How do I become as cultured and eloquent as pic related?

that's why I find him interesting though. If you believe all forms of artistic expression have a political or ideological bent, then why shouldn't they be viewed that way? I don't always agree with him, but his knowledge of film and how he review's movies is consistently more interesting and informative than the majority of reviewers these days.

How can his reviews be discardable if they're the only ones that deal with movies as a product of their time. In the future when people want to see what movies meant when they came out will they go to one of those RT critics to see 'movie is good, batman's cape looked sick 8/10' or will they look at Armond's stuff?

And you're trying to work fancy stuff into your sentences but it isn't quite working. Is English not your first language?

>they're the only ones that deal with movies as a product of their time through his own lens of personal politics
Fixed

Are you saying that there's a right way to view politics?

>If you believe all forms of artistic expression have a political or ideological bent, then why shouldn't they be viewed that way?

But that is an objectively wrong opinion.
Tell me which political views Beethoven Minuet in G major represents?

Or what if I took a guitar, made a random 4 chord progression and whistled over it, what political ideology am I spreading with that?
Do you understand how delusional that viewpoint is? Not everyone thinks in terms of politics when making a movie or any art

I'm saying injecting personal politics into film reviews won't help in showcasing movies as a product of their times.

doesn't matter whether they think about the politics of their film, they're representing the world in a certain way and it often includes political/class/racial portrayals or struggles a certain way, even if the film doesn't go along with his views he may applaud it in a respectful way

armond white isn't even all political, he enjoys films in all forms and often just calls a film as shit that's been done better before

I strongly disagree. Politics is probably the single biggest change you'll see in American movies from 100 years ago to now. Understanding how politics influences filmmakers is the key to understanding how the art has changed over the past 100 years.

Music isn't literal storytelling you ass-dick. Why don't you bust out some food analogies while you're at it?

>Beethoven didn't make his music for a specific purpose

okay

and I don't see why it's wrong to view films, a part of the culture, as a piece of cultural context.

Sure, a lot of films a apolitical, but their cultural context and why viewers might respond to it doesn't make it something that exists outside of the culture at large.

White is simply trying to inform his readers what this film is trying to say or what this film says about the cultural zeitgeist

They are discardable because when people are looking at reviews they are not looking for is the movie a good representation of the "post 9/11 america" but what makes the movie good, is it the purposeful framing and composition, is it the smart unnoticable editing, is it the intriguing character developments, clever sound design or whatever filmmaking element that will mean the same thing for every person on this planet after a hundred years and really say anything worthwhile about the movie.

Beethoven's music was largely programmatic actually.

He was a shit composer though and the true beginning point of the decline of art music, so your point still stands.

Armond doesn't assess whether or not a movie is a 'good representation' of post 9/11 America. The fact is that post-9/11 is most likely how this era of American filmmaking will be remembered, and Armond is about the only critic smart enough to assess how American art reflects the state of our times. He doesn't tell you if a movie's good or not, he gives movies what they deserve. He tells you what they are, not what to think about them. He's a cultural critic.

What's got you so asshurt? Did he fuck your boyfriend or something?

>"Music isn't literal storytelling you ass-dick. Why don't you bust out some food analogies while you're at it?"

I was replying to the user that said that "
all forms of artistic expression have a political or ideological bent". Actually read through the posts please.
And I bet that Armond would review music in the same exact form.

you have a very reddit perspective on the matter

who cares about all that shit if it's only to show unrealistic/silly/derivative/fallacious bullcrap? the majority of films that receive academy awards are technically solid, but are all shallow, reality detached trash

many of the smaller, unknown films White reviews are incredible, and actually effective in both truth and structure.

Do you think people will care about flavor of the month academy films such as Carol? Precious? Boyhood?

hollywood is politically driven anyway, White merely uncovers it and exposes it for the trash it is.

Armond talks about music all the time, you'd know that if you read him.

Beethoven was politically influenced but your anecdote about the guitar is frustrating. Making music and making sound are different things.

you have to have a certain level of literacy to understand armond's reviews, which you don't have

its also pretty funny how every other thread on this board generally discusses the political or moral aspects of movies, albeit on a more shallow level. why do they keep pairing up white girls with black guys? are refn's movies so autistic and violent that its more sad than entertaining? is capeshit killing what little culture that we have left? armond elevates the movie review past the basic bullshit of "i liked the plot" or "it had pretty shots" and goes right into what the script and director are trying to tell you

Don't make me post that absurd list of movies which Armond reviewed positively, I'm sure you will find enough "hollywood garbage" for your eyes to feast.

>Politics is probably the single biggest change you'll see in American movies from 100 years ago to now.
Why would you be wanting political change reflected in film reviews? If you wanted to look back at the political climate 100 years from now, you'd read about political history, not from a film critic whose personal, polemical view of politics consumes most of his film reviews to the point of parody.

>its also pretty funny how every other thread on this board generally discusses the political or moral aspects of movies, albeit on a more shallow level.

Lol, no nigga.

What the fuck else do you want to be reflected in film reviews? Are you such a cuck that you just want a 1-5 star rating so that you know which movies are good?

well we sure as fuck don't discuss the technical aspects of film

>What the fuck else do you want to be reflected in film reviews?
Their artistic value?

define that

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

okay, so at the moment is Armond White doing a bad job of getting the idea across compared to everyone else?

His reviews are awful and he's an idiot.

>"Beethoven was politically influenced but your anecdote about the guitar is frustrating. Making music and making sound are different things"

What about jazz then? That whole genre is people improvising across a lot of chord progressions. Where are the political ideologies there?
And do you think your favorite old song was politically contemplated for years before it was made?
Laffin at you hard my dear friend

your right, whether a person or a culture listens to jazz or rap doesn't say anything at all, what people like in their artistic work doesn't say anything about the cultural and political norms of a society at all. it's not worth discussing

Yes, because he refuses to try to be objective about films but instead injects his own personal politics into everything.
When people in the future read his reviews and find words of wisdom like "this movie is the personification of the Obama years" their interpretation about what he thought about the movie will hinge on what their own views or what their society's views on Obama will be. This is actually the most common Armond tactic - comparison instead of original thoughts about the film itself.

you're a literal retard

>Jazz isn't political
>nothing is political unless intentional
>I am the stupid one here

>objective about films
>implying this is possible, and if it was why the fuck would you read it?
And I can't even tell what the fuck you're saying after the first line.

There was enormous amounts of politically-charged jazz from the 50s and out, many of the most significant releases in the genre have a political bent.

Again, I don't actually disagree with you, myself preferring essentialism, but you're picking some really shitty examples to prove your point.

Holy fuck what are you even doing on this board you lost tourist lmao

Let's just erase movie genres alltogether and start categorising movies as liberal or alt-right my god you are so lost friendo

>>implying this is possible
>try to be objective

>and if it was why the fuck would you read it?
Do you like reading things that are heavily biased towards one side?
inb4 everything has a bias

kekked

you're just uneducated/uncultured, since you obviously don't understand his reviews

the man knows more about film than 99% of other mainstream critics, if you could drop your insecurities and actually read any of his reviews you'd see that, but i guess his work just has too high a threshold for cucks like you

>you just don't get it cuck cuck cuck
You could've said that at the beginning of this thread and saved me taking you seriously

>but i guess his work just has too high a threshold for cucks like you
kek

>Chris Pratt haunts fanboy wet dreams in Spielberg’s dino franchise

>How many youngsters will see Chris Pratt in Jurassic World and deposit his image in their spank bank? One of pop culture’s dividends is the additional pleasures contained within innocuous merchandizing (ask Andy Warhol). Jurassic World is neither good or bad enough to be camp — its predictable action scenes are limp enough to call “damp” — but Pratt’s He-Man image as dinosaur roustabout Owen is the kind that firms-up any man’s resolve.

>Pratt’s Owen wears a leather utility vest over a denim shirt cuffed at his elbow to expose his sinewy forearms. His torso is cinched into dark pants that puff slightly at the hips, roomy enough to contain his strong haunches. And at the appropriate moment, Owen/Pratt strides forth carrying a rifle for his fight against a gargantuan dino-hybrid, the Indomitable Rex. It completes the virile image.

>The Jurassic World script doesn’t allow Pratt the personal charm — the wink — that Harrison Ford brought off as Indy, hero of many adolescent boys’ dreams. Pratt’s eyes are gentle, yet his stout-thewed crouch and voluptuous trapazoids overwhelm this formulaic movie — and Bryce Dallas Howard’s shrill, vapid Park supervisor. She’s unappealing as Owen’s love interest. Maybe a lesbian critic could try justifying her cold acting but who can say what hetero guys who see Jurassic World put into their spank banks? I bet it’s Owen.

What? Do you need some cuck with a liberal arts degree to tell you that Magnificent 7 is a Western?

>Do you like reading things that are heavily biased towards one side?
Which side? When did we bring up sides? What are the sides? Which is Armond on? And why is being on one side or another a problem? Do other critics acknowledge these sides or participate in this, whatever these sides are doing?

Pratt > meme-bitch

Wow I finally dropped my insecurities and now I really understand all the flaws and feats of this movie, thank you based Armond!

>Pratt’s eyes are gentle, yet his stout-thewed crouch and voluptuous trapazoids overwhelm this formulaic movie

Couldn't have said it better!

????
what's the point of your post?

Why do you keep calling anyone who disagrees with Armond a cuck when his latest review lavished praise on a gay film about a French teen falling in love with an Algerian?

>Which side?
Are you so stupid to think Armond does not write from an explicitly conservative point of view?

>When did we bring up sides?
When we started talking about objectivity in criticism. It was only a post ago.

>What are the sides?
There are many but Armond writes from a very conservative side and makes no attempt to look at things from any other viewpoint.

>Which is Armond on?
See above.

>And why is being on one side or another a problem?
Because it sidesteps from judging a film as it is. But like I said before, that's Armond's MO, bringing up comparisons without delving into them or explaining why he brought them up and passing off these apparently cultured references as criticism of a film.

>Do other critics acknowledge these sides or participate in this, whatever these sides are doing?
Armond routinely acknowledges that he writes from a certain point of view. Have you not read his reviews?

To demonstrate the high threshold Armond's writings have that can't be understood by numale cuck faggots like you.

>ctrl+f cuck
>9 results

This sure is a quality thread.

I'll never understand why this nigger is so liked here other than the fact that he triggers sjws.

His reviews are absolute shit.

Same reason why James Cameron and BvS are liked here

to be contrarian?

Armond is the ultimate cuck-slayer.

Well yes, Armond is politically conservative and always talks about politics so of course lots of politically conservative views get into his reviews but I wouldn't call him a politically conservative critic. His reviews aren't structured as 'US v THEM,' he breaks down a film's political content and then gives his own personal take on it. The political breakdown alone is enough to justify his writing because it's so intelligent and rare, but I also think that his personal views are worth a look because he's such a bright and informed writer.

If you want the political breakdown you go to Armond White. It also comes with the conservative take on these politics. If you want another 'side's' take on the issue go read a film critic with politically liberal, or anarchist, or green views or whatever else you're interested in. It's not White's job to provide every possible interpretation of a film, only his.

Now onto the rest of this clusterfuck of broken thought
>sidesteps from judging a film as it is
I'm still not convinced that this is possible. How do you judge a film as it is? Judging is inherently subjective. If something is clear and has a right answer it doesn't need judging. Judgement is for when disputes and confusion are present. I challenge you to find a single review by anybody which judges a film as it is.

>Armond's MO is bringing up comparisons without delving into them or explaining why he brought them up and passing off these apparently cultured references as criticism of a film.
I don't get it. Do you want to try swapping out 'comparisons' with another word? I think that's the problem here.

He's the only mainstream critic smart enough to recognize Pain & Gain as the masterpiece that it is. I fell asleep during Transformers 3 but Pain & Gain is fucking godly.