I've already figured out Armond White

And it didn't take much!

In our initial coverage of Mr. White, we discovered a film critic (sorry… movie critic) who was equal parts contrarian and confounding. The guy clearly likes to go against the grain, in hating every movie critics like and liking 20% of the movies every critic hates. Through it all, he makes sure that every movie is interpreted socially and politically, often coming up with the most bizarre analyses possible. It really made me wonder, just what the bazooka actually goes on inside his head as he watches these films? How does he watch Blades of Glory and conclude--with a completely straight face--that it's a gay rights film?

Well, I've figured it out. It's a bit rough, but here's the formula so far:

1. Before the film starts, Armond inserts ear plugs and applies a blindfold.
2. At an entirely random moment in the film, and often in an act of sexual passion (extrapolation – ed.), he tears off the blindfold and rips out the plugs.
3. He exposes himself to one scene.
4. He reapplies the blindfold and ear plugs.
5. He repeats this maybe once or twice more throughout.
6. For the remainder of the film, he works on filling in the blanks. He starts with the basic facts, making up characters and plot as he goes along. More impressively, though, he derives from these few scenes the socio-political message of the film and decides that it is the only possible interpretation there is.
7. He asks himself whether or not he agrees with this message.
-a. If he agrees, he gives the film a good review.
-b. If he disagrees, he gives the film a bad review.
-c. If he agrees but the film doesn't make him leave with a smile, he gives it a bad review anyway.
8. He gets referred to as "the conscience of American film critics" in his Wikipedia page.

As I said, it's rough. I don't know for sure whether the blindfold/ear plugs is right; he might have headphones or just fall asleep easily.

So what's to thank for this cultural breakthrough? None other than Darren Aronofsky's glorious film, The Wrestler.

Positive reviews: 172
Negative reviews: 3, if you actually count Armond White.

In order to prevent myself from hyperventilating or injuring myself in the forthcoming coverage of Armond's review, I've decided to join The No-Cussing Club. All untoward cuss words will be replaced by NCC-approved replacements. Warning: might induce giggling!

As a middle-aged, small-time wrestler living in a New Jersey trailer, Rourke’s Randy “Ram Jam” Robinson,

Welp, strawberry milkshakes, there it is! That was my clue! Randy "Ram Jam" Robinson. From this point forward, Armond will only refer to the main character of the film, whose various names are spoken countless times throughout, as Ram Jam.

Ram Jam.

That was not his nickname, you fettuccine-roll. He goes by "Randy," or "Robin," or "The Ram." "Ram Jam" is the name of his signature wrestling move. No one in the film ever refers to him as "Ram Jam." "Ram Jam" is the most spelunking horrible nickname a person could ever have.

This wouldn't be such a huge deal if the film didn't make such a big deal about his name. Alas, we now know one of the few scenes Armond was paying attention to: Randy was in a wrestling match, about to execute his move, and the crowd is shouting the words "Ram Jam." This is the only sassafrassing time the term is spoken throughout the entire film. Armond White, you are a complete, total cumquat.

Remember, this is a guy who said "I am not the least bit interested in reading the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. There, I’ve said it." Armond White does not know the name of the main character of the film he's reviewing. There, I've said it.

Jason Statham voiced more eloquent regret in Death Race; Ram Jam just wants pity.

I'm not going to even going to respond to that first clause. That would be a low blow.

To the second statement though, I have this to say: SO JEK PORKINS WHAT?

Is this seriously a criticism? I'll play along and pretend that "Ram Jam" does indeed only want pity. So what? Is a character not allowed to want pity? Is a protagonist only allowed to be as noble and admirable as can be? Has Armond White ever heard of moral ambiguity? Has he ever liked a film that urges the viewer to root for an imperfect character? No?

Worst of all, Ram Jam confesses in an old amusement park where he and daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood) go to reminisce about the good ol’ days. It’s lousy irony because nothing about The Wrestler is amusing.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Good to know he woke up during this stretch of film, for just long enough to think up a lame quip. Also, it wasn't an amusement park, it was Asbury Park. Still holds, though, because nothing about The Wrestler is asbury.

Full of self-inflicted lacerations and injections, Ram Jam is his own voodoo doll. Everything he does is an act of masochistic penance—very strange in an anti-spiritual movie.When his stripper girlfriend Cassidy (a superbly buck-naked Marisa Tomei) recommends he watch The Passion of the Christ, it’s another lead-pipe irony.

And this is the social commentary. It's "anti-religious." Because… lol u got punked, he's not gonna say why! That's all he says about the subject of religion. Ironic, seeing as he only mentions it in a sentence in which he admits it doesn't work. It's kind of like saying, "It's strange that Home Alone's plot involves a child being home alone, when it's clearly a movie about togetherness and unity. I am not going to tell you why." Or, "it's strange how Hitler killed all those Jews, when Hitler actually liked all those Jews." (we totally have enough of an audience for a running joke!).

I saw The Wrestler today with John!, and in terms of interpretation, we both agreed that it's very easy to read the film as religious parable. We also agreed that there is no way in spatula that this film can be construed as anti-religious.

You know, I think these replacement cusses might actually work. That "spatula" was really forced. I have no desire to scream at Armond anymore… I just wanna cry.

Ram Jam responds, “Tuff, dude,”

No, he doesn't, and if he did, how would you know that he spelled it "tuff," you bunkum.

Sanctimony like this appeals primarily to cynics who scoff at Mel Gibson’s sincerity yet cheer Aronofsky’s repulsive, violent nihilism.

I would like anyone who reads this to tell me exactly how The Wrestler could possibly be seen as nihilistic, because I just don't see it. And if you can answer that, tell me what makes The Dark Knight nihilistic, and then tell me about every other movie Armond White hates because he thinks they're "nihilistic." Is it because "violence"? Apparently Armond fell asleep right before Cassidy starts comparing The Ram Jamming Jammer to Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Because that's what happens. In the movie.

The message that life is hell is a pseudo-intellectual’s version of professional wrestling bunkum.

Hey, Armond's a member too!

People too smart to appreciate the fun and insight of the wrestling comedy Ready to Rumble lap up the irony that Ram Jam is ready to die.

Because I know you were curious: Ready to Rumble has an RT score of 24%. This is what the video cover looks like:



At least Lance Bass looks somewhat happy.

Rourke’s too good for this crap

According to Wikipedia, Armond White is such an amazing critic that he's allowed to say this.

And please, Armond, replace that "c***" with a "flapjack" like the book tells you.

Forget The Wrestler’s hype; it’s worth remembering Rourke’s finest performance and best film,Walter Hill’s 1989 Johnny Handsome.

Yes, this film was only enjoyed by one person.

Ram Jam is a distorted white working-class stereotype, but Aronofsky can’t tell courage from vainglory, foolhardiness from sacrifice.

ahahahaha I was gonna make a joke about Armond's faulty space key, but apparently "vainglory" is actually a word. This is the guy who just called everyone who didn't like Ready to Rumble "too smart."

Final thought, Armond?

Shame on Bruce Springsteen for contributing a self-pitying title song to Aronofsky’s indie artsiness.

Leave Bruce out of this, you applesauce-fucker.

Armond White Hates You

Apparently, I should know a lot more about Armond White than I do. According to his Wikipedia entry, he is the most controversial, published, prolific, amazing, debonair film critic of all time. That entry was written by Armond White because Armond White is the only person that doesn't hate Armond White. Coincidentally, Armond White is also the only thing Armond White doesn't hate.

When I first started to read some of his blurbs on RT, I almost wanted to conclude that he was just a contrarian who "wants attention," which is a quote I've lifted from every single Rotten Tomatoes user ever. That'd be wrong though; Armond White doesn't want your attention, he wants to hurt your feelings (unless you're Steven Spielberg). Armond is the real-life version of Anton Ego, a cartoon caricature from a movie about a cooking rat, and a stereotype I didn't know existed in film criticism anymore. I'd say the average mainstream moviegoer often agrees with the view that film critics hate all the films the masses love and vice versa. Armond White, in all his postmodern glory, flips this on its head: he hates everything that movie critics love (as well as audiences) and, very rarely, vice versa.

Armond White says things like this:
As for the “art” of criticism: No amount of fancy wordplay can excuse the destructive effect of praising offal like Before Sunset. (That’s not a personal attack, it’s a defense against the injury of bad criticism and poor taste.) I don’t read criticism for style (or jokes). I want information, erudition, judgment, and good taste. Too many snake-hipped word-slingers don’t know what they’re talking about—especially in this era of bloggers and pundits. That’s why a hack like Michael Mann gets canonized while a sterling pro and politically aware artist such as Walter Hill is marginalized. Let me be more blunt: I am not the least bit interested in reading the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. There, I’ve said it.

Holy crap, really? This kind of talk still exists in film criticism? I really had no idea. And the fact that he hates blogs makes this feel like we're aping Fire Joe Morgan even more. Also, I seriously had to argue with myself over whether or not I should end every paragraph in this entry with "There, I've said it."

I've said it before: we're not here to judge opinion. Anyone has a right to like or dislike any film for whatever perfectly subjective reason. But I do have a problem with critics who are contrarian for the sake of it, jerkoffs like White who actually think their opinion is worth something when it's so obviously stuck in the critical context of whatever film they're shitting on. When it comes down it, this guy might be the Skip Bayless of film criticism, except, you know, no one takes Skip Bayless as anything more than the punchline of ESPN2. Then again, Skip doesn't try to convince us that he "knows what he's talking about." Armond believes that he is the authority. Wow, I honestly never thought that I'd be writing these things here, and this is only my third post! I sound like everyone I've ever met who hates critics.

Anyway, here's a list of movies that Armond White has given a negative review to, and keep in mind that when I say "negative" I mean "he absolutely hated these movies." They were all released in 2008 and had Rotten Tomatoes scores above 90%:

The Wrestler (98%)
The Class (97%)
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (97%)
The Dark Knight (94%)
Iron Man (93%)
Slumdog Millionaire (94%)
Milk (93%)
Encounters at the End of the World (93%)
A Christmas Tale (90%)

And here are some more movies that he didn't personally review for NYPress, but going from what he wrote in the article I'm about to look at, we also know he hated:

Man On Wire (ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AFTER 136 REVIEWS)
Let the Right One In (97%)
WALL-E (96%)
Frost/Nixon (91%)

On the other hand, he liked "Happy Go Lucky"! "And Rachel Getting Married"! I think that covers every single 90%+ movie of the year. 2007 looks very similar, but we won't go into that.

So what are some of the reasons Armond White might hate a movie? These:

1. If he left the theater feeling like this: ='(. He doesn't like movies that are depressing, or glib, or cynical. It seems that he doesn't like movies that don't carry a positive message throughout. It's probably the only thing that saves him from being a complete caricature of a film critic—but it's also incredibly weird and shows that, although he's apparently a master of film discourse, his mind is closed to a vast expanse of movies.

2. Politics! I'm not entirely certain exactly what politics we're talking about here… he seems to hate them all. But no matter what, he can't seem to get through a film without placing it in a political context and judging it from that vantage point.

3. Class! If a movie tries to be good while simultaneously being set in a low-class environment with poor characters, the only reason critics and audiences would love it is because they're all upper/upper-middle class white people who are overloaded with guilt. Thus, there is no conceivable way for the film to be good. Movies are not allowed to be made about people who are poor.

Coincidentally, there's already a blog out there, called Armond Dangerous that already aims to criticize his reviews in similar fashion. Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated since March 2007, but... it's (admittedly) fortunate for us that we're able to pick up the mantle. It was a fantastic blog, though, and I wish I didn't just discover it a few hours ago.

I've gone almost two pages in MSWord without actually getting to any review, so I'll probably keep it short (this turned out to be a lie - ed.). You should know this: when you're in the business of being the Incredibly Annoying Contrarian Stereotype, it's important that all contrarian reviews include potshots at other, well-received films*. So, in what I expect is in typical White fashion, the guy doesn't write a "Best Of 2008" list, he writes a "Better-Than List," in which he only praises his favorite movies by comparing them to all the movies he hated that everyone else loved. That's so Armond!

Most of these high-profile films insult one’s intelligence, while the year’s best movies vanish from the marketplace for lack of critical support.

Yes, lack of critical support is what's really killed these movies. Unlike "Man On Wire," the best-reviewed film of the year and possibly ever, which easily broke the revenue record of "Titanic" in a month flat.

This tragedy is exemplified by the scary acclaim for the year’s worst: The atrocious Slumdog Millionaire and Pixar’s hideous Wall-E, the buzz-kill movie of all time. Trust no critic who endorses them.

Seriously? Buzz-kill? WALL-E? How can this guy actually consider himself a snob? Does he think this is how book critics think about novels? Like, fuck Grapes of Wrath cause it's about the depression (and poor people, and there are politics somewhere)? Regardless of the context—WALL-E is the most smile-inducing film I've ever seen—these are the kinds of statements that would be made by a critic whose main goal is to warn the mainstream public about movies that might make their kids sad. That isn't the M.O. (wall-e joke lol) of critics who actually take the art seriously. What the hell, Army? (going to call you Army from now on)

Also, Armond White seriously believes that Armond White is the only critic you should trust.

Happy Go Lucky BETTER THAN 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days Mike Leigh devises a thoroughly humane heroine (Sally Hawkins) whose anti-capitalist faith (deeper than bourgeois “feminism”) upbraids the pity-party of two abortionhorny Romanian co-eds.

Likes: communism (liberal?)
Dislikes: "feminism" (conservative? "conservative"?)
Dislikes: Abortions? (conservative?)
Likes: creating words like "abortionhorny" (I hate you)

True or False: "abortionhorny" is the pinnacle of "fancy wordplay."
True or False: "abortionhorny" is the nadir of "fancy wordplay."

I haven't seen either of these movies, but uh oh, here he goes again, hating on a movie for being about something sad. ='( I love how he juxtaposes a movie that is apparently the most depressing chunk of celluloid you'll ever see with a movie about a girl who's just too darn happy. You really like making this easy, Ary.

The Witnesses, Jump the Broom BETTER THAN Milk Andre Téchiné’s AIDS history joined Ian-Patrik Polk’s gay-marriage rom-com to show how sexual politics enhance our lives. These films rendered silly the hindsight celebration of an ambitious pol—and the Prop. 8 protests that misread Gus Van Sant’s opportunism.

This is great because of "Gus Van Sant's opportunism." Are there actually people out there who think the movie was an attempt (from the very beginning), to exploit the result of Prop. 8? Does Armond actually believe that Gus Van Sant set out to make a movie for this purpose? Like Gus said to himself, "I've GOT to make this movie, because it'll invariably be released two days after people vote on an election measure I don't know about yet because this movie was written long before all that happened!" Does he actually think that a director decides when his or her movie is released? I thought you knew what you were talking about! There, I've said it!

Rachel Getting Married BETTER THAN Frozen River Jonathan Demme rehearses multi-culti heaven rather than condescend to hard-luck working-class women.

See rule #3.

Transporter 3 BETTER THAN The Dark Knight Olivier Megaton, Jason Statham and Luc Besson reinvent the action movie as kinetic art, but impressionable teenagers mistook Chris Nolan’s nihilistic graphic novel for kool fun.

Oh yeah, he really loved "Transporter 3." Cool, I guess. Whatever.

But the important thing is that Armond White thinks that a film that has grossed about a billion dollars worldwide has done so because of impressionable teenagers… who wrongfully had fun watching it. I'm imagining him walking into a packed movie theater, glaring at the audience and screaming "Stop having fun! This movie has a message of nihilism! STOP HAVING KOOL FUN"

CJ7 BETTER THAN Wall-E Stephen Chow endowed a poor kid’s action figure with numinous potential (a tribute to the still-extraordinary E.T.), while Pixar twisted its standard formula into ugly, end-ofhistory cynicism.

Blah blah blah cynicism. I guess he was also angry at the "liberal" "message" (dear piss christ it was a movie about robots falling in love) so put another tally next to Hates Liberals.

Shotgun Stories BETTER THAN The Wrestler Jeff Nichols’ moving Red State family feud tragedy was ignored by Blue State critics who prefer white-trash WWF stereotypes to encourage their sense of class superiority.

ahahaha people like the wrestler because of "class superiority"

oh lord

that's exactly it

I guess Armo was expressing sympathy for the lower class by writing "WWF" instead of "WWE"? How masochistic is he? He knows he's high class, so he absolutely refuses to enjoy any movie that doesn't seem perfectly tailored to him.

This makes me sad inside.

My Blueberry Nights BETTER THAN The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Wong Kar Wai’s visionary romanticism explores existential loneliness, but David Fincher merely remade Titanic as Forrest Gump—an endless, two-hankie Kubrick movie for fanboys.

I also disliked Benjamin Button, but what the hell is this reasoning? I'll give him Forrest Gump, but… Titanic? Huh? No jokes here, there is very, very little the two movies shared in common.

And fanboys of what, exactly? I don't think Armond understands the meaning. Is the movie for all the fanboys of Fitzgerald's original story? It's been a while since I've gone to an F. Scott Fitzgerald convention (Fitzucon), so I don't really know if the subculture is still thriving. I swear, though, I was the best Amory Blaine there, three years in a row.

RocknRolla BETTER THAN Slumdog Millionaire Guy Ritchie comes into his manhood with this rich, Dickensian gangster comedy, while Danny Boyle gives colonialist Britain the last laugh in his epic Indian game-show travesty—a defilement of what Dickens revealed about character and society, humor and pathos.

The class whining isn't limited to Americans! British people are not allowed to make movies set in India. Danny Boyle himself killed over two hundred Indians in his own personal attempt to colonize India, because he is British and that is what British people do.

Except Charles Dickens, of course.

Gunnin’ For That #1 Spot BETTER THAN Man on Wire Adam Yauch brings fresh imagination to this Rucker Park bball documentary, extolling youth, class and American splendor; the other commemorates an egotistical stunt.

A dude TIGHTROPED ACROSS THE TWIN TOWERS. I don't give a shit how egotistical it was, I wanna watch a movie about it.

Twilight BETTER THAN Let the Right One In Catherine Hardwicke finds her métier in an outsiders’ romance disguised as a vampire movie; she turns Stephenie Meyer’s book series into a Brontë-esque vision, especially compared to the dismal Scandinavian J-horror rip-off.

J-horror rip-off. There are about ten million real, actual J-horror rip-offs, horrible low-grade adaptations of Asian horror films. And you pick a movie that is barely even a horror film.

I wish Victoria Alexander would smack some sense into you, Armony.

Cadillac Records BETTER THAN Synecdoche, New York Darnell Martin treats Black American history as R&B and her sizzling cast (Jeffrey Wright, Beyoncé, Eamonn Walker, Columbus Short, Mos Def, Cedric the Entertainer) salutes pop music legends. Charlie Kaufman’s Actors Studio cast merely imitated Fellini’s 8 1/2 like amateurs.

This is just great because all the other movies have at least something to do with each other, and these two were the outcasts the teacher had to pair up herself before activity time.

This is the beginning of a long, strenuous relationship, Armond.


* This is the blurb from Armond's review of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry":

It’s a modern classic (despite a cheap-shot plug for Giuliani). By comparison, Hollywood’s most celebrated gay comedies -- In and Out, Chuck and Buck, Blades of Glory, even the laughable Brokeback Mountain -- were all failures of nerve.

This post couldn't help but be as long as it was, I think.