Theme/Skin created by Xarina. Find more great designs at the Zathyus Networks.
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Internuts; stuff that don't fit in Greencine daily
Topic Started: Jan 12 2006, 12:11 PM (1,189 Views)
Mister Jiggy, Esq.
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Martin
Member Avatar
Hello Sailor
Silly. Guy sounds like he's a juvie-RT'er with an attitude.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TBickle
Member Avatar
Mustache Dreams
Mister Jiggy, Esq.,Aug 22 2007
11:08 AM
"In my view it is cinematically worthless." - Fred Camper on Ingmar Bergman's Persona in a post yesterday over at a_film_by.

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:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vornporn
Member Avatar
A Ryan Seacrest type.
Interesting piece on The Best Years of Our Lives: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=13117
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vornporn
Member Avatar
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/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YancySkancy
Member Avatar
Administrator
vornporn,Oct 6 2010
08:02 AM
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/

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").
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maxime G.
Member Avatar
Afro Sheen
YancySkancy,Oct 6 2010
09:41 AM
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").

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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shay Casey
Member Avatar
Blingin' for Our Savior
Maxime G.,Oct 6 2010
01:17 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vornporn
Member Avatar
A Ryan Seacrest type.
The most controversial movie of the year!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YancySkancy
Member Avatar
Administrator
vornporn,Oct 8 2010
08:29 AM

Ebert takes O'Hehir to task.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vornporn
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Jiggy, Esq.
Member Avatar
Swingin' on the Flippity-Flop
I'm pro boredom too - but why am I procrastinating in watching Platform, In Vanda's Room and Eureka?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dirt
Member Avatar
After all.....
vornporn,Jun 9 2011
02:45 PM
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


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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vornporn
Member Avatar
A Ryan Seacrest type.
Mister Jiggy, Esq.,Jun 9 2011
12:01 PM
I'm pro boredom too - but why am I procrastinating in watching Platform, In Vanda's Room and Eureka?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YancySkancy
Member Avatar
Administrator
vornporn,Jun 9 2011
02:40 PM
Mister Jiggy, Esq.,Jun 9 2011
12:01 PM
I'm pro boredom too - but why am I procrastinating in watching Platform, In Vanda's Room and Eureka?

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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Critics Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply