Did The Dinosaurs Go Out Calling Each Other Names?
I was really sad when I read Armond White’s review of his process of reviewing Greenberg.
This led to The Village Voice’s Jim “J Hoberman” Hoberman’s response. And Glenn Kenny’s amusing, now-aware-of-the-pile-up response.
Of course, this all came after thousands of words about White being disinvited to the Greenberg screening, which harkens back to thousands of words about the NYFCC president’s slap at the recipient of an award from the group for not attending their dinner, which harkens back to Kevin Smith visciously attacking a dying Joel Siegel for not wanting to listen to the proudly comedic vulgarity of Clerks II, which harkens back to…
Ugh. Sick of it.
It’s all an episode of Dysfunctional Family Feud. I had to ask MCN’s headlines editor, Ray Pride, to offer context to the links about some of this because, aside from our tiny circle (in which I am generally not welcome), no one gives a fuck.
Critics are under fire. The authoritative voice is, as I wrote about and no one who comments on this blog much cared about, is being disregarded each day. Yet, as a group, there is more personal squabbling amongst film critics than there is any consensus on working as a group to figure out what should happen in the immediate future.
Instead, there is an endless array of T-Rex’s mocking the Stegosaurus for being too wimpy to go without armor and the Stegosaurus slamming T-Rex back for tiny arms and some other dino slapping at Rex for using the nickname S Saurus and no doubt, some other form of fossil fuel to be mocking me right now for mixing animals from disparate Jurassic periods rather than engaging the point I am trying to make.
And it’s not just us old fucks… that would be everyone over 40. The kids and their Twittering… and worse, the over 40s who are – with the exception of Roger, since he is actually using it as a content creation base and not as a digital bowl in which it vomit – trying to pretend to be hip by endless and meaningless Twittering… damn!
We are losing the beautiful forest of Ideas for the meaningless, self-serving, underconsidered, small-minded trees.
And I admit… I am perfectly willing to get into the cluster fuck of it all (that’s 3 fucks in one blog entry… time for some pathetic loser to make an issue of that) and to throw down. But God knows, I try to keep it to the issue and not the person.
No matter how many times people want to make my issues with Nikki Finke’s work into an issue with Nikki Finke, you’re wrong… and really, you’re stupid. I’m telling you that the fabric of the work – and Nikki has more than a little to do with the very tonal shift I am writing about here, at many outlets… more personal, less actual fact – is being shredded and all “you” want to talk about is why I am trying to hurt the person leading the charge. You may be sick of hearing it, but no matter how much you want to make it about the personal, it is about the professional… or the lack of the professional.
And I have to say, every time people have made this accusation of me, within a few years, they are all on the same track as me, having, amazingly, come to the same conclusion (“well, duh… it was so obvious… why so angry, Dave?”) on their own.
For all of my irritation with Glenn Kenny’s attacks on me, before our Detente, I had to admit even then that I understood what was irritating him so… and it wasn’t me, because he doesn’t know me… he only knows what I write. I had to stop, push aside the hurt feelings of being slapped, and figure out why someone felt compelled to attack me so often. And after pushing out the lame ass idea of jealousy as a motive – which is almost always thrown around first, is sometimes true, but often not and certainly not in Glenn’s case – I finally came to understand that he was passionately fighting for his idea of a right way to love film. I honor that. And Glenn, it seems, came to be willing to accept that however I do it and however I get it wrong in his view, I am not trying to hurt the object of his passion.
Likewise, I honor Armond White’s passion. I am not in his head. I don’t get to decide why he thinks what he thinks. But his ideas are not suspect as being facile and simply attention-seeking. He has a history.
Personally, I don’t think it is such a big deal that he, in whatever way, called for Noah Baumbach’s disappearance from the planet. It’s rhetoric, not a jihad. Get the fuck (4!) over it. And Armond, at the same time, needs to grow up and understand that rhetoric has consequences and he, like all mortals, gets to deal with the firebombs.
When I ran the e-mail that defended White – which coincidentally was first sent to me by a smart young writer with plenty of his own internet access who clearly did not want to fight this fight in public under his own name, avoiding that baggage – my phone rang, as many others did. Leslee Dart made the case. She may have been throwing herself under the bus. She may have been trying to get in front of Scott Rudin – who was the first financial supporter of her new company when she launched it, when it was The Dart Group… and arguably her most important single client – running her over. But we’re all grown ups here, right? We know what a publicist does. We know that Armond’s invite to the next screening may have been cover… or it may have been planned.
Anyway…
The sad part of the fallout is that it means fuck-all (5!) to Greenberg. It will not move a single dollar in or out of the box office for that film. But it has laid bare some of the real and personal rage inside of the NY film critics circle (caplessness intended). And now we get to chew on that gristle like real hyenas.
Proud moments.
Can someone enlighten me as to what it would take for White to be removed from his NYFCC post? Is he in for a specific amount of time? Can they change whenever they want?
I can’t imagine this group feels confident having him as their spokesperson/figurehead after all this.
Catfight, pure and simple. It’s no different from the New York Giants and New York Jets squabbling over who should play the first game in the new Meadowlands stadium.
Incidentally J. Hoberman has always used his first initial in his byline.
I’ve said it and you’ve partially agreed but I will say it again. If it isn’t Knowles then let’s look at Rotten Tomatoes. This was a good idea until they sold it- let’s aggregate critics and provide a summary grade. It was something EW has done for a decade, moved to the Internet. Then you allow, say, a doofus like Brian Orndorf to “count” as a critic because his website has 4 viewers. This ends ALL critic’s validity because if I am the average person and a doofus is a critic then I am a critic too so who needs his opinion.
And White hasn’t been fully called on his most egregious sin. Screaming about his first amendment rights? Titling his piece “This could happen to you”? For shame, Mr. White. This is not some federal case. A artist correctly ascertained that you were an asshole and denied you free access to shit on his art. Fuck you for making it anything else.
Jesus, Poland. Have another mai-tai. Aren’t you supposed to be on vacation or something? Slow, deep breaths.
Wow, a random zing at Bryan Orndorf from Don Murphy–he’ll be dining out on that one for a week (provided he doesn’t order any appetizers or drinks). Being dissed by him is like being banned for life from entering Duluth–it can only burnish one’s reputation.
Earl I assure you the man gets zinged hourly by people. He’s a douche.
David, how come Jeff Wells escapes your wrath? Is it because he’s irrelevant or is it because he genuinely doesn’t bother you or is it because whatever it was between you two became a “thing” unto itself and therefore better ignored?
Craig They stopped dating years ago.
Also, what’s interesting to me about the Armond thing is how no one in the critical community has come to his defense. Have they and I’ve just missed it?
Then it’s very surprising that you haven’t waded into this “Armond White vs the Tar Baby” flap, because underneath it all was a very important professional issue: how come White is even allowed to comment on Baumbach’s work when he has such a strident history with the family.
And his comment about how he can tell Baumbach’s an asshole without knowing him clearly shows White cannot separate the two.
Seems to be a double standard to call others out on their unprofessionalism, but when it came to fellow critic it was circle the wagons time.
What defense can there be for White? He’s acting like a querulous five year old, throwing a tantrum because someone called him on his bullshit.
I’m not a White supporter. I read him “for entertainment purposes” only, but he tried to turn this issue into a principle bigger than himself and he apparently failed.
I think a studio or publicist has every right to invite or disinvite this or that critic, especially one who seems to have a personal grudge beyond the work in question, but I also think criticism as a whole is better off when everyone has the same access.
In this case, White got more attention than he ordinarily would have if there hadn’t been any fuss.
I don’t even know where to start!
As the person who is annoying, incoherent and apparently ‘lazy in my writing’, I want to be the first person to say “Thank You”. I criticize you in the way that pretty much everyone on the blog does, but I finally feel like you saw “GAME ON!” from everyone on this blog, and delivered. BUT-you’re responding, and it is definitely interesting. We can start here:
“Ugh. Sick of it.It’s all an episode of Dysfunctional Family Feud. I had to ask MCN’s headlines editor, Ray Pride, to offer context to the links about some of this because, aside from our tiny circle (in which I am generally not welcome), no one gives a fuck.”
Did you not get the notice of “Welcome to your Blog”? There are definitely a ton of people that post comments here, and know a lot more about movies than I do, but I’m still trying to set the spread of bitchiness vs. knowledge. I’m thinking 60/40.
“Yet, as a group, there is more personal squabbling amongst film critics than there is any consensus on working as a group to figure out what should happen in the immediate future.”
Would you still say ‘film critics’, or would you you say media people in general?
Don Murphy: “And White hasn’t been fully called on his most egregious sin. Screaming about his first amendment rights? Titling his piece “This could happen to you”? For shame, Mr. White. This is not some federal case. A artist correctly ascertained that you were an asshole and denied you free access to shit on his art. Fuck you for making it anything else.”
“F-you for making it anything else!!!!’. Where are you drawing the line here? If you didn’t consider ‘Baumbach’ an ‘artist’, would you care? It seems obvious that you like Baumbach movies, and that you are defending him because of that. That’s fine-but would you be writing the same comment if it was a random director, or someone that you didn’t like?
Do you know White? If not, then shame on you! Where do you get the balls to call someone out for making a judgment call on a film, and then think it’s ok to call him an asshole because you don’t agree? Who are you? What are your motivations? In my opinion, you think White is an asshole because he doesn’t like the same movies that you do.
I can’t catch a break, because I call DP out on this blog in the same way that you’re calling out White. The only difference is that White has a defined job-‘movie critic’. DP is free to do whatever he wants, and he is his own boss. But it bugs me when people have that freedom, and use it to call out the people who don’t. White has an editor, and a person who says
“YOU HAVE TO DO THIS TODAY”. I’m glad that Dave has the freedom to write about whatever he wants-I wish I had the same luxury, and I think a lot of other journalists, who he criticizes, think the same way.
Like I keep saying-it’s extremely easy to stand on the sidelines and call people out. But don’t be that person standing there who can’t take the criticism without thinking it’s personal.
Jack Walsh bzzzzt- I have seen one Baumbach movie and it was merely okay, so wrong answer. And thus your opinion is as stupid as your comments.
Poor wittle White was told he could not see a movie in advance because he had abused his privilege in the past. Instead of accepting his karma he cried like a bitch boo fucking hoo First Amendment. Shame on HIM, this is not a first amendment case and he should be banned from more screenings for his sense of entitlement.
At least you can’t accuse Don of hating Armond because of a bad Transformers 2 review.
Jack Walsh, White’s opinion on the film is automatically suspect because of his history with Baumbach and his family. His editor should never have assigned him to write this article, unless they were more interested in stirring up an attention-grabbing shitstorm than in actual film criticism. Hey, look what happened!
Also, it’s clear that White’s ‘editor’ does precious little editing of White’s pieces.
PS: Don Murphy sux!
Jeffmcm – but not you, right, that’s why you don’t like me. But I am sure you can find a toothless homeless guy to service you the way you prefer .
Not following the first part there, Don. And I’m well acquainted with a little place called Craigslist, thank you very much.
GREENBERG rules …. I had conflicts with this film for a full two weeks after I saw it a whole 10 days before bitchtit AW … because I so despised the Ben Stiller character … but then I realized that I was seeing fragments of myself in his fucked-up (1) personality
Armond White is the only relevant critic. That doesnt mean he is the best or isnt a troll, but which other film critic has got this much attention in the past 5 or so years?
There might be a bit of jealousy from other critics, which is why no one has come to his defense, and he keeps insulting most of them anyway.
But ultimatley, I agree White shouldnt have been allowed to review Noah’s films because sorry, if you are taking shots at someones mother, that is bang out of order and he’d get more than a banning if it was my mother he insulted.
Still, fun 2 see how this fella White gets everyone so riled up, he never fails.
“As the person who is annoying, incoherent and apparently ‘lazy in my writing’, I want to be the first person to say “Thank You”. I criticize you in the way that pretty much everyone on the blog does, but I finally feel like you saw “GAME ON!” from everyone on this blog, and delivered. BUT-you’re responding, and it is definitely interesting.”
Is this supposed to refer to me?
If so, you really have no idea how I have done this or some form of this for 13 bloody years. I most certainly do not write anything I write – aside from direct call and response – to try to satisfy readers. That’s always a fool’s errand. I was perfectly happy to not have you read anymore… believe me.
“I can’t catch a break, because I call DP out on this blog in the same way that you’re calling out White.”
Your image of your significance in here is wildly out of perspective. You sound like J-Mc’s more delusional cousin. You can “catch a break” by saying smart things, not just pointing fingers.
Second, the stupidity of thinking that bad journalism is not the responsibility of the reporter because they have an editor… oy. Your name is on it. Period. If you don’t like what your editor is doing to your work – and I am not talking about the tiny details – move along.
This is this sick notion in some circles that people move through life without choice. We all make choices. And one of them is how we present our work.
I have never criticized any journalist for disagreeing with me. I have criticized them for a lack of finishing their stories by doing the work… often not very hard work. Or for playing to the editor’s or their own idea of a story instead of being lead by the reporting.
I don’t give a fuck if your editor wants an “Avatar cost $500m” story. If you wrote that piece of manipulative crap and let it run in the NYT under your name, you are a failure and you deserve to carry that around your neck forever.
And if you want to know how it really works, look closely at how people do not change under new circumstances. Sharon Waxman was a disaster at the NYT and now, she is hacking in up under her own banner. Her taste for hyperbole and her ignorance of how things actually work remain intact, along with her unearned arrogance. And she will, forever, be the progenitor of the LIE of the demise of the theatrical business in 2005. She built a case, week after week, based on a house of cards. And then, when it was clear how wrong it was, they never went back to fix the damage. So you still hear people yammering about the end of theatrical and the rise of home ent. You still have people on this truly ridiculous “tickets sold” jag (which would have meaning if its meaning wasn’t so obvious, it’s impact so minor, and its existence so expected as part of the small cost of ongoing evolution).
I am wrong about things all the time. I put it out there. I have no problem with people putting it out there. I have no problem with the NYT putting it out there. I do have a problem with pretending that conjecture and guessing is fact.
There is middle ground. Patrick Goldstein doesn’t have to wear his ass-kiss piece on Tim Grey around his neck forever. He was dead wrong and shouldn’t have defended Variety’s actions. But he probably was likely projecting LAT fears onto the story and still believes in the lie of church-n-state in the current incarnation of Old Media. But that was a clear show of emotion and opinion.
Anyway…
Aside from teaching Journalism 101 here, I should add, as I did not in the piece, that I believe Armond should have not reviewed the film and just written his piece on the trouble he had getting to it. All the drama made the review an utterly unreliable non-issue. But still, that was his call and if he wanted to piss in the wind, his call.
Eldrick – Does that make the guy with his dick out the only relevant guy in the office… or the concert… or in the ladies room?
There is a sad reality that now dominates, which is what Don Murphy keeps (kinda) pointing out… getting attention is a different skill set than doing good work… but all the culture cares about right now seems to be the getting of attention. It’s Stupid Spoiled Whore Playset every day, all day.
We have so embraced the masturbatory notion of people like Paris Hilton being worthy of a second of our lives that even she is not longer very exciting… seen that blowjob… let’s move on to Miley Cyrus being photographed fucking a goat or Lindsey Lohan shooting herself in the head at a promotional event for Kitson or creating an environment where John Edwards’ whore is photographed by fashion photogs or some tattoo’ed psycho can make a career for herself out of cheating with a movie star’s husband then releasing the story to the media a couple of days after the actress wins an Oscar.
I’m not sure that Armond White really wants to be the RuPaul of film criticism. But his “relevance” at the moment extends as far as keeping his $60,000 a year job at the NY Press. Oh, the thrill!
For the record, you had me until this comment:
“I have no problem with the NYT putting it out there.”
Yes you do. You have a big problem with it.
“But his “relevance” at the moment extends as far as keeping his $60,000 a year job at the NY Press.”
Can you back this up with anything? Do you have his pay stubs? You don’t want me as a reader, but you expect everyone else to take you on your word.
I get pissed off, and I write stupid things all the time. It’s part of trying to be a good writer. I’m definitely not perfect, and never will be. But please stop playing the whole “I know I’m not good enough, but since I know it, I can criticize everyone, and get angry when they criticize me” card.
I got five today…
1) Dave, Glenn Kenny doesn’t like you because you position yourself above the industry and the media when you talk about the mess we’re in. As if you’re not part of The Mess. To a lot of people you are The Mess.
2) Jack, arguing with a blogger on his own turf is pointless, dude. It’s their universe and they make up the rules. You will never convince Dave or Nikki or Wells that the sky is blue or water is wet if it is not in their mind.
3) Dave, you’ve been using a lot of sexual metaphors lately in your writing. The way Harry Knowles does. It’s crude and very unbecoming of a journalist. If you demand class from others, start showing some. When you write, think Army Archerd and not David Mamet.
4) Roger Ebert’s Twittering is pretty embarrassing. The internet-lunatic infection has gotten to him now. It’s what happens when a person has the impossible idea of a 24/7 audience in their heads. Someone needs to tell him this.
5) Armond White may be crazy and his choice to review Greenberg may be unethical, but he is sane enough to not blog or tweet, to loathe the Oscars, and to be one of a handful of critics to see The Dark Knight as the pile of claptrap it is.
Crow, as David himself points out, we don’t really know each other, so I can’t say I dislike him. Your analysis comes close to what bugged me about his approach. And I DID lay on the self-righteousness pretty thick when attacking him. I was in a pretty different place at the time.
I still have opinions and I still have passions and I still have pet peeves and I still have people in this mess who irritate the living shit out of me
Glenn, as someone who knows and has dined with both you and David, I think it’s a pretty good bet that you guys could be pals. Next time you’re in town, let me know and we should all have lunch.
“4) Roger Ebert’s Twittering is pretty embarrassing. The internet-lunatic infection has gotten to him now. It’s what happens when a person has the impossible idea of a 24/7 audience in their heads. Someone needs to tell him this.”
Crow – you really think it’s just the idea of an audience? Or could it be the fact that a guy who used to make a living as a TV talking head CANNOT FREAKIN’ TALK any more, and thus spends as much time expressing himself in other forms as he possibly can?
Cuz I’d bet on the latter. Unfollow him if it’s annoying you.
I gotta say, I’m 100% on board with Don Murphy’s first few comments about the AICNization causing or allowing most of this to happen. We (as readers) let these people change the rules, well, shit on them really and no one called them on it. Cozying up to studios for perks and to get them to read their scripts, allowing for all sorts of crazy all-expense paid stuff to happen. It’s the norm now and I don’t see how we can go back.
If we allow internet movie sites to break embargoes, piss on rules and behave unethically, how can we then get on Armond White’s case for doing essentially the same thing only in a more personal sense? Armond’s mistake was drawing attention to himself through being an asshole.
Deathtounge said above: “because underneath it all was a very important professional issue: how come White is even allowed to comment on Baumbach’s work when he has such a strident history with the family.”
Exactly. If you have a personal history with the family, you shouldn’t be reviewing. As Glenn said above; the kidcrix who are buddies with the filmmakers also shouldn’t be reviewing their films.
I do find it hilarious that you “T-Rex’s” of criticism are so up in arms about twitter use at SXSW. Did it ever occur to you that we are communicating with one another? Telling each other where we are and what we’re doing in case we want to hang out? Maybe you old media types don’t like to hang out with one another but aside from a few jackasses, all us younger folks enjoy one anothers company (at least, to their faces) and I met some people at SXSW who I admire and found through twitter.
Don, there was an attempt by Patrick Sauriol from Coming Attractions ten years ago this coming June to inject a code of ethics in to online journalism. Naturally, everyone who was in a position to do something about it was all for it, but nothing ever came of it. You can also read Harry’s response here.
Thanks, Edward…I’ll check it out.
I remember that so well. Was it really ten years ago?
Now you even have a fucking site that is based on JUST script reviews
And like I have also kept saying, there’s no arbiter of what qualifies you as a critic. Not even popular assent. I hate to keep driving on Orndorf, I just remember him because I busted him spamming his reviews on IMDB begging for readers, but if you run a critic site like RT and you count clowns like Orndorf, how do you ever earn back any respect? You don’t. I was at a major film director’s house over Xmas and he has many cool awards and in his bathroom was a trophy from Rotten Tomatoes, “Certified Fresh” from one of his films and I said “why the bathroom” and he said “where else?”
Don (Lewis) – I don’t think anyone (not even that notorious Philistine Poland) is arguing that twitter can’t be useful. It’s just that a lot of the tweeting has become the microblogging equivalent of “Get Extra Inches Now!!1!” email spam. No, we don’t care that you were woken up by your cat. No, we don’t care that the 7-11 was out of your favorite kind of milk. No, we don’t care that you’re on you way to work just like almost EVERY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR AT 8AM.
There’s value in twitter, but finding it amongst the pointless updates can be annoying. The signal:noise ratio is pretty skewed, which is what Poland is raging against in general.
Don (Murphy) – Rotten Tomatoes does have a “Cream of the Crop” qualifier . Would a “Certified Fresh” trophy have more value if the default view for visitors was “Cream of the Crop” rather than “Any Site That Can Game The System”?
Foamy- I don’t think so since the average retard shows up and just looks at the first number they see.
Every outlet I’ve ever worked for has gotten a lot of traffic from Rotten Tomatoes, so people are clicking over to the reviews. At that point, they can judge for themselves if the writer is worth their time or not.