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 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

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

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

Was that elementary school actually in Florida?

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

"Punditocracy"??!! I love it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al-Jazeera bashing = automatic idiotic review.

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

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

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

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

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

hahahaha alex

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

omg

Neanderthal, Friday, 9 December 2016 02:32 (six months ago) Permalink

Now I'm curious if he reviewed Paul Schrader's Patty Hearst (which I haven't seen, but which feels like a potentially interesting combination of director and subject).

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Friday, 9 December 2016 06:42 (six months ago) Permalink

he made this mention of it...

"he method resembles Paul Schrader's tabloid spiritualism in Hardcore, American Gigolo and especially Patty Hearst, which veered off into lonely psychosis (and some critics prefer that detachment from realities of class and sex competition)."

Neanderthal, Friday, 9 December 2016 07:02 (six months ago) Permalink

This Out-National Review twin beat is amazing:

http://www.out.com/armond-white/2016/12/09/la-la-land-not-gay-enough

Ballistic: ILX vs. Sever (Eric H.), Friday, 9 December 2016 17:54 (six months ago) Permalink

Note to Gosling fans: Your erection does not translate as charmed.)

is this even semantically correct?

When Mia and Sebastian sing and dance, they’re never melodious or graceful; they’re craven careerists and they hoof like amateurs.

Yes to the second point, but what about them, their hoofing, or amelodiousness translates as craven or careerist?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 9 December 2016 17:58 (six months ago) Permalink

two months pass...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445206/jordan-peeles-get-out-trite-get-whitey-movie

Get Out does not rank with America’s notable race comedies — Brian De Palma’s Hi, Mom!, Ossie Davis’s Gone Are the Days! (Purlie Victorious), Robert Downey Sr.’s Putney Swope, Melvin Van Peebles’s Sweet Sweetback, Hal Ashby’s The Landlord, Rusty Cundieff’s Fear of a Black Hat, Skin Game or any of the genre spoofs by the Wayans family, particularly the ingenious Little Man, or the recent Eddie Murphy films (The Klumps, Norbit, Meet Dave, A Thousand Words) that are so personal and ingenious, they transcend racial categorization.

But unlike Eddie Murphy, a masterful actor with a mature sense of humor, Peele fails because has not created credible characters.

da croupier, Friday, 24 February 2017 18:57 (four months ago) Permalink

Get Out was actually awesome

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Friday, 24 February 2017 18:59 (four months ago) Permalink

arguably even more 0___0 than his endless adjectives for '00s eddie murphy

Get Out is an attenuated comedy sketch in which serious concerns are debased. Pushing buttons that alarm blacks yet charm white liberals, Peele manipulates the Trayvon Martin myth the same way Obama himself did when he pandered by saying, “Trayvon Martin could have been my son.” That disingenuous tease is extended in Peele’s casting of Daniel Kaluuya. Son of Ugandan parents, the handsome, round-faced, British-born actor triggers sympathy (he has the young, clean-cut buppie co-ed look that brothers Branford and Wynton Marsalis rocked in the ’80s).

But Kaluuya’s strongest historical associations must come from Peele’s subconscious: The actor’s dark-skin/bright-teeth image inadvertently recalls the old Sambo archetype. Kaluuya frequently goes from sleepy-eyed stress to bug-eyed fright. Surely Spike Lee would have recognized the resemblance to Stepin Fetchit, Mantan Moreland, and Willie Best, the infamous comics who made their living performing Negro caricatures during Hollywood’s era of segregation. Peele seems too caught up in exploiting modern narcissism to notice old repulsion. Sambo lives matter. Question: Will Kaluuya’s wild-eyed consternation be equated with James Baldwin’s bug-eye perspicacity in I Am Not Your Negro?

da croupier, Friday, 24 February 2017 19:02 (four months ago) Permalink

... Wow

Heavy Doors (jed_), Saturday, 25 February 2017 11:25 (four months ago) Permalink

Answer?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 25 February 2017 12:03 (four months ago) Permalink

@NickPinkerton
Realize that the problem with Armond has nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with his calling Naruse "minor" in 2010.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 March 2017 15:32 (three months ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Armond White, who some will remember as the 90s/00s magnificently trolly film critic of the New York Press, has gone FULL alt-right pic.twitter.com/1z2P92cHoe

— Joe Bernstein (@Bernstein) May 31, 2017

na (NA), Wednesday, 31 May 2017 14:54 (four weeks ago) Permalink

these hastily thrown together screenshots from various tweets with no context given certainly make this a open shut case

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 31 May 2017 22:45 (four weeks ago) Permalink

oh come the fuck on

-_- (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 31 May 2017 22:52 (four weeks ago) Permalink

tho it's not even remotely surprising that white is an alt-righter

-_- (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 31 May 2017 22:53 (four weeks ago) Permalink

i mean literally the first review in this thread is titled "film of the fascist liberal"

-_- (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 31 May 2017 22:53 (four weeks ago) Permalink

i agree w you 100%. just making fun of a tweet of a collage of screenshots of tweets. screenshot that review and post it next to some damning icons.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 31 May 2017 23:06 (four weeks ago) Permalink

i thought Michael Moore was gen held in contempt around here

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 June 2017 01:00 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Better pundit than filmmaker

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 June 2017 01:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i never get tired of opening up this thread and stumbling on this line:

As Kevin Costner worried in JFK, we are indeed through the looking glass now.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 1 June 2017 01:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

fuck yeah!

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 June 2017 01:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I, like most Americans, refuse to participate in La La Land.

— armond white (@3xchair) June 4, 2017

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 14:24 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Here's to the dreamers.

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 14:27 (three weeks ago) Permalink

* Armond runs to pay phone to call ICE *

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 14:35 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2222 of them)

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 14:40 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Also, certain now that all the books he's tease as "coming soon" over the last decade-plus of this thread will never see the light of day.

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 17:41 (three weeks ago) Permalink

how many non-complilation books has he authored? just the Tupac?

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:02 (three weeks ago) Permalink

god Armond "ruining" the 100% Rotten Tomatoes score for Get Out is still so fucking funny to me, such a classic Armond move

flappy bird, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

That seems to be the only one, yes.

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

alas my two friends who thought Get Out sucked are not critics.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Ned's reaction to that review is also amazing:

White wrote of Peele’s film: “‘Get Out’ does not rank with America’s notable race comedies — Brian De Palma’s ‘Hi, Mom!’, Ossie Davis’s ‘Gone Are the Days! (Purlie Victorious)’, Robert Downey Sr.’s ‘Putney Swope,’ Melvin Van Peebles’s ‘Sweet Sweetback’, Hal Ashby’s ‘The Landlord,’ Rusty Cundieff’s ‘Fear of a Black Hat,’ or any of the genre spoofs by the Wayans family, … or the recent Eddie Murphy films that are so personal and ingenious, they transcend racial categorization.”

Still taking this in.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:51 PM (three months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

flappy bird, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Ned, still taking it in?

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

he had me through The Landlord, at the v minimum

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:17 (three weeks ago) Permalink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_a_100%25_rating_on_Rotten_Tomatoes

The list of movies Armond hasn't "ruined" on RT is pretty long tbh.

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:17 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the personal and ingenious movies of Griffith, they transcend racial categorizatoin.

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

24: Redemption

nomar, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Eddie Murphy has recent films?

jmm, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Ned, still taking it in?

I've moved towards taking it on board.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_(2015_film)

57 positive reviews?!

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm more sick of Rotten Tomatoes than I am of Armond.

some sad trombone Twilight Zone shit (cryptosicko), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

xpost Perhaps that should have been called Julian's Complicated Situation.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:22 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I've never used it.

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I prefer meat critic.

insidious assymetrical weapons (Eric H.), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I don't either, but it has a certain cultural ubiquity that I finally noticed last semester when some of my students were discussing some movie or another (Get Out? La La Land?) and contrasting their reactions towards the RT score.

some sad trombone Twilight Zone shit (cryptosicko), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:24 (three weeks ago) Permalink

reactions towards against the RT score

some sad trombone Twilight Zone shit (cryptosicko), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 18:25 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the tomato has become totally ubiquitous, shows up whenever you google a movie, listed right next to the running time. i use the Flixster app and that fuckin tomato is always right there. in a way it's cool because shit blockbusters like Baywatch and Pirates 800 or whatever wither on the vine, but their whole process of determining how to categorize middling reviews as positive or negative seems fishy.

flappy bird, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 19:10 (three weeks ago) Permalink

wither on the vine

I see what you did

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 19:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

lol damn that was unintentional

flappy bird, Tuesday, 6 June 2017 21:35 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i saw Pirates at a drive in a few weeks ago and had a blast, fuck the tomatoes

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 6 June 2017 21:45 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i read that as meaning the Polanski film w/ Matthau

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 June 2017 00:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink


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