>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.
I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television...
Other urls found in this thread:
Based user carrying the flame. Based Armond assigning blame.
Do you even need an art degree to be a good critic? I don't think so. Is Armond a good critic thanks to his formation? No, he's good because he has a strong political worldview and an amazing writing skill.
Deep Cringe.
How young are you?
Isn't literally all film criticism completely subjective? Nothing is better or worse, it's all a matter of personal preference and if you claim otherwise you're probably enforcing the superiority of some group over others
Why does he repeat himself so many times? Why does he repeat himself so many times?
This doesn't read like based Armond White at all. He's much more eloquent.
That's not entirely true. There's a technical aspect in it. American films are basically made with the same structures and rules in mind. So, you could easily tell when something is shit or not.
Rules such as? Because there's plenty of films critics liked that I think are pure drivel and vice versa
I can see why whomever wrote this was not as accomplished as roger. The writing here is terrible.
He's correct.
almond pls this is embarrassing
Not going to bother to check if this is bait or not, but Ebert was definitely more of a critic than White is or ever will be. White uses film criticism as a soap box. If anyone is destroying film criticism it is Armond White, and unlike him, Ebert actually loved the movies for what they are.
That's because paradoxically, conservative White is an elitist arthoe while liberal Ebert is of the "movies are entertainment" mold
youtu.be
armond in video form
The only thing that's really subjective about it is subject matter (everyone has topics they find interesting/boring with little middle ground to entertain) and emotional response. There are ways to ascertain what the director or writers were trying to establish with a certain shot or set of shots and you talk about whether or not they succeeded in making that clear before even discussing whether or not how strong it is or what the emotional response to the viewer is. You can also identify style of filmmaking and an abundance or lack of certain film techniques while reviewing before even talking if the identified way of the film you're reviewing is good or not.
bait.
>I’VE got the training
lmao
When did you grow out of the gay nigger contrarian and start reading the white operator contrarian? Me, it was when the gay nigger trashed First Man for not having black women while the white operator hailed it as the best movie of 2018.
Kyle Smith defines Lukewarm.
You define niggardly
he's right but he's still a dishonest whore
>I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it.
this being the reason makes it false. he covers it with so many words but that doesn't help how weak the reasoning is.
>I can talk shit about food because i learned too coock burgers in that burger king over there
yeah, very nice.
>because i learned too coock burgers
Yep that's Armond for you!
There's fear there. Post one excerpt from Kyle that inspires more than a glum mouth fart.
He inspires just with his Tweets
>Brutality, violence and misery get confused with history in 12 Years a Slave, British director Steve McQueen’s adaptation of the 1853 American slave narrative by Solomon Northup, who claims that in 1841, away from his home in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., he was kidnapped and taken South where he was sold into hellish servitude and dehumanizing cruelty.
For McQueen, cruelty is the juicy-arty part; it continues the filmmaker’s interest in sado-masochistic display, highlighted in his previous features Hunger and Shame. Brutality is McQueen’s forte. As with his fine-arts background, McQueen’s films resemble museum installations: the stories are always abstracted into a series of shocking, unsettling events. With Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), McQueen chronicles the conscious sufferance of unrelenting physical and psychological pain. A methodically measured narrative slowly advances through Northup’s years of captivity, showcasing various injustices that drive home the terrors Black Africans experienced in the U.S. during what’s been called “the peculiar institution.”
Depicting slavery as a horror show, McQueen has made the most unpleasant American movie since William Friedkin’s1973 The Exorcist. That’s right, 12 Years a Slave belongs to the torture porn genre with Hostel, The Human Centipede and the Saw franchise but it is being sold (and mistaken) as part of the recent spate of movies that pretend “a conversation about race.” The only conversation this film inspires would contain howls of discomfort.
Kyle is clearly younger, and duller than Armond.
And whiter, funnily enough
He means training as more than going to fucking college and pass a few courses.
By training i think he meant he has literally dedicated his entire life to being a film critic.
Imagine training all your life to being a film critic and then giving a glowing review to Norbit
Norbit is classic, though.
I'm serious
kys armond
how you doin'
Reminder that a couple of months ago, Armond White told some user on Twitter that he believes Yea Forums is filled with "intelligent readers"
He was talking off the cuff. This wasn't a written article.
Why do you refer to yourself in the third person, Armond?
It wasn't in writing. He said this on some podcast posted on YouTube.
Hi, reddit
/ournigga/
he only said that "great minds think alike"
I don't know the context between you two but either way, it sounds heavily implied he thinks fondly of Yea Forums or visits it. I wouldn't be surprised if Armond is OP
stop samefagging armond
I'm not Armond. I'm just correcting them. It was said on a podcast, not in a written article.
>I'm not Armond.
Right, you're also White but black
Nice deflection, Armond
At least he's not Robert Christgau