Everyone's favorite contrarian/professional asshole Armond White is at it again. In a podcast on Slashfilm.com, White rips into Roger Ebert as the destroyer of film criticism:
“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, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, 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.”
Mr. White is welcome to dog out Ebert if he believes the guy is a lousy critic, but I don't have a lot of respect for anyone who has to stand on somebody's back to make themselves look bigger by saying stuff like "...he does NOT have the training. I'VE got the training. "
Who else doesn't have the training? Mr. White is happy you asked and even happier to tell you.
Chew on the irony that a guy whose reviews are primarily read on the Internet is slamming the Internet for ruining film criticism by opening up the field to more film critcism. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury isn't it?
What White says to me is certainly none of the non-traditional newspaper critics meets White's standard as being worthy of critiquing movies. That goes for Harry Knowles, Spill.com, Devin Faraci of C.H.U.D, The A.V. Club, Film School Rejects and most any other Internet critic or movie site you'd care to name. Oh, and in case you want to give the dude the benefit of the doubt he makes it clear most of YOU clowns don't qualify either.
Haters gonna hate.
“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, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, 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.”
Mr. White is welcome to dog out Ebert if he believes the guy is a lousy critic, but I don't have a lot of respect for anyone who has to stand on somebody's back to make themselves look bigger by saying stuff like "...he does NOT have the training. I'VE got the training. "
Who else doesn't have the training? Mr. White is happy you asked and even happier to tell you.
We got film critics who are employed professionally by legitimate publications, and we have the world of the internet film writers. The internet has become so pervasive and overwhelming that the internet has stolen the impact and prestige and effect that traditional professional film criticism used to have. As a result of that I think that people who are now employed by the mainstream media are so intimidated by the internet that it seems, when you read mainstream published film critics, that they’ve simply given up being film critics, because they’re afraid of losing readership, because they’re afraid of losing their jobs, probably because publishers and editors simply want to get readers and appease readers, rather than inform and instruct readers. And I think that leads to a kind of anarchy where there are very few people writing about film who know what they’re talking about and who are rigorous about having standards in film. The anarchy, I think, comes from the the fact that in mainstream media and the internet, most people who are writing about films are simply writing from a fan’s perspective instead of a truly critical perspective. So what used to be termed “film critics” now is almost meaningless, because you just got a free-for-all of enthusiasms rather than criticism.
Chew on the irony that a guy whose reviews are primarily read on the Internet is slamming the Internet for ruining film criticism by opening up the field to more film critcism. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury isn't it?
What White says to me is certainly none of the non-traditional newspaper critics meets White's standard as being worthy of critiquing movies. That goes for Harry Knowles, Spill.com, Devin Faraci of C.H.U.D, The A.V. Club, Film School Rejects and most any other Internet critic or movie site you'd care to name. Oh, and in case you want to give the dude the benefit of the doubt he makes it clear most of YOU clowns don't qualify either.
You guys might have perhaps come across something I wrote/said somewhere, where I said that I think no one should be allowed to make a movie before they’re 40, although there are obviously a whole lot of exceptions to that. We’d have no Citizen Kane if that were so. But I kind of feel that way, and I certainly feel that way about criticism. I think really, there should be no film critics - okay, let’s change the age - there should be no film critics younger than 30. Because before that you don’t know enough about art, you don’t know enough about life. And I repeat to you, I started out as a young person interested in writing about film, but really really really, I know more now than I knew then.
Got that, all you aspiring young film students? Go do something else for the next 20 years or so and don't come back until you're not so wet behind the ears and get off my lawn, you damn kids. As for you punks with your blogs and You Tube videos, you don't know nothin' about nothin' either, so you get off my lawn too!
It's not that I think anything Armond White has to say about anything is particularly important, vital to my knowledge or even very interesting. The man spends so much time enjoying the echo of his own voice that he begs you to not to take him seriously and I have no problem doing so. But it's just really really kind of funny to watch an angry, bitter man flail around impotently and sneer at the very people who could make him as popular as Roger Ebert ever was if he wasn't such a complete and total DICK.
Haters gonna hate. 
