>"I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds, but the fact is, I’ve got the training. I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who’ve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he’s had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you’ve ever seen any of his shows…then you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That’s what’s called being a shill. And it’s a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish."
"I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Based Armond
Then why does he have such shit taste in movies?
...
Jack and Jill was good
Lad...
Dubs of truth. It's become more apparent than ever that nobody fucking knows what the fuck they want, or what they're talking about, or how to differentiate preferences and actual criticisms. The Silence Of The Lambs holds a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, while Black Panther holds a 97%. That's one of the many smoking guns. However I wouldn't place ALL the blame on Ebert. If it wasn't him, it would've been somebody else.
Jealousy is real. His problem is Ebert was popular and I guess he wasn't. Ebert's great if you read his best of's. Couldn't stop laughing when he was going over the plot of The Skulls. All this mysterious stuff happens at a fraternity then a professor looking into it dies. 'But was it really suicide?'
based
based
You're an idiot
>says nobody knows what they're talking about
>cites tomatometer
>His problem is Ebert was popular and I guess he wasn't
That's what you gleaned from
> Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
? Armond's problem is that this kind of crap actually passes for criticism, and is now the norm. It doesn't require any critical thinking to go "the cinematography was good," or "Leo DiCap deserves the oscar for x film." And this all stems from Ebert's crap way of reviewing films.
Yes. The general public relies on, and uses Rotten Tomatoes. What are you
>implying
here?
I don't disagree. Ebert was a hack critic.
Don't know where you're coming from but high brow critics are a dime a dozen and they're in countless magazines and journals every month which no one including you reads.
I was honestly surprised at how Armond White speaks in real life. I imagined that he would sound quite intelligent and well presented, in actuality he struggles to spit out a basic sentence. You can see him struggle to find the right word and he uses a really embarassing and very simple one instead... can't tell whether he's socially retarded or likes to spend time padding his vocabulary in his writing.
Skip to 15:50:
youtube.com
Yup, definitely an idiot.
u pathetic
The point about this isn't popularity. Armond is saying Ebert's way of doing things dumbed down criticism for films.
He's autistic and says retarded shit all the time but he often goes to places where other people are too cowardly and too dishonest to venture to.
He spits out a sentence immediately with the word "erroneous." What's wrong with that?
Ebert truly was a slack-jawed mouthbreather.
>"Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish."
I don't agree with Armond much in general but this is the absolute truth, all the braindead anons here take notes
...
Watch when he begins recounting his story of the critics circle. It's less than a minute later
Its a chicken egg thing isn't it. He wouldn't care if Ebert hadn't been popular
>And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position.
Say what you want about his schtick but this is true. Ebert was a celebrity reviewer, very positive of consumer trash and the go-to critic for entertainment. His reviews were basically known for their "asides", meaning irrelevant bullshit about some current topic or political point.
In a way it's in Ebert's mold these modern blog-critics and twitter jurnos style themselves. They openly praised that Ebert turned something "low" like media criticism into the art of writing little opinion pieces under the guise of reviewing something.
>His reviews were basically known for their "asides", meaning irrelevant bullshit about some current topic or political point.
Are you talking about Armond White here?
Armond does his whole intentionally convoluted contrarianism schtick, but I'm actually talking about Ebert.
Agreeing with Armond here is not saying Armond is my ideal critic instead of Ebert you know.
Sounds like he was avoiding saying exactly what went down, but I see your point about struggling.
Nice trips, but Ebert's popularity was the catalyst for the shit criticism we have today for films. What you're doing is ignoring the bigger picture in favor of this
>Armond hated Ebert because he was popular
angle, which is wholly less interesting than how people talk about films in a completely vapid manner.
heh
Armond, for all the shit Cred Forums gives him, has fucking wonderful nuggets of wisdom regularly.
>You can relate to the great urgency of Man of Steel regardless of race, but Black Panther never achieves an interesting vision. The F/X, sets, and costuming are stock. They lack even the childlike idealization that made the “Africa” scenes of Eddie Murphy’s Coming to America and Michael Jackson’s Remember the Time music video such straight-up, feel-good versions of black anthropology. Afro-futurists will justify any whim, but how can they square the updated James Bond, Star Wars technology of the Wakandan people with the fact that they still live like the natives in Tarzan movies? This indicates how little Americans know about various cultures on the African continent. Black Panther’s Marvelization of black history and anthropology is pathetic, and the Marvelizing of black imagination is appalling.
Today's film criticism runs from a blog to whatever high brow journal so its irrelevant. I'm not ignoring anything. Is it even true or quantifiable that Ebert dumbed down criticism? Just because he did popular film reviews, why does that mean he decimated the field when sophisticated criticism has been running along quite nicely. Ignored, but its there.
He sounds like me when I'm forced to talk to girls for a long time. Very anxious and cottonmouthed, rather than unintelligent.
>black imagination
>WE WUZ IMAGINATIVE AND SHIET
What a fucking retard.
Go to wikipedias page on "List of Films considered the best"
They have black panther, get out, and Wonder woman on there with their only citation being Rotten Tomatoes.
Every other film critic today makes me sick, only Armond is keeping it real these days.
kys soyboy
What are you saying?
based armond calling out chinless shill
Incredibly based
He does not.
Your cinematic IQ is too low to comprehend just how poor your own tastes are.
Ohh I getchu. I agree.
ffs, you weren't kidding.
This is disgusting
I see no difference between Armond fans and Ebert's fans. Both clueless seeking for validation to watch something. Imagine liking a movie but change your mind because Armond hates it, or the other way around.
>Imagine liking a movie but change your mind because Armond hates it, or the other way around.
No fan of Armond does this
Some people are really elequent when they have time to collect their thoughts but they’re scatterbrained in a social situation and just sort of break down from anxiety. I know because i have this problem.
For the zillionth time,do not compare old movies RT with new movies RT.
If someone come's out on the age of the internet to review a classic, chances are he's going to be contrarian about it.
more like a neckbreather
Adam do another billy madison where he has to do school again
Or how about just don’t ever bring rotten tomatoes into your consideration of anything whatsoever
Is Armond White the last bastion of good criticism? Or even criticism at large?
i often disagree with ebert critiques, but they're always entertaining to read.
guy was incapable of dislike a movie with female or black main characters, no matter how shit it was.
It's that strange irony that Rotten Tomatoes ruined itself entirely by critics becoming aware of it. An aggregator can only work if it is outside the system. Now that critics are aware of it, there's more incentive to go with pre-decided consensus.
youtube.com
This video illustrates his point pretty well. Ebert's lack of depth becomes clear when he's juxtaposed with a real critic.
Žižek.
Wikipedia is the temple of citations. Rotten Tomatoes is entirely composed of even more citations. It's natural that the former would lean on the latter.
I only watched a bit before finding it unbearable, Simon wasn't exactly making great or intelligent criticisms but Ebert's opinions are fucking moronic.
It's probably the latter. Big vocabulary doesn't make someone smart, ability to articulate ideas is more important
lol, postmodernist marxist incomprehensible crap.
...
When you looks at Star Wars as a cultural phenomenon today, it's hard not to agree with Simon.It's really impressive that he was able to understand it so early on.
Simon could be a laze critic at times (but at least it was funny when he did it, but he's miles ahead of Ebert. The problem is that his insights and lazier points would often find themselves in the same paragraph.Still a good writer and enjoyable to read.
Why do DCucks idolize this retard?
Why do Cred Forums soyboys shit up this board?
>In his memoir Life Itself, Roger Ebert wrote, "I feel repugnance for the critic John Simon, who made it a specialty to attack the way actors look. They can't help how they look, any more than John Simon can help looking like a rat."
lel imagine being this bootyblasted
White has an MFA from Columbia. You have every Judd Apatow movie on DVD.
>what if, I claim, it ischs actually the object, played by nicole kidmaan, and not the subject which is *sniff* in focush, which tellsh usch a much morr frrightening and real face *tugs shirt* of our, deepest fearrs, not of being acchtually being a bad perrsonn, but of being perceived ash one. thisch permits, I claim, not in a sort of liberaal capitalist and so on, so on way our perceptions to be reality, and actual, rreality.
>Roger Ebert
Household name, a multi-generational face of film criticism, Pulitzer Prize winner, industry trendsetter, titan of print-based criticism, anticipated the importance of the internet for criticism, bestselling author, etc.; etc.
>Armond White
Beloved mimetic housenigger of Cred Forums
Hmmmm this really fires the neurons...I can actually feel the monoamine oxidase parts A and B fluctuating in my brain as I am typing--in fact the dopamine vesicles are secreting as we speak.
Ebert would amend his reviews from time-to-time or his feelings would mollify over time, but this (Cred Forums) is the same crowd (then totse) who shat all over Roger for blasting The Brown Bunny. He wasn't always right and he would occasionally make mistakes in his reviews himself, but to call Roger a shill is silly. He was not the talking piece of the film studios. The film studios hated Roger and they hated Gene because they could destroy a film before it even came to market. Maybe Roger liked so many films because he was an enthusiast of films. He also crucified films. Check out the Deuce Biglaow 2 review as an example. Armond White does not influence ticket sales, nor does he invite or disincline anyone to film. As a critic he has zero clout. At most (this is being very generous) he usually butchers his shallow explications. He's a practitioner of criticism, just one who is trash. Roger made film criticism great.
Just because Roger did not like your favorite meme film--whatever it was--doesn't mean he didn't have the highest batting average in the film critic game. Sorry.
Normies: 1
Cred Forums: 0
>he thinks it's a DC thing
He's right most of the time about movies
Pure ideology.
...
>diacritical marks in name
>relevant or good
hahahaHAAHAHHA
...
Siskel went to Yale. Ebert dropped out of Chicago's doctoral program because he was hired at the Sun Times and he couldn't do both. Chicago, Berkley, and Columbia are all in the conversation when we're talking about the best university English departments in the country. The other Ivies like Harvard, Yale, Cornell, and Princeton are all in the convo too.
BASED
literally the most reddit post I've ever seen on this board
you tried really hard to make a drop the mic post and you failed.
Liking Zack Snyder movies automatically make his opinion beyond shit or he is a master troll fucking with everyone.
Dude even got banned from RT for a while for trolling.
No, you're just a brainlet.
This is god tier bait. Far beyond the capabilities of any reddit poster.
this guy unironically likes jack and jill.
>I can actually feel the monoamine oxidase parts A and B fluctuating in my brain as I am typing--in fact the dopamine vesicles are secreting as we speak.
gotta be pasta
> Using low saturation color along with a blue filter on everything plus slow-mo as much as possible and putting in as much generic religious symbolism means his movies are DEEP"
How did he rate Black Panther?
Stop replying to me, brainlet.
When Oscar Wilde wrote "The Critic as Artist" he was writing about men like Armond:
>“I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood.”
" WAAAA I hate it when im called out on my favorite movies that every edgy child like"
He's an intellectual. Probably watches movies alone/ reads a lot more than he socializes. Just like your average Cred Forums poster.
...
Snyder and DC fans also like posting Shirtless muscular men as much as possible
Critics used to blast each other for having shit opinions now all of them just fall in line
RT needs to be purged for encouraging this shit
Going off topic into tangents about current rends, pop culture and history in every review isn't criticism either, nigger
don't they literally remove people from their list of approved directors if they deviate too far from popular opinion?
Quite literally patrician behavior
Unironically agree.
Is that what they call homosexuals now a days?
...
how embarrassing...
That's how they called it in Rome.
Why are anti-Armond shills so insecure about their sexuality?
imagine if every blu-ray had an audio commentary track by armond
> It’s pure Zack Snyder — Justice League features the year’s best action sequences since Zhang Yimou’s The Great Wall and Luc Besson’s Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.
>liking Justice League
>like the great fucking wall
>like valerian.
How are you going to understand the quality of the film if you don't involve current trends, pop culture, and history?
I'd be poor
...
I refuse to believe this
Imagine reviewing a movie based on what's in the actual movie itself.
Those jabs always get me.
>For example, he is known for dwelling on the unattractiveness of actors he does not like: Wallace Shawn is "unsightly", Barbra Streisand's nose "cleaves the giant screen from east to west, bisects it from north to south. It zigzags across our horizon like a bolt of fleshy lightning"
Movie reviews are mostly based on how people are currently feeling due to current events and trends.
Not sure there was a single legitimate review of Raimis 2002 Spider-man that didn't mention 9/11
How retarded to do you have to be to not understand what Simon is getting at? This isn't particularly well-thought out criticism, but Ebert clearly doesn't engage in any particular analytic thought to argue against Simon's point. What a brainlet
lmao holy shit
Simon was right though. In order to achieve true kino, the actors have to be as beautiful as the sets they stand on to deliver their embellished lines. The Last Jedi was unwatchable because all of the actors hired were just ugly to look at except for Luke, and he's killed off to prop up the weird potato head girl with downs syndrome called Rey as MC.
>all of the actors hired were just ugly to look at except for Luke
Lol, faggot alert.
Jonathan Franzen great american novelist is the same way. It happens when you're a writer. Franzen did a talk on youtube to a serious large audience, tried to crack a funny and fucked up halfway through and lost it, and had to stop himself, the most embarassing thing I've seen in my life. But his writing's great
>Jonathan Franzen
>great american novelist
OH NO NO NO NO NO NNO
>auto alt right fag response to anything perceived left
Try Freedom you might like it
>he was a shill
Hope he calls him a cuck next
...
Does Armond solely consider what a film promotes politically and philosophically, without any consideration for other elements that contribute to making a good film?
I find him to be an interesting writer, and I'd identify with his political critiques of films quite often, but typically I'll disagree with his film assessments. He does not seem to consider the craft of a film very much at all. It all centers on what the film promotes politically or philosophically.
This does not consider the full scope of what film is about. To say "Jack and Jill" is a better film than "There Will Be Blood", simply because he identifies more with whatever message it promotes is bizarre.
It shows no reverance for filmmaking. There's a clear indication of craft that exists within "There Will Be Blood" that's lacking within "Jack and Jill" regardless of if he enjoyed one more than the other.
The idea that you'd be able to recognise that a film promotes something that you may not identify with exactly, but that you can respect on other levels seems completely foreign to him.
I've not really got anything much against the guy. Hollywood is a fucking toxic place with no morals, so I guess I see why he so passionately refutes it. But I just think his approach of judging films almost purely on their politics and philosophy, disregards many other important aspects of cinema such as craft, emotional experience and effective storytelling.
Lefties have free reign on shillpedia no wonder it's full of nonsense.
Maybe Conservapedia is more to your liking
>everything I don't like is reddit
Uh oh reddit is gonna throw a tantrum
Do they?
I'm out of touch with normal people. Do people use review aggregators instead of just reading the plot and looking at actors and directors on wikipedia?
Based
Based on what?
You're giving them too much credit. Most people decide to watch movies either because they saw a commercial for it, they recognize the actors or they like the title when they showing up at the theater.
...
Not that guy or even a reddit guy, but holy shit, if you're above the age of 16 I'd be surprised and sad for you. I'd wager your picture is in the dictionary under clinically retarded.
Yeah, I'm sure all those citations show how Get Out and Black Panther are comparable to It's a Wonderful Life and Citizen Kane
nigger
When has conservatism actually succeeded at anything?
7 more years :)
>failed to convince the general public in any meaningful way that gay marriage and abortion are bad
There has not been a social movement to which conservatism as attached itself that has actually succeeded.
We don't waste our time with 'social movements' sweetie. We work on real stuff and get real results. That social justice hoopla is best left to people with too much free time.
that's not true though. no one agrees with based nigger on everything. everyone talks shit about some of his terrible taste and at the end of the day he's got to get clicks so he only reviews all the popular trash. desu i think his style of writing is hilarious. i wonder if he's a fan of james joyce
Link to that?
everybody knows armond white is full of shit.
hes a contrarian because it makes him stand out to other critics and gives him more recognition and readers of his work, while writing in excessive articulate detail to give him a facade of exceptional intellect.
It's 1 part envy, and 1 part personal for him.
Imagine if your profession was demeaned by some moron who brings down the general quality of the career.
He thinks Roger spit in his face.
He's a pseudo-intellectual, no doubt.
But doesn't mean every opinion he has is wrong because of it.
Holy shit he could NOT sound like more of a basic nigger here
Purity is his only food book
One of the major problems in his reviews are he often gets a lot of details and plot points wrong. I completely get that remembering everything about a movie after only one watch is probably pretty difficult without notes, but he seems like he ignores pretty much everything besides the general moral or point of a movie, and judges the movie entirely on what it's trying to say. He criticizes Ebert for focusing too much on the details, but White doesn't focus on them nearly enough.
Don't know why he upsets people so badly, his critiques are always reasoned and he usually gives alternative recommendations for movies he does appreciate with similar themes or settings
*good
What's wrong with contrarianism especially if it yields some fascinating insights?
Its deep into this video
It would be easier to take his point that Ebert is a hack if his butthurt was less apparent.
HE cares deeply about film and criticism. Why shouldn't he be upset.
Freedom has a young neocon who makes a killing of the iraq war so I thought he'd like it for that reason. god I'm good to you fuckers
>9 years ago we used to post White's reviews to laugh at him
>nu-Cred Forums unironically agrees with his histrionic contrarianisms just because politics
I should have moved to letterboxed a long time ago.
It's history according to the Blue Church.
...
I dont agree with everything but i do feel he can bring up good points when hes not going off on political tangents
Notice that when nu-Cred Forums gets BTFO like with Black Panther or any of the other bullshit they’re always wrong about they revert to armond contrarian worship? Activates my almonds, anyway
>Die Hard for Christmas Movie
Embarrassing.
Pauline Kael
I expected a better spoiler. Disappointed.
>still mad that Ebert called him out for being a troll and cucked him out of his HS sweetheart
Stay on your knees, cucknigger.
>liking films for good execution (the hardest part of filmmaking) rather than underlying themes (the easiest part of writing) is reddit.
Cred Forumss psuedointellectual contrarianism is out in full force, i see
kys brainlet
F A Cred Forums I R G I N S btfo
People don't even watch movies. They 'experience' it, the same way you have your mp3 playlist on the background. This is also why pop music nowadays have shitty imbecilic repetitive lyrics because no one pay attention to the meanings anyway. It's all a dopamine hit.
Chads and babes. As it should be
>for children
>implying children's movies can't be well made
>dehumanizing but provides no examples and despite the humanizing / humbling themes involved over the course of the movie.
>Ebert points out the obvious point that fantasy/sci-fi are a healthy outlet for escapism
>Action precludes being involved in a movie, and apparently robots fight each other in ESB
Its really just John Simon being old. Any normal person today doesn't find it hard to empathize with sci-fi characters or special effects. Like the Planet of the Apes movies. Obviously the guy just subjectively couldnt get into the style.
I disagreed with Ebert a lot but what the fuck does "training" have to do with anything. "Training" for what? Training to have the "right" opinions? Literally just watch movies. This guy is a faggot.
>for children
>implying children's movies can't be well made
He didn't imply that, in fact he says the exact opposite you retarded speedwatcher.
1 off from being a classic pasta, I'll remember you and your work user.
I unironically agree with him. Ebert was far more interested in blathering about whatever political bullshit came to mind and what he thought movies should be instead of being objective. Any time a female actress was nude it was "embarrassing and degrading" any time there was violence shown in a comedic way it was "disgusting and a cop out".
FOR CHILDREN AND CHILDISH ADULTS
Is he /ourguy/?
This. I hate people like him and Slavoj Žižek who are just obsessed with the political angles of a film. Unless the writer or director is specifically intending to portray a political message politics are just a byproduct of studying a film. You could write a 20 page essay on the politics of The Land Before Time if you really wanted to. Armond doesn't care about filmmaking as an art form.
How can one man be so based?
the big difference between Zizek and Armond is that Zizek is a global distinguished professor and studies philosophy and politics, Armond is just some crazy black dude that makes clickbait and controversy pieces.
There's no reason to ever take a Lacanian seriously.
I'm not into White, nor Ebert, but Ebert's opinion are questionable concerning a large amount of movies, since he gave them a dishonest review because they didn't please his retarded views.
I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying if you're gonna listen to someone psycho-analyze everything it would be better to listen to a professor of the subject than a glorified blogger
>There’s a man goin round, takin scores
>and he decides which is kino, and which is shlock
>Popular films won’t be treated all the same
>there’ll be a golden score coming down
>when the film industy stops fucking around
>>Ebert points out the obvious point that fantasy/sci-fi are a healthy outlet for escapism
But he says that a good work for children should not tools for escapism. They should make children more engaged with life not less. Even fantastical works like The Hobbit, Charlotte's Web, and many fairy tales, can pull that off. Star Wars dulls them into being good little consumers.
White's work isn't psycho-analytic in nature. It wouldn't surprise me if he rejects that mode of criticism.
>cottonmouthed negro
everything i've ever read of his seems like it.
Your film critic, madam