<LINK_TEXT text=“http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08 … white.html”>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.html</LINK_TEXT>
I’m sure some of you have seen Ebert’s blog about Armond White, where he basically calls White a troll.
For those who don’t know White. Here’s something to put it into perspective:
Armond White does have a fantastic habit of making stupid films sound intelligent though.
Some of my favourite quotes from his reviews:
“Transforming is the capitalist dream of rebranding. It’s not transcendence—thus, the need for the basic sci-fi story of good vs. evil, where Revenge of the Fallen alludes to the story of Lucifer.”
“Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta.” (that being said, he hated There Will Be Blood, loves Norbit though)
"NOTHING IN CINEMA this week is more important than Transporter 3. It’s been a long time since a new movie has been so spiritually and aesthetically exhilarating…When Megaton makes Godardian symbolism of Martin’s hand retrieving a key from Valentina’s, Transporter 3 evinces greater art than Van Sant’s studied poetic effects."
Anyway, I found another article that said:
"Armond White is either deliberately playing the devil’s advocate for publicity (it’s working) or he’s some kind of diabolical genius, a literary Andy Kaufman laughing while ruining everyone’s fun."
So what do you think? Troll, genuine moron or “literary Andy Kaufman”?
Notice I am not saying that liking Transformers 2, Transporter 3 or Norbit makes you an idiot (I realise some people here enjoy watching those films and if that is your thing then more power to you). The biggest problem with White is that he insists of intellectually and artistically justifying his love for Transformers 2. If you like Transporter 3, it’s because you just wanted to be entertained with mindless action. Not because it’s a thought-provoking re-invention of the action genre with ties to Godard.
