Film Commentary

Armond White: Turns out he's not only a prick … but a trained one.

January 4, 2011

Via /Film, David Chen’s podcast interview with The Prick himself (7/20/10), where White states:

I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds, but the fact is, I’ve got the training. I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who’ve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he’s had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you’ve ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That’s what’s called being a shill. And it’s a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.

It’s official, my dear readers.  Mr. White has beaten the currently accepted laws of elementary physics.  In the above excerpted quote, he was able to stroke his own cock and give himself a juicy, eye-gouging orgasm … by words alone.

Tibetan monks are in awe.

It’s also fascinating (kind of like roadkill is).  Roger Ebert, an untrained ignoramus-cum-Neanderthal (at least by the Haughty Prick’s standards), became (and still becomes) a more effective writer, thinker and critic than The Prick himself has ever been and ever will be.  Kindergarten-caliber jealousy, plain and simple.  I suppose this is what happens when vainglorious, windbag writers and artists shamelessly assume to create a difference between “high criticism” and “low criticism,” and thus, “highbrow art” versus “lowbrow art.”  Such a distinction has (thankfully) died with 21st Century, particularly through Mr. GrumpyPants’ bane of multimedia existence: The Internet (cue timpani drums).

Will we simian, plebian, lowly Internet-era thirtysomethings miss the bastard when he’s finally croaked his last negative word?

Maybe his momma will.

Maybe.

Chen is a lot more forgiving and diplomatic, of course, interestingly in lieu of White’s accusation of /Film’s incompetence as film analysts.  Albeit, I do applaud Chen for the double-edged conclusion of his post:

After last night, I don’t believe that Armond White is a professional troll; just a critic who (perhaps too) vehemently believes in the integrity of his art and longs for the golden era when the mainstream still cared what film critics thought. As for his outlying opinions on films, I don’t begrudge him them any longer, since he really appears to stand by what he writes. That being said, a man who finds Michael Bay more skillful than Christopher Nolan is not someone whose views I want to align myself with, no matter how pedigreed, trained, or well-versed in the art he may be.

Well said, Mr. Chen.  Well said.

You Might Also Like

No Comments

Leave a Reply