might be enough to sway the inattentive, but both movies leave important questions unasked.

Moore would have audiences believe that the security alert codes are entirely a Pentagon hoax (although he doesn't investigate why the national media goes along with it). Noujaim suggests there's no bias in Al Jazeera's rhetoric of images and speeches. (She even accepts a reporter's disdain for the Kurds in Iraq). Each pompous filmmaker ignores the threat of fanaticism—and the reality of American panic—because Iraq is their only cause. They're incapable of substantive political discourse. Moore likes to put bigwigs on the spot (including Ricky Martin and a gum-smacking Britney Spears!) but he never interviews people who can articulate an opposing point of view. In his hypocrisy, he chides the corporate greed behind Halliburton and the Carlyle Group as if it were alien to American custom.

This obtuse journalism also occurs in Control Room. Most reviewers quoted an Al Jazeera exec saying he wanted his children to be educated in America, but none observed his snide, middle-class contempt. (Was it too much like their own?) A good example of the complication that these movies skirt is the same exec's anger over a U.S. missile strike that hit Al Jazeera headquarters killing a correspondent and cameraman. "This is a crime," he says. "It must be avenged!" Noujaim accepts his threat as understandable rage, rather than demand journalistic integrity. No American reviews noticed this.

These films play too loosely with the passions aroused by the war, pandering to liberal Americans' kick-me guilt. That partly explains the Cannes debacle—many liberals simply want their prejudices entertained. This reduces the Palm d'Or to the level of the MTV Movie Awards.

Good, because Cannes has been on an anti-American spree since lauding Gus Van Sant's Elephant. Such grandstanding political gestures don't address popular cinema's decline—proof that people no longer recognize quality or care that a documentary be sound and informative. Few connect the ideology of pop culture to real-world political activity.

Jean-Luc Godard once famously said, "Every edit is a political act." But Godard's denunciation of Fahrenheit 9/11 was ignored by a U.S. media fawning over its Cannes victory (the latest Harvey Weinstein promotional stunt, facilitated by stooge Quentin). No major American media outlets quoted Godard: "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and image. He doesn't know what he's doing."

This time, Jean-Luc is only half right. Moore very deliberately mixes tv drama and movie clips into his rhetorical hodge-podge (referencing Bonanza, Dragnet and song clips by REM). These tropes probably made Tarantino delirious. Fahrenheit seizes upon the mess of postmodern capitalist pop only to misread how pop trivia malnourishes the moral lives of audiences—those who are then sent off to war, as well as Beltway politicians and Wall Street bankers who have the privilege to dismiss pop as escapism.

That's what Godard meant about distinguishing text and image. In Moore's doc style, images have only superficial, convenient meaning and no historical resonance—unlike Peter Davis' 1974 Vietnam doc Hearts and Minds, which used Hollywood clips (Bataan) to show the ideological indoctrination of pop culture. Davis suggested that a generation was fooled into romanticizing war and xenophobia. That was part of how Vietnam protestors understood their experience. Moore, being culturally ignorant, stands on shaky ground when he ridicules GIs who listen to pop on bombing missions, never respecting their cultural conditioning or examining their sense of patriotism. He's as clueless as those critics who lambasted David O. Russell's Desert Storm satire Three Kings. (A neglect that helped condition the country to continue Bush Sr.'s war.)

Moore doesn't understand the link between the Entertainment Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Complex, and his dumbed-down method of turning political tragedy into comedy is part of the problem. It's a class vice in which the media elite can exercise disdain while pitying the underclass who must pay the price. Fahrenheit 9/11 becomes infuriating every time Moore uses a poor or black person to symbolize Bush's homeland victims (the same arrogance the Coen brothers pointed out with the Mother Jones gag in The Ladykillers). He returns to Flint, MI (the setting for Roger & Me) for sociological cheap shots but misses the real story of the post-9/11 experience—such as life among Muslim immigrants in Detroit where suspicion and opportunism mix. Or even the middle-American discomfort explained in Neil Young's Greendale, a vastly more revealing film.

Propaganda like Fahrenheit 9/11 won't help today's moviegoers gain political insight. Moore's condescension settles on young GIs wounded in Iraq, now in a veterans' hospital (where they face lost funding and benefits). One vet gives Moore what he wants: "I'm going to be very active this year and make sure that the Democrats take power." We're not supposed to remember the opening sequence that showed Democrats complicit with Bush's ascension and the invasion of Iraq. Moore, as desultory as Jerry Bruckheimer, simply wants to get a rise out of us. Like Tarantino, he's uninterested in making movies that show how the world really works.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Control Room leave viewers susceptible to the deceptions of politicians and media charlatans. Exploiting the Iraq invasion and American political distress is a form of war profiteering. Documentaries this poor are no better than pulp fiction.


(so not only are these films bad but they are partly responsible for murder and torture worldwide, etc....what a scumbag)

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 17:56 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Armond White mistakes ass for hole in ground, shits, giggles.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Oh, my. "The propagandists of al-Jazeera," etc.

Pretty standard right-wing fare overall, basically what I would expect Washington Times reviews to resemble. Maybe White's looking for a Golden Moonie Parachute?

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:03 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Was that elementary school actually in Florida?

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"Punditocracy"??!! I love it.

andy, Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:05 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what he's on about here, his POV is non-existent and completely arbitrary based on whatever the hell he had for breakfast.

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:05 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Does he actually refute any of the facts in Moore's film? I didn't see any examples. That says something, doesn't it?

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:13 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

The headline is the worst thing: calling Moore a fascist is just loopy. The review is based on the premise that Moore oughtn't to make propaganda or op-ed, but rather mull for 90 minutes over 'complexities'. Well, why on earth should he? The weird thing is that White thinks Moore should really be pondering 'our own capitalism or our unwillingness to fight'. Well, what unwillingness to fight? Surely the anti-capitalistic, pro-militaristic film White seems to be advocating would fit much better with fascism that Moore's liberalism does? Perhaps the headline is referring to White rather than Moore.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:18 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

No one required Noujaim to trace the history of Al Jazeera or examine its standard content. Her celebration of Al Jazeera (as opposition to any media representing American interests) was carelessly praised as some kind of palliative: "The number one must-see film of the summer." "An essential movie [that] not only goes through the looking glass, but turns the mirror back on us."

wtf?!?!?

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:19 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Oh no! Fahrenheit 9/11 incorporates morally bankrupt "pop culture"! Oh NO!

Sean Thomas (sgthomas), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:20 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Exploiting the Iraq invasion and American political distress is a form of war profiteering.

Yeah let's just not make any films about it, right? Fucking twat.

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:20 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Summary of this review: 'I am very annoyed by this film.'
Summary of our response: 'Good.'

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:21 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

She cannily keeps her distance from those Al Jazeera employees who wear robes and turbans.

Ha ha christ

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:22 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

As facile as the makers of The Blair Witch Project...

whoa whoa, what??!?!? Armond White thinks The Blair Witch Project was a DOCUMENTARY?!?!@?!@??!! SOOMEBODY PLEASE REVOKE HIS FILM CRITIC'S LICENSE ASAP!!!

(tho I think he's right about Tarentino)

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:22 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

he's also obviously never watched three kings all the way through

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

It seems as though the film has been pretty effective at pissing off the people that it is meant to piss off. In that sense, it certainly is a success.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Tarentino is being consistent. He's not advocating peace but administering a dose of the old ultraviolence to Bush.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

What do you lefties think about Godard's quote, "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and image. He doesn't know what he's doing." Agree/Somewhat Agree/Disagree?
I admire Moore's intention of bringing some of these connections, such as that between Bush and the Saudi royal family, to light. I just think he has a very heavy-handed style and his weakness is his completely overt subjectivity; which if he is a documentarist, it should be; otherwise, he is an entertainer, and the movie should not be passed off as fact. My biggest problem with it is that question - what is the intent of the movie, is it entertainment (Ricky Martin anyone?), or news?

The Devil's Triad (calstars), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"it disgraces that sorrowful date just to inflame liberal guilt."

He really should have replaced "guilt" with "anger".

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I meant he was right about Tarantino in this:

Tarantino, Kathleen Turner and Jerry Schatzberg encourages audiences to think or behave politically. American cinema in the Tarantino years has pandered to violence, racism, greed and self-satisfaction. It's not impossible that the torturers at Abu Ghraib—including even Saddam Hussein's own precedent-setting torturers—were inspired by the torture scene in Reservoir Dogs. QT made sadism hip and sent it 'round the world. Now we're stuck in the middle of a global crisis for which neither he, nor Michael Moore, have an answer.

Tarantino's production company is named after a Godard film but I'll be damned if I can find any Godard in what he does.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

what is the intent of the
movie, is it entertainment (Ricky Martin anyone?), or news?


It's infotainment!

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:27 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

first frag should read: "Tarantino, Kathleen Turner and Jerry Schatzberg [don't encourage] audiences to think or behave politically" since I truncated it.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't follow his writing closely, but my general impression of Armond White is that he's been slowly losing his mind since the mid-eighties -- every column or essay I've ever seen of his has him seriously blowing his gasket over something or other. CONFIRM OR DENY!

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Tarantino's production company is named after a Godard film but I'll be damned if I can find any Godard in what he does.

He's more of a Melville fan by way of Woo. But really, it's all in the snazzy suits.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

White is not wrong in that instance, but it's definitely unfair to lay all of the blame on Tarantino. In fact, by doing this, he's making himself as guilty as Moore by blowing things out of proportion.

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:29 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Bungled that of course, should read: his weakness is his lack of objectivity, which if he is a documentarist, should be his focus.

The Devil's Triad (calstars), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:29 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Momus, did you ever get around to seeing Kill Bill? I would actually love to read a Kill Bill review by you.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:30 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Bungled that of course, should read: his weakness is his lack of objectivity, which if he is a documentarist, should be his focus.

This is all brought up on that other Moore thread.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't care of AW doesn't like Tarantino, but to let that dislike turn into saying "he could be responsible for prison torture from the U.S. and the Iraqis" is simplistic, pretentious bullshit from someone who doesn't understand that this sort of crap was going on in the world long before Quentin Tarantino.

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

No, Scott, I didn't. I probably will see it one day, though, and if ILX still exists I'll tell you my thoughts.

What do you lefties think about Godard's quote, "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and image. He doesn't know what he's doing." Agree/Somewhat Agree/Disagree?

I think that's probably a fair point. Moore is working in a very different tradition than Godard. Considering he's such a corpulent man, it's interesting that his films don't tend to have a 'body' in the way Godard's do. I hear the editing in 'F9/11' is 'good', but I suspect the people saying that (I think it was some BBC critic covering Cannes) are not people who think Godard's Brechtian editing style is 'good'. It's like criticizing a newspaper op-ed column for not being James Joyce.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"As Kevin Costner worried in JFK..." !!!!!!
Priceless. Armond White is a buffoon.

Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:33 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Wait wait wait isn't Armond White the guy who creamed his pants about 3000 Miles to Graceland?!?!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:34 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

his weakness is his lack of objectivity, which if he is a documentarist, should be his focus.

Why shouldn't subjectivity and point-of-view be the focus of a documentarist?

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:35 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I dunno, Gear, although Reservoir Dogs does kinda fit in with the Peckinpah legacy, I'd say its depiction of torture doesn't fit any specific trope other than "huh huh this looks cool, esp. with old 1970s tunes." Big difference between that and the opening credits of Wild Bunch (okay I know its insects but THEY'RE STANDING IN FOR PEOPLE).

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:35 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Why shouldn't subjectivity and point-of-view be the focus of a documentarist?

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

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:35 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

And that's Michael Moore's fault, how?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:36 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Right I understand that, but I think he's overstating the film's influence on the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:38 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

And that's Michael Moore's fault, how?

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

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Al-Jazeera bashing = automatic idiotic review.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:41 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Momus I think when a documentarist is reporting on a subject he should leave his bias or his favor at home. I guess we could debate whether the 'documentary' as a medium is inherently supposed to be objective or subjective, but the best ones I've seen ('One Day in September' comes to mind) leave polarizing issues like politics out of the story.

The Devil's Triad (calstars), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:42 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

how could this movie leave politics out of the story?!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:42 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"if only 'spellbound' stayed away from polarizing issues like spelling"

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

You are delusional. No movie can possibly be objective (and One Day in September certainly wasn't.) I'd rather have someone be upfront with his biases than pretend they don't exist.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:44 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"why did marcel ophuls have to keep bringing up the nazis in 'the sorrow and the pity'?"

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:44 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

for another, perhaps more informed point of view:

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

lovebug starski, Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:44 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"Why didn't we see more of the witch's POV in The Blair Witch Project?"

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

The Fog of War had to talk about war, that was what killed it for me

Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

MAYBE WE SHOULD LET THE GOVERNMENT MAKE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTARIES

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

hahahaha alex

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:46 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't consider Hitchen's particularly sane or well-informed.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 18:47 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Some of those music video review thingys used to be (are?) up on YouTube in poor quality recordings. I watched enough of them that I'm convinced they were his best work.

iCloudius (cryptosicko), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:04 (one year ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

I called this one:

A few years back, as chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, I hosted a criticism panel at Columbia University and was bemused when one participant from a national weekly entertainment magazine, insisted that his “reviews are not political!” It’s demonstrable that most movie critics, like most journalists, work under an unacknowledged left bias. I was reminded of this again yesterday when a conglomerate of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle, Boston Society of Film Critics, and the National Society of Film Critics all rounded their wagons, moving to disqualify Disney films from the groups’ upcoming awards consideration, subsequent to a feud — over a news article the L.A. Times wrote about Disneyland — in which the corporation refused to invite the paper’s critic to a movie screening.

Reviewers who normally resist writing political analyses of films, even when praising movies that are blatantly partisan, now presume to form a united front by issuing the quasi-political statement that Disney’s interdiction was “antithetical to the principles of a free press and set a dangerous precedent in a time of already heightened hostility towards journalists. . . . [This] should gravely concern all who believe in the importance of a free press, artists included.”

But this is delusional. It is the typical liberal “free press” blather followed by punitive action. Involvement in an individual business dispute diminishes the idea of journalistic solidarity unless there’s recognition that Disney exercised a legitimate right to choose its audience for film previews—even to withhold advertising to whatever media outlet it chooses. Ignoring the business facts of the matter to pretend this is a First Amendment issue exposes the critics’ hypocrisy.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 19:03 (one year ago) Permalink

Disney exercised a legitimate right to choose its audience for film previews—even to withhold advertising to whatever media outlet it chooses

Would that Disney decided to stop advertising their shitty product.

Anne of the Thousand Gays (Eric H.), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 19:18 (one year ago) Permalink

This one slipped by me ... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453744/charles-burnett-academy-award

Anne of the Thousand Gays (Eric H.), Friday, 17 November 2017 13:47 (one year ago) Permalink

https://www.out.com/armond-white/2017/11/30/call-me-your-names-sex-lives-rich-and-immodest

I don't regard this as actually from the maniacal side of things, but certain to raise hackles.

Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:28 (one year ago) Permalink

fabulous url

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:30 (one year ago) Permalink

what, NRO wouldn't publish it?

Also:

nstead of powerfully exploring gay passion as in this year’s Paris: O5:59 and God’s Own Country, Guadagino’s movie is regressive. It harkens back to a pre-Stonewall sensibility in which closeted emotions are inflated due to an out-dated, introverted and mostly inept sensibility.

Did he watch the scene where Elio grabs Oliver's balls, or, like, the whole movie? Elio hides the crush from no one, himself least of all.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:32 (one year ago) Permalink

I don't disagree that Paris and God's were more unbridled tho. But that's certainly not the ONLY measure by which films about gay romance should be judged.

Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:34 (one year ago) Permalink

I have never used a bridle.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:35 (one year ago) Permalink

You're missing out.

Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:44 (one year ago) Permalink

Seven Bridles for Seven Brothers.

Dan Worsley, Thursday, 30 November 2017 17:55 (one year ago) Permalink

i’m bridling at this offtopic horseplay

hi i’m darren and i’m a bouncer from bendigo (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 30 November 2017 18:00 (one year ago) Permalink

Jump in the saddle, hold on to the bridle

Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 November 2017 18:03 (one year ago) Permalink

Armond writes regularly for Out as well as Soto's favorite t.p.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 30 November 2017 18:05 (one year ago) Permalink

God's Own Country is quite bridled

Susan Stranglehands (jed_), Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:51 (one year ago) Permalink

It's beautifully bridled.

Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:55 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

fucking moron of course backtracks on Lady Bird once other people loved it as well, the same as he did with The Hurt Locker.

omar little, Friday, 5 January 2018 22:46 (one year ago) Permalink

hipsterism run amok.

hipster decadence.

without appreciating its coup de grâce rebuke of hipsterism

it's always worth control-f-ing hipsterism with Armand, it seems. I'm probably a bad person, but I do occasionally agree with him about some widely liked movies - but don't like to talk about it. But Jesus wept "Edgar Wright’s autism action film" - stfu man!

calzino, Friday, 5 January 2018 23:13 (one year ago) Permalink

Sentence most in need of an editor: “Plain, neo-realist beauty exposes the useless, cynical sanctimony of three ahistorical, sanctimonious, paranoid fantasies.”

Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Friday, 5 January 2018 23:25 (one year ago) Permalink

But Jesus wept "Edgar Wright’s autism action film" - stfu man!

Can I confess that I had no idea wtf he was talking about here? So, Baby was autistic? Or Wright is somehow crafting an "autistic" style of filmmaking (whatever that means)? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about?

iCloudius (cryptosicko), Friday, 5 January 2018 23:51 (one year ago) Permalink

I actually agree with about half of his review of The Post.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 6 January 2018 00:10 (one year ago) Permalink

I'm probably a bad person, but I do occasionally agree with him

oh come on
armond is great
(imo)
agreeing with a controversial critic does not make anyone a "bad person." i'm sick of that leap people make with controversial people.

flappy bird, Saturday, 6 January 2018 00:14 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWg1CGJXkAAoS99.jpg

na (NA), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:32 (eleven months ago) Permalink

oh god just heard about his latest. Look I love when he's a mischievous pill when he's writing about movies, but this kinda shit is disgusting

flappy bird, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:39 (eleven months ago) Permalink

It's ... admirable isn't the word for it, but it's something how many deeper ends he finds to go off of this late in the game.

"Minneapolis" (barf) (Eric H.), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:45 (eleven months ago) Permalink

this is just boring though, like i don't go to armond for warmed over right wing talking points i could get from literally thousands of people on twitter, i go to him for shit like "the recent Eddie Murphy films that are so personal and ingenious, they transcend racial categorization.”

flappy bird, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:50 (eleven months ago) Permalink

AW will be cohosting a podcast w/ Ted Nugent shortly

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:05 (eleven months ago) Permalink

when you're an irredeemable asshole that everyone in your previous scene despises because you're an asshole, sometimes you run into the everlasting arms of the right-wing. they'll take any piece of shit they can use against the left.

omar little, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:15 (eleven months ago) Permalink

The last straw. Never reading his shit again, not even for amusement. Fuck him forever.

Dangleballs and the Ballerina (cryptosicko), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:18 (eleven months ago) Permalink

and he published worse Tweets about the students than the one posted here

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:37 (eleven months ago) Permalink

the thing about this piece of shit is even his film crit has been full of this stuff the entire time. bubbling under the surface, but there. ascribing the worst motives to those who are different, or hold different opinions. falsifying their positions. positioning himself at odds with everyone. his entire career and at this point his life really is a tragedy. his voice was potentially important, but since everything he's ever said has been afaict disingenuous there's no point in even engaging with his work. basically cryptosicko otm.

omar little, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 21:07 (eleven months ago) Permalink

He really was not this way when I started reading him ('97), at least to this degree. I don't think he did at the City Sun (a black-interest weekly in NYC) either, where he was arts editor '84-96.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 21:14 (eleven months ago) Permalink

i remember him being surly back in '99-'00, but i think around the time this thread started he began to go off the rails considerably.

omar little, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 21:19 (eleven months ago) Permalink

I emailed OUT earlier today asking if they were aware of his recent tweets, and if this would have any effect on his future there. Just got an email back saying that they had received numerous complaints, and while they believe in allowing a broad range of opinions on their site, Armond's column had been terminated for "budgetary reasons."

Dangleballs and the Ballerina (cryptosicko), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:35 (eleven months ago) Permalink

Can’t wait to see how he’ll spin that. Oh wait, that’s like his entire work history since 2004.

"Minneapolis" (barf) (Eric H.), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:40 (eleven months ago) Permalink

when you're an irredeemable asshole that everyone in your previous scene despises because you're an asshole, sometimes you run into the everlasting arms of the right-wing. they'll take any piece of shit they can use against the left.

― omar little, Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:15 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so fucking true

A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:43 (eleven months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Armond mostly otm on The Man Who Came to Dinner

https://www.out.com/armond-white/2018/2/27/seminal-gay-film-man-who-came-dinner-originates-art-shade

Might be one of his last things for OUT; I'm seeing on Twitter they sacked him over the Parkland shit. Can't verify.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Monday, 12 March 2018 21:34 (ten months ago) Permalink

It's discussed upthread. They claim he was dropped due to "budgetary reasons".

...some of y'all too woke to function (C. Grisso/McCain), Monday, 12 March 2018 21:51 (ten months ago) Permalink

"We lack enough patience in our reserves to keep you employed any longer."

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 12 March 2018 21:59 (ten months ago) Permalink

I checked with someone who works there and they said they had no knowledge that he'd been terminated, so.

"Minneapolis" (barf) (Eric H.), Monday, 12 March 2018 22:41 (ten months ago) Permalink

I have the email from OUT saying that they weren't running his column anymore.

Dangleballs and the Ballerina (cryptosicko), Monday, 12 March 2018 23:18 (ten months ago) Permalink

nine months pass...

We're done now

Photoshop can be problematic. But it can also make great agit-prop. Thanks Gary L. Oliver. @greggutfeld @frankrichny @LakeGregory pic.twitter.com/EULbKW40xR

— armond white (@3xchair) January 11, 2019

forrest drumpf (Eric H.), Friday, 11 January 2019 00:02 (one week ago) Permalink

His work is now impossible to read. Whenever I click a national review link, which isn’t often, I get a pop up a out being the millionth visitor click here to redeem your free ipad

Trϵϵship, Friday, 11 January 2019 00:07 (one week ago) Permalink

His work is now impossible to read. Whenever I click a national review link, which isn’t often, I get a pop up a out being the millionth visitor click here to redeem your free ipad

Trϵϵship, Friday, 11 January 2019 00:07 (one week ago) Permalink

Sorry for the duplicate

Trϵϵship, Friday, 11 January 2019 00:07 (one week ago) Permalink

You're The One Millionth ILX Double Poster! You Win An iPad!

Infidels, Like Dylan In The Eighties (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 11 January 2019 00:13 (one week ago) Permalink

Armond's description of this as "great agit-prop" goes a long way towards explaining his taste in movies.

Timothée Charalambides (cryptosicko), Friday, 11 January 2019 00:56 (one week ago) Permalink

this shit bums me out because his reviews are so insane and often inscrutable in a really beautiful way, when he's sharing right-wing boomer memes it's so boring.

flappy bird, Friday, 11 January 2019 04:19 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.