| Welcome to RT CD Refugees. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Internuts; stuff that don't fit in Greencine daily | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 12 2006, 12:11 PM (1,189 Views) | |
| Mister Jiggy, Esq. | Aug 22 2007, 10:08 AM Post #16 |
|
Swingin' on the Flippity-Flop
|
"In my view it is cinematically worthless." - Fred Camper on Ingmar Bergman's Persona in a post yesterday over at a_film_by. |
![]() |
|
| Martin | Aug 22 2007, 02:52 PM Post #17 |
|
Hello Sailor
|
Silly. Guy sounds like he's a juvie-RT'er with an attitude. |
![]() |
|
| TBickle | Aug 22 2007, 11:03 PM Post #18 |
|
Mustache Dreams
|
Heh. A couple of weeks ago he said it'd work just as well (or the same) if it were a stage play with the opening images projected on backdrop. :no: |
![]() |
|
| vornporn | Dec 31 2009, 09:22 AM Post #19 |
|
A Ryan Seacrest type.
|
Interesting piece on The Best Years of Our Lives: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=13117 |
![]() |
|
| vornporn | Oct 6 2010, 08:02 AM Post #20 |
|
A Ryan Seacrest type.
|
You've probably already read this if you're interested, but I thought this attempt to take Armond White seriously and provide a close reading of his infamous Toy Story 3 review was great: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/07...te-meta-review/ |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Oct 6 2010, 09:41 AM Post #21 |
|
Administrator
|
I did indeed read this a couple months back. Excellent. As Brunick says, if this is worth discussing, it's worth discussing well. So many of White's haters, at least in talk-backs, come off as typical enraged fanboys ("I think this rocks, so how could anyone else think it sucks?!"), that there's no fun in reading it. Brunick's exercise is useful, even as it calls bullshit on White's slipshod critique (he clearly now goes into these Pixar films ready to pounce and can't even be assed to get basic plot details right). As Brunick suggests, it's hard to argue that an opinion is wrong, but the expression of it and the reasoning behind it certainly can be. I'd love to see White concede some of Brunick's points and modify his review (not saying he'd ever do a 180; I'm sure he'd just find new reasons to hate it. But maybe he'd say, "Well, if it's not really doing some of the stuff I thought it was, maybe it's not THAT bad"). |
![]() |
|
| Maxime G. | Oct 6 2010, 12:17 PM Post #22 |
|
Afro Sheen
|
But one of White's (many) major problems is that he never concedes anything to anyone and doesn't seem to be willing to engage in fruitful debate. His latest piece about Internet, blogging and social networks - in which he dismisses everything that was ever written about film on the internet - is terribly dishonest (or ignorant (probably both)) and confirms the suspicions that he does not intend to answer his most eloquent dissenters with anything other than snide and condescending remarks. The only conversations/interviews involving White that I've read or listened to so far have been with admirers of his or clearly unequipped opponents; of course he's going to destroy the /Filmcast crew! I'll take him over Roeper, Berardinelli, etc., though. EDIT: Great piece indeed by Paul Brunick! |
![]() |
|
| Shay Casey | Oct 6 2010, 03:26 PM Post #23 |
|
Blingin' for Our Savior
|
Yeah, while I think the article does a great job of demonstrating Armond White's tortured logic and factual inaccuracies, the thing that makes him unreadable for me is the general contempt towards anyone who disagrees with his opinion of a particular film. Given that White also tends to take contrarian positions and go against the grain of critical and popular consensus (which is fine, in and of itself), that means he's showing outright contempt for a lot of people. I'd prefer to read a review or critique of a film that generally confines criticism to the film itself, and doesn't have to also traffic in nasty rebukes of those who made it or might have liked it. Even when Armond likes a film, he goes out of his way to criticize (usually hypothetical) people who didn't like it, because they were obviously too stupid to see the brilliance he did. It all just comes of as nasty and unconstructive. I think if he were really confident in his appraisal of a film, he wouldn't have to constantly position himself against some imagined, monolithic "other." Sure, sometimes there really is a monolithic consensus that needs to be challenged; the problem is that Armond White sees it with every damn movie. |
![]() |
|
| vornporn | Oct 8 2010, 08:29 AM Post #24 |
|
A Ryan Seacrest type.
|
The most controversial movie of the year! |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Oct 8 2010, 10:04 AM Post #25 |
|
Administrator
|
Ebert takes O'Hehir to task. |
![]() |
|
| vornporn | Jun 9 2011, 10:45 AM Post #26 |
|
A Ryan Seacrest type.
|
Speaking of O'Hehir (8 months later), he wrote the best piece I've read so far in the "boring cinema" meme that's currently sweeping the internets: http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/...aise_of_boredom |
![]() |
|
| Mister Jiggy, Esq. | Jun 9 2011, 12:01 PM Post #27 |
|
Swingin' on the Flippity-Flop
|
I'm pro boredom too - but why am I procrastinating in watching Platform, In Vanda's Room and Eureka? |
![]() |
|
| Dirt | Jun 9 2011, 12:02 PM Post #28 |
|
After all.....
|
I was going to read all of the article but I got bored. Anyone got the cliff notes? Preferably with pictures of exploding bikini babes? |
![]() |
|
| vornporn | Jun 9 2011, 02:40 PM Post #29 |
|
A Ryan Seacrest type.
|
Even though I only liked 2 of those 3, I would say those are each examples of the good kind of boring. But yeah, that's about a 9 hour commitment there. |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jun 9 2011, 03:38 PM Post #30 |
|
Administrator
|
I haven't seen any of those, but I think long, slow movies are great as long as they have Emmanuelle Beart lying around naked for most of the run time. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Critics Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:42 PM Jul 10
|