Well I'll go ahead and throw him under the bus. Armond White is a troll. The fact anyone could read up on him for more than hour and come to any other conclusion is mind boggling.

This isn't a matter of taste or opinion, this is just one guy being as contrarian as possible so he can stand out from the rest of the pack. The reason I brought him up in this thread is because the idea Toy Story 3 is somehow a bad film is something this dolt originally started back in 2010.

That's not an indictment though. You can't be "right" or "wrong" about whether a film is good or not. Like I said, I strongly disagree with most of his viewpoints, but if you follow the guy at all it's clear that he genuinely believes his opinions. More importantly, he's basically the only guy that will go out and approach a movie from these totally weird and unexpected directions, and he's very literate, so I find his reviews often very interesting reads. I'll take that over another critic that tells me why Toy Story 3 is a great movie.

Yeah. Not posturing, I buy it.

Hmm... it's important to not fall into the trap of arguing that only those who create can criticise. Swap out films for food or sports (or anything really), and it's apparent how inane that argument is. If you're not a master chef, does that mean you can't not like the food you've been served? Criticism is ultimately elaboration of dislike, it's feelings given form in word.

That's my feelings listening to the first Kevin Smith video. Also, Kevin Smith has a pretty shitty approach to receiving criticism of his movies, and appears (on the face of it) to be thin-skinned. Receiving criticism is a fact of life, all work regardless of whether it's amateur, professional, artistic or scientific, receives it. Trying to go through life insulating yourself from that only stunts your growth. It's probably why Kevin Smith's not getting any better as a film-maker or storyteller.

Further, if one argues that no film is bad, then no film is good either - it swings both ways.

Last edited by redxavier (2013-01-31 22:19:47)

I don't think Kevin is arguing that only those who create can criticize. I think he's merely saying, "Feel free to criticize, but eventually, do something with that. Don't be content with being an outsider looking in. Become an insider and express outward." I forget who said it, but I'm reminded of this quote: "The best way to critique a film, is to make another one."

I do agree with you that Kevin does tend to be a bit too thin-skinned. I mean, C. Robert Cargill from Ain't It Cool once suggested that Smith's work has lost its relevance and Kevin became that internet emo bomb he was talking about (in the second video). However, pretty much all creators/performers are like that. They take it all so personally. They're putting themselves out there and expressing themselves so to them, an angry mob attacking their "art" is akin to attacking them, specifically. They're being told they suck as a person. They work hard at something and a bunch of people, who have never walked in those shoes rants about how it was such a travesty that it didn't just ruin their day, it raped their childhood or something. Honestly, if all it takes to ruin your day is a stoner comedy or whatever and that's the only bad part of your day? There's a serious problem here, and it's not the movie or album or book.

I also agree with you that art cannot and should never exist in a vacuum. If you only focus on the resounding, extreme praise, you can really inflate your own ego and possibly turn into a raging asshole, a self important jackass who at the end of the day, just gets paid to play make believe in some way. If you just dismiss and ignore everything that's remotely negative, you miss out on something you didn't know that may in fact be worth knowing. I'm not talking about the mean people who complain about movies so much, you start to wonder if they even like movies and why they have that job. If you're right, and criticism is defined as elaboration of dislike? That's too limiting. I prefer analysis. A discussion is more productive than a fight.

I'm talking about someone being constructive. That's why I love Down In Front. Not only do they talk about what doesn't work for them and why, they often make suggestions as to how it could be fixed, or prevented from happening again with future projects. I wish Rian Johnson had listened to all of DiF's Looper commentary. My stopping after a few minutes, he deprived himself of hearing something that might make him go, "Oh! Shit, that one I had never considered before! Interesting!" or "Hey, you know what? That example IS better!". Never just assume that you're 100% right about your own art, or that you're infallible. Good advice can come from ANYWHERE and ANYONE, and you don't necessarily need to have had "training" to think of the occasional nugget of wisdom.

Armond White's sour grapes against Roger Ebert is so baffling and counter-productive. One critic is yelling at another critic, not only claiming that he's better at his job than Ebert, but flat out stating Ebert is just awful at his job and doesn't have the proper, "training". As if we're talking about being a fry cook. Let's not forget, Roger Ebert was awarded a Pulitzer for his work. Also, look at what White is saying. He's mad at Ebert because he doesn't dislike enough movies. Somehow, that makes him a shill. Maybe it's just a matter of taste in movies, or maybe Ebert just tries to find more to like and that will eventually win him over as enough to make a recommendation?

I've read some of Armond White's reviews and listened to him on a few podcasts. Dorkman is right. I really liked what Armond White said about Real Steel (even though I've yet to see the film), but so far, everything else has been laughable absurdity. He claimed Inception was bad because A Nightmare On Elm Street did it first and better in being about dreams. What he fails to realize is that "the power of dreams" is about the only thing those two films have in common. Oh, and they're in color. In fact, they're both not actually really about dreams. That's plot, not story.

There's also his recent disdain for Django Unchained. He thought Schultz was who the movie was really about and he didn't like that. Hey buddy, it's called Django Unchained and Django is CLEARLY the protagonist of the story and the one who we get into the headspace of the most (or, you know, at all). Armond White was also "offended" at "a white guy named Dr. King". Says the Black Man named White. Also, his last name is Schultz. He's Dr. Schultz. Also, HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER! How dare Quentin (a white guy) name his made up white character "King".

Sigh.

You and me both. He has fantastic guests though so the Batman podcast is really worth listening to.

Oh sure. I'll just wait until Hash Men—my re-imagining of Rashomon as a comedy about a drug deal gone wrong—hits the street before saying that Kevin Smith is a clueless dork of a film maker.

I haven't even managed to attach James Franco and Miley Cyrus to it yet.

EDIT: Wait, do you think Kevin Smith would be interested in directing it?

Last edited by Zarban (2013-02-01 00:23:20)

If you'd like to read a professional film critic's commentary on the first Smith video posted, read Scott Weinberg's great take on it.

If you're still hung up on what he thinks is good or bad you're missing the whole point.

Yeah... I don't get this. If I don't like Prometheus, I can't just make the film again myself. Films require enormous investment of money and time, and require a lot of people to work on them. Further, there are copyright issues to consider. It's just not in any way practical to 'do it yourself'... which is precisely why sensitive people make the argument.

And it's doubtful that producing a superior piece of work will actually teach those people anything, in the same way as my mother producing a lasagne for supper doesn't tell me a thing about how to make a better one myself. I need to be privy to the making itself not the end result. We are all witnesses to exceptional films that peak out above the clouds and are universally praised, isn't that essentially already someone 'critiquing by doing it better'? Kevin's films have gotten worse over the years despite all the superior films he's seen...

It sounded to me like Smith meant "make" in the literal sense.