New York Press film critic Armond White chats at great length with Steven Boone at Big Media Vandal. Most movie reviewers, White avers, “take the stance of the status quo. They like to keep things as they are, because they personally benefit from things as they are. That’s what I see.” Boone asks, does White have to compromise? “Well, put it this way: I don’t work for The New York Times. They don’t want what I do. I have to work for a place that wants what I do. It’s not about compromise. It’s really about if a publisher or publication wants what you do. The New York Times knows what its doing when it hires people as film critics. It hires people who will present The New York Times agenda. And there is one. They don’t hire people because they’re great writers, great thinkers or great critics. They hire people who will fit with their program… You read it and tell me what their program is. They don’t want someone who knows their stuff. They don’t want what I do.” Boone interjects, But you’ve written for The New York Times! “Not a lot. You can count the times I’ve been published in The New York Times on one hand… Never on film. That door is closed to me… Well, I love writing about [film and music alike]. But film is a very powerful industry. To write about film somehow you seem to address something that almost everybody is interested in, that everybody takes personally in some way. So to write about film is really a very powerful privilege. The New York Times understands that. They make sure that nobody’s going to write about film who doesn’t agree with the editorial board. I’m talking about The New York Times, the paper of record, but its worth realizing that its not— It’s not the authority. It’s just a powerful organ, but it’s worth knowing that it’s not an authority and not the highest critical thinking. It seems like I’m picking on the people at the Times, but that was the truth before they got there. It remains the truth.” And what of Sidney Lumet? “Well, with Lumet, his only gift is that he can keep an actor in focus as he says his dialogue, simple as that. He doesn’t know how to shoot the scene, does not know how to compose a shot– never has. Not in any interesting way. But he certainly knows how to keep actors in focus as they say their dialogue. He’s been plying that trade for 40 years. He’s not a filmmaker. He’s still directing live TV. Ever see his film of Long Day’s Journey Into Night? Great film because it’s a great play with a great cast. He kept his camera focused on those great actors saying that great dialogue. That’s it.” Boone says, “I don’t disagree with your assessment that Lumet’s work feels like live television from the ’50s, but guess what? Live television from the ’50s, to me, if not ideal, is more cinematic in rhythm than what we’re seeing today.” White: “No it’s not. And don’t ever say that again. [laughs] Live television in the fifties is live television. It’s not cinema. Lumet cuts on dialogue, Steve! He cuts on dialogue! There’s no breathing in a Sidney Lumet film because he doesn’t use the rhythms which which people communicate. He cuts on commas and periods.” [Much, much more at the link, running beyond 6,000 words.]

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•