Is Armond White Just a Professional Troll?

Can I immediately say that this is not intended to be a personal or direct attack on anyone, not even the subject of the article? Nor is it based purely on opinion, it is instead based on certain aspects of the subjects particular methods, basis for criticism and stated comments (this is beginning so sound like a terms and conditions agreement).

For those of you who don’t know, allow me to elaborate. Armond White is a film and music critic renowned for his provocative and idiosyncratic film criticism. What that basically means is that White’s opinion of a film will repeatedly and frequently be in direct contrast to the widespread opinion, this year alone he praised ‘Taken 3’, ‘Get Hard’ and ‘The Cobbler’ while denouncing ‘Spotlight’, ‘The Martian’, ‘Inside Out’, Bridge of Spies’ and, perhaps most bizarrely, shunning ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ yet somehow finding time to praise ‘Furious 7’ as ‘action movie utopia’.

But opinion alone is not enough to criticise someone (at least when it comes to something like movie criticism) and it would be out of order to say that one critic is forbidden from liking one film and hating another. As when it comes to film, nothing is universally above criticism and the main point of the profession is to inspire debate and discussion. It would be a pretty boring world if everyone felt the exact same way about everything.

That is not my main issue with White’s writing. My main issue comes firstly, from what he advertises himself as. White claims to be a ‘truth teller’ against the ‘oppression of modern criticism’ due to his opinions. In his opinion every other critic is merely following the crowd instead of actually registering true views on the quality of movies, apart from White of course, as he clearly stands alone against the dictatorships of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. Once again, this is a valid argument, as after all, it must take courage to go against the general opinion based on your personal views even if you know you may take heat for it. But White takes this a step further, he argues that the only reason his reviews are disputed is because of underlying racism within the scholarly circle, and the other film reviews are not actual opinions, but rather a direct reaction to his review in a deliberate attempt to oppress him because of the colour of his skin. Right…. I will immediately say that I can never claim to understand the prejudices certain people endure repeatedly, but I find it hard to believe that such prejudice can be found over something as relatively menial as a movie. Also, racism certainly is not going to end if you use it as an instant defence against every differing opinion over movies instead of actually admitting that you contrast the accepted opinion. There is nothing wrong with going against the widely accepted opinion (in terms of film criticism), so why someone needs to play the racial card is beyond me.

 My point is, according to White, if you loved ‘Toy Story 3’, then you are harbouring racist beliefs (which is shocking as it has a 98% approval rating on RT). But for someone who is quick to point out how other people attack him merely for having different opinions, White is very quick to attack others simply for having differing opinions on film. He has informed his readers not to trust the 98% of critics that enjoyed ‘Toy Story 3’, personally insulted Roger Ebert multiple times (more on that later and god forbid you try to write a comment of differing opinion on his reviews’ internet page as his devout readers will swiftly insult and demean you.

Of course, White will point out an incident of persecution against him, when he was expelled from the New York’s Film Critics Circle for allegedly heckling Steve McQueen (director of ’12 Years a Slave’), despite White arguing that the story was a fabrication. Now, I am not in a position to dispute or support either claim, I have not looked into the case, am unaware of what evidence was used and have little interest. I will simply say this, is it not slightly odd that an Oscar winning director would fabricate a story to punish one specific critic that disliked his movie when a majority and the Academy of Motion Pictures deemed it a masterpiece. The fact that White condemned ’12 Years a Slave’ for its ‘depiction of violence concerning slavery’ is in itself bizarre. What would his ideal movie depiction of slavery be, oppressed people happily skipping through a meadow without any of the brutality and cruelty documented in history? This comment holds even less validity given that White has also critiqued ‘Inglourious Basterds’ and ‘The Hateful Eight’ for historical inaccuracy, while hating ’12 Years a Slave’ for its historical accuracy.

This is part of a much more frustrating part of White’s writing for me, the hypocritical nature of it. This shines through in virtually every single review from a week-to-week basis. One moment he can be despising ‘Birdman’ for copying the psychological analysis set in the movie industry of ‘Sunset Boulevard’ and ‘8 ½’, and then hailing the latest Adam Sandler movie despite the rehashed plot, characters and comedic stylings (that are all, in my opinion, AWFUL) from every other Adam Sandler movie or whatever Luc Beeson has to offer even if it as generic and clichéd as every action film prior.

 Not only that, but even his ethnic ideologies seem to be contradictory of themselves. As someone who has hated ‘Dope’ and ‘Selma’ for their ‘racial stereotypes’, White has never been uncomfortable with crossing into that territory himself in an often insulting and offensive way. In his review of ‘Birdman’ he referred to the Mexican directors Guillermo Del Toro, Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro Inarritu as ‘the three amigos’. As well as that, in Inarritu’s latest film ‘The Revenant’, White censured the film for not including any material on the Mexican-American war of 1846, despite the fact that the film takes place in 1823, so the only reason it could be associated with that conflict at all is the fact that it has a Mexican director. That’s like saying every modern British film has to reference the Falklands Conflict. Even more offensively, he disregarded 'The Danish Girl' on the grounds of being a 'politically correct tear jerker' that promoted 'freakdom'. I'll just let that statement speak for itself.    

This leads to another key issue that I have with White’s writing. While he claims to judge movies on their ‘political context’ his political viewpoint seems to be very specific, specifically on the right. White has singularly hated any movie that dares to criticise America or American values, he deemed ‘Foxcatcher’ to be ‘the worst film of 2014’ due to its ‘un-American values’, a term he also used to condemn the Edward Snowden documentary ‘CITIZENFOUR’. For years White championed Steven Spielberg (which I am actually in agreement about, I can say now that I loose respect for any critic that looks down on Spielberg simply because he directs blockbusters) but lately he has taken a dislike to Spielberg’s films such as ‘Lincoln’ which criticised the U.S method of law making as it chronicled a devoted man lifelong struggle to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and ‘Bridge of Spies’ which highlighted the paranoid nature of U.S government in the Cold War. As for any films that recreate documented and proven corruption within U.S government such as ‘All the President’s Men’, well shockingly White also detested them.  

This warped political ideology from which White judges films can best be found in his two articles that chronicle the ‘destruction of culture’. According to White, our film culture was destroyed in 2004 due to the divisive reaction to Mel Gibson’s deeply Christian, subtly (if not intentionally) anti-Semitic ‘Passion of the Christ’ and the commercial and critical success of Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’. So according to White, culture was destroyed because people had differing opinions of religion and politics (because obviously that has never happened before in all of human history, and in case you cannot tell, SARCASM!) and also has nothing to do with how the George W Bush, the subject of Moore’s documentary started an illegal war, while Mel Gibson was recorded saying ‘the Jews are responsible for all world wars’. I’m sure neither of those factors played a part in each films reception.

The next article was a lit of twenty films that, according to White, ‘destroyed art, social unity, and spiritual confidence. They constitute a corrupt, carelessly politicized canon’ but also represent that right wing viewpoint of White. The films that White condemn include ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ and ‘Che’ (two films that portray or sympathise with communists or those suspected of communism), ‘WALL-E’ (the Pixar film that values environmentalism) ‘Frost/Nixon’ (another film dealing with U.S government corruption) ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ (I wonder why a right-wing viewpoint would hate a film about a poverty stricken Indian man portrayed in a positive light?) as well as the already mentioned ’12 Years a Slave’, ‘Lincoln’ and ‘Inglourious Basterds’. Also, White denounces ‘There Will Be Blood’ for its ‘anti-Christian values’ (perhaps failing to recognise that there are other religions and beliefs other that Christianity) and adds that ‘The Dark Knight’ promotes ‘anarchy’ (which is a trait shown by the Joker, but maybe White forgot he was the villain of the film, whereas the hero, Batman, upholds order).

 Going back to this direct attack against certain people, I want to highlight his insults to Roger Ebert in particular. According to White, what many see as the most renowned film critic of all time ‘destroyed criticism’ and he seems to hold some grudge against him, despite Ebert’s praise for White’s talent as a writer and publically apologising for referring to him as ‘a troll’ in an offhanded comment. Reading White’s review of ‘Life Itself’ (a documentary about Ebert’s life and final days as he succumbed to illness) is frankly sickening. He seems to gloat over Ebert’s death, mocking his terminal cancer, demeaning his friends and relatives as they grieve, insulting the critics career as well as the work of the documentary maker that made the film. It is utterly sickening and repulsive that a professional would stoop that low and disguise it as film criticism.   

Speaking of which, some of White’s writing, above all else, simply comes across as poor criticism. In a recent review of ‘The Martian’ White used three paragraphs to summarise the film, two of which were used to discuss the soundtrack and the other pointed out how it was similar to other films (these similarities included the fact that the film features the planet Mars, and features a stranded astronaut).

Additionally, some of his comments just seem so random and provocative it would be hard to deny that they are deliberate. In his review of ‘Gone Girl’ (which he also hated, shockingly) he referenced previous movies of Ben Affleck’s career, maybe his early work in ‘Good Will Hunting’, his critical disappointment in ‘Pearl Harbor’ or his directorial resurgence in ‘Argo’? No, instead White refercned the much forgotten and widely loathed ‘Gigli’. Then in his ‘Bridge of Spies’ review he referenced the Spielberg scene that even his most loyal fans will likely roll their eyes at due to its ridiculous nature, the nuclear fridge from ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’. Then when he was once asked to name the best films of 2013, White gave his answer, ‘Pain and Gain’ but then without any prompting added that he thought it was ‘much better that ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, randomly comparing a widely reviled film with a widely praised one.

There also seems to be a distinct pattern to the way he dishes out praise and criticisms. I have yet to see a film by PT Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Spike Lee, David Fincher, Sofia Coppola or Pixar Studios that he liked. While you would also be hard pressed to find a film by Adam Sandler or Michael Bay that he dislikes. White annually publishes ‘Better-than-lists’ in which he compares ten underrated movies and ten overrated movies. Without even looking at 2015’s upcoming list I am going to guess inclusions such as ‘The Cobbler > Cinderella’, ‘Furious 7 > Mad Max: Fury Road’, ‘Get Hard > Straight Outta Compton’, ‘Burnt > Carol’ and how about ‘Black Mass > Sicario’? These are likely to be wrong but I find it mildly amusing to guess. Can you imagine if they were right?

What I am trying to say here, is that though I think White writing itself is of a high and skilled level and think he has an excellent knowledge of cinema history (as opposed to his knowledge of real history) and there is nothing wrong with displaying differing opinions on film, even from a right-wing standpoint, the fact that he advertises himself as a truth teller (and his readers believe him) is what infuriates me. White is essentially one of the prejudiced and politically warped critics he claims everyone else is. Perhaps the best thing to do is just ignore him I just wish his reviews were not so unintentionally hilarious.
So that's about it, find me on Twitter with @JoshuaPrice97. Thanks and bye.