Comments on Armond Dangerous: Cineaste Review/The 2006 Armond Year in Review: "T...

We saw it a while ago, however, so maybe we can be...

2007-03-23T07:45:00.000-07:00

We saw it a while ago, however, so maybe we can be forgiven for thinking Lee and Kay were lovers.

Not really-- it was a lame mistake for an article that attempted to pick apart a review of the film, and leads one to question the entire article's credibility.

It's also a confusing film (wouldn't the consummation of the sexual tension between Bucky and Kay after Lee's death make more sense if Lee and Kay were a couple?),

No-- the whole interesting complex about it is that Bucky is as confused as anyone else over the nature of Kay and Lee's relationship.

and even White contradicts himself by first referring to Lee and Kay's relationship as "platonic" and then referring to their "sexual arrangement" as connected to the "dark side of [Bucky's] own libido."

I fail to see the contradiction...?

The last post was addressed to John Demetry. Filmb...

2007-01-03T09:13:00.000-08:00

The last post was addressed to John Demetry. Filmbrain, do you have any direct quotes from when "Armond, in no mixed terms, spoke of his disdain for noir -- a point he emphasized in a post-panel confrontation I had with him"? Thanks.

Whether noir is a genre, a style, or a movement is...

2007-01-03T09:10:00.000-08:00

Whether noir is a genre, a style, or a movement is a controversial issue that we'd be more than glad to explore sometime. However, Filmbrain's comment, and Armond White's reading of The Black Dahlia, necessitated the understanding of "noir" in generic terms.
Critics have their thematic, generic, period and stylistic preoccupations -- for instance, J. Hoberman's fascination with Cold War-era cinema. Dissecting criticism is our way of understanding how good criticism works, and White's is the most complex for such an endeavor. If we're to be accused of being "unaware of the intellectual foundations of Armond White's thinking," then, because we failed to acknowledge the possible impact of Deliberate Speed on his criticism (you yourself don't seem so sure of this, though you did resort to some blatant self-promotion in the form of what came off as a well-rehearsed mini-bio), then surely we don't need to bring to your attention White's interest in religious, African-American, and gay themes and representations in the cinema. But it seems we do.
There exist no monolithic Christian, gay, or conservative approaches to film criticism; Armond has his own way of doing things. For example, he will uphold institutional Christianity by deriding an individual's questioning of faith, as when White conflates a Bad Education character's reaction to abusive Catholic school practices with "cheap thrills" and "church bashing":

When a character says "I don't believe in God. I'm a hedonist" that's the film's credo—its cheap thrills (and sinuous yet flaky church bashing) are favored by the same knee-jerk PC mentality that self-righteously rejects the biblical story of The Passion of the Christ.

Or he will rightly take to task a fellow critic's (Gary Indiana's) attempts to deemphasize the Christian influence in the work of Robert Bresson but in his indignation blame this individual idiocy on "atheists' turn to claim Bresson, as if getting rid of the last vestiges of Christianity in art." Which atheists, plural? Does White suggest a cabal? Our own beliefs are atheistic -- are we thereby guilty by association for this "godless" trespass even though we adore Bresson's work and admire its profound meditations on spirituality and suffering?
Such self-righteous (funny that he should use the word in attacking his opponents) Christianity runs strongly throughout Armond's work. Also prevalent is the championing of conservative politics and the beating down of its dissidents with ugly partisan rhetoric. For example, White writes that "Sir! No, Sir! urges mutiny and the collapse of American military protection—an unconscionable scheme after 9/11." If you saw this film, which we did, you know very well that it does no such thing. Such reactionary, mud-slinging politics unfortunately mar White's otherwise often incisive work.
Your inability to accept such problems with Armond White's work comes through not only in your obvious, flippant dismissals ("ongoing psychodrama"? Please. How many times have we witnessed the immature cutting down of someone else's opinion by charging psychological motives to their criticism?) and floundering hyperbole ("a disservice to the English language" -- good one) but also, more disconcertingly, in your ignorance of or else willingness to play dumb about AW's critical make up. We're guessing its the latter since you obviously understand Armond's idiosyncratic approach to gay issues in the cinema:

His epochal Film Comment essay (reprinted in The Resistance) on the film Swoon deserves to be the most highly regarded – studied and appreciated – work regarding what some film/Queer theorists refer to as "gay coding." He departed from the conventional (academic) discourse by issuing a challenge to film critics and movie audiences in the title of the piece: "Deconstruction or Sympathy." What he recognized in certain (idiosyncratically defined, yet socially grounded) codes denoting gayness in, particularly, 1950s and early 1960s Hollywood cinema revealed an alternative (i.e. radical, i.e. Resistance) history/theory.

In December of 2005, Armond participated in a pane...

2007-01-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

In December of 2005, Armond participated in a panel discussion with other film critics about the best and worst films of the year. It was here that Armond, in no mixed terms, spoke of his disdain for noir -- a point he emphasized in a post-panel confrontation I had with him.

Please define: "Christian," "gay," and "conservative" film readings. In other words, how would one "read" a film from a "Christian," a "gay," and, finally, a "conservative" perspective. And THEN, how does Armond White's film readings reflect those qualities (or not).

This seems awful easy. Check his review of The Road to Guantanamo for a clear example of a knee-jerk reactionary reading.

Yes, I would agree Armond doesn't go "gaga" over g...

2007-01-01T06:48:00.000-08:00

Yes, I would agree Armond doesn't go "gaga" over genres (which REALLY REALLY wasn't what I could have even imagined you meant by "genre man"). Plus, is "noir" a genre? I thought it described certain trends in style, mood, and world view that were prevelent in post-War movies of many genres, from spy films to mystery films to science fiction films to "dramas." My answer, then, would have been to the question of whether Armond White goes "gaga" over genre: Does anybody? Not that I know of. Therefore: "genre man" doesn't exist. Armond White does exist. Noir is not a genre. Ergo: the question has no baring whatsoever on his ideas about noir or specific noir films. So why was the question asked again?

This gets to my problem. To me, the posts on this website make no sense. I selfishly might find it of interest that you provide an ongoing psychodrama of a person's response to Armond White (thus validating my thesis here: http://www.cinedrama.de/LFNY/lfny3.html), but I think it's a disservice to the English language in general. I understand that you may genuinely feel a similar frustration when reading Armond White (if I understand correctly), but in Armond White's writing: everything signifies.

I think you are probably unaware of the intellectual foundations for Armond White's thinking and that may explain your need to "parse" it but also why you do so unhelpfully. I would suggest reading, as an example, William Lhamon Jr.'s "Deliberate Speed" (if I were an acolyte of ANYTHING, it would be this book). I don't know that this has had an influence, per se, on Armond White, but I think it summarizes and clarifies certain ideas about culture that Armond White shares (and expands upon). Because my own understanding of culture is largely derived from this book (along with pop music and Fitzgerald's Tender Is The Night and experience), that probably accounts for the similar taste I share with Armond White. Because Armond White's work evidences the concepts in Lhamon's book, he is the most important film critic currently working. The ideas about culture crystalized in Lhamon Jr.'s book are not concepts I learned in film school, which provided for me the language of description, a grounding in film history, and exposure to a wide range and large volume of movies projected on 35mm.

Please define: "Christian," "gay," and "conservative" film readings. In other words, how would one "read" a film from a "Christian," a "gay," and, finally, a "conservative" perspective. And THEN, how does Armond White's film readings reflect those qualities (or not).

OH: And there is more than one person (myself) you would call an Armond White acolyte?!?!

Mr. Demetry, Read what we wrote again, and we pro...

2006-12-31T11:02:00.000-08:00

Mr. Demetry,

Read what we wrote again, and we promise you'll see our response to filmbrain was not a non sequitur. To wit: a) noir is a genre of film, b) filmbrain charged that "Armond despises noir, neo- or otherwise," leading us to c) question (note the question mark in the sentence we wrote) whether Armond doesn't go ga-ga over particular film genres, nor favors genres over the aesthetics of particular auteurs who choose to work within those genres' parameters. In any case, we believe your response is facetious, in part (the other part being the paragraph-opener "Not to fiddle with this nonsense for long" in the midst of the lengthiest response ever to our young site), since you claim not to understand what the term "genre man" means and then proceed to answer our question (or assumption, if you'd like -- our assumptions about Armond White's "religious background, sexuality, and political leanings" are completely justified when they follow from the man's own Christian, gay, and conservative film readings) fairly well. So we guess that the informal inquiry we threw out in response to filmbrain's comment actually made sense and struck a nerve. We also guess it's statements like the following that further lead us to make such assumptions about AW's critical approach -- "I, Robot is predicated on the kind of genre silliness I would ordinarily avoid . . . " We'll grant from the articles and films you call attention to that AW doesn't despise noir, but we think anybody who's ever read the man's reviews would agree that certain auteurs can, in his eyes, do practically no wrong.
Before you counter that we just took White's quote out of context, another blatant example of the egregious existence of Armond Dangerous, let's get something straight: we know very well the work of Armond White, but we have been completely honest with our readers that we -- along with, we're sure, many of them -- don't know it all and are thus using this forum to encounter and explore everything of his we can. Ours isn't a "lack of rigour" but an incredibly rigourous task. It's also a participatory blog that, as in our statement of intent, encourages readers to contribute their own ideas.
In fact, you did your part by challenging our and others' assumptions. But you -- who, from what we gathered while reading your blog and "Letter from Ney [sic] York Part Three," have tastes and opinions strikingly similar to Armond's -- also level some extremely unfair, personal charges at us, inflammatory charges about the nature and intentions of our blog to which we'd now like to respond. You hurl at us the insult that we are cowardly by signing The Resistance pseudonym to Armond Dangerous. The internet affords its users the chance to express their opinions in any guise they wish -- we have chosen to do so under the moniker The Resistance to, firstly, make our resistance to kowtowing critical partisanship directly known and, secondly, to separate the content of this site from our other critical activities. The latter is an unfortunate self-protective measure we're taking for the moment against people like yourselves who we rightly imagined would rush to the defense of their idol by slandering those who challenge him. Which brings us to your ridiculous claim that we "hijacked" Armond's name (and we weren't at all "scoffing" at the misspelled Steven Speilberg but instead using the comical signature as an opportunity for a breezy joke -- we respond to our users' comments in proportion to the seriousness of their rhetoric). Now that we've explained the reasons for our "lack of forthcoming," we'd like to clear things up for anybody who might have been misled by your false statements. We absolutely never stole anybody's moniker: our blog's title, Armond Dangerous, is simply a corny pun on the man's name, and The Resistance is the title of a collection of AW's writings -- you can even consider it an homage of sorts. As for our website being obsessive, we readily challenge the irreverent, continuously self-critical nature of Armond Dangerous against your Armond-worshipping writings and invite anybody else reading this to offer his or her outsider's opinion on which would best be described as "obsessive."
On a far less combative note, we did indeed see The Black Dahlia. We saw it a while ago, however, so maybe we can be forgiven for thinking Lee and Kay were lovers. It's also a confusing film (wouldn't the consummation of the sexual tension between Bucky and Kay after Lee's death make more sense if Lee and Kay were a couple?), and even White contradicts himself by first referring to Lee and Kay's relationship as "platonic" and then referring to their "sexual arrangement" as connected to the "dark side of [Bucky's] own libido." Anyway, we thank you for letting us know about this, and plan to watch The Black Dahlia again to make more sense of its complexities.
We here at Armond Dangerous aren't afraid of admitting our mistakes, even the critic we've chosen to critique stubbornly refuses to. And, as evidenced in our response, we also have no qualms about clarifying our terms. That's our problem with AW's mention of the zoot suit riots -- we understand what he's trying to say, but since he doesn't fully explicate the social and racial implications of this incident and instead wastes ample space on pointless asides, we can't take for granted that he's made an incisive argument. We also don't mind that he wants to provide background about De Palma's career, but when he does so in a superficial, haphazard manner we get awfully suspicious about his pedantic tone.
One more thing: the City Sun put-down we admit was unfair, but we're absolutely positive that we bring it, at least judging by the positive responses to Armond Dangerous from astute, exploratory cinephiles and the negative responses from White acolytes. Happy New Year.

Maybe I don't know what non sequitur means, but: "...

2006-12-31T04:55:00.000-08:00

Maybe I don't know what non sequitur means, but: "As for White's relationship to noir, wouldn't it be accurate to say he's not a genre man at all? In the case of De Palma, a director who again and again drinks from the noir fount (via a Hitchcock cup), auterism trumps genrism" seems to offer a few examples of "a statement containing an illogical conclusion." Example: a phrase like "genre man" confounds. How does someone answer your question when one doesn't know about what you are talking?

You assume a person's religious background, sexuality, and political leanings. Armond White - to my knowledge - has never identified himself according to any of these categories. I surmise that is part of what boggles the, ironically, nameless person who established this website. (Forgive me if I assume you are a coward; speaking of, why do you scoff at the false name of Steven Speilberg - note the mispelling - when you have hijacked the name of Armond White? If Steven Speilberg chose not to reveal his/her identity, you might want to consider that your a) lack of forthcoming and b) stealing of another's moniker and c) obsessive(maybe?) nature of your website might be cautiously approached as threatening.)

Anyway, there are facts to be considered before assuming a person is not a "genre man": In an article about, in part, a neo-noir retrospective, Armond White cited the failure to include movies by Walter Hill. In his CINEMA ARMONDISO (http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/feature.cfm), Armond White devotes an entire section to "Noir." In terms of neo noir, again, Armond liked Soderberg's Kafka, Out of Sight, The Limey, but not, if memory serves, The Underneath, Traffic, The Good German. I'm not saying it proves Armond White is a "genre man" (in part because I have no idea what that means), but the specific writings referred to should be known when discussing Armond White's relationship to noir and neo-noir and, apparently, auteurism.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that you would claim to "parse" someone's criticism without knowing their work, since you launched this website, apparently, without ever reading "The Resistance". That lack of rigour is less an offense to Armond White, I'm sure, than to your readers.

Not to fiddle with this nonsense for long, but it would also be helpful to have seen the movies as well. You correct Armond White for referring to Scarlet J and Aaron E's relationship in The Black Dahlia as platonic, but if you had seen the movie you would have heard it said at least once, but referred to a number of times, that Aaron E and Sclarlet J's characters have never had sex. It's a pretty significant detail, given the threesome's relationship and the sex scene between Scarlet J and Josh H after Aaron E's death. As for the class significance of L.A. cops busting the heads of sailors in the midst of the zoot suit riot during WW II, I'd suggest some "history lessons," but I wouldn't want it to be confused for "condescension." (As in: 'Armond's decision to "school" readers in the history lessons of De Palma isn't one of gratuituousness, it's one of condescension.') Referring to the question of the class significance of the zoot suit riots, why would you not do research into a topic about which you hint another writer knows nothing (or is that you hint he assumes readers have a familiarity with certain events in American history. . . the problem being what? That's condenscending too?)?

Oh, another example, why would assume The City Sun is of little significance? The only information you provide is that Armond White wrote for the publication and that it folded (is it that you assume an apparent lack of financial success - it folded - makes it insignificant?).

If you are going to "parse" the work of any critic, you owe it to your readers to bring it, even if it means risking offending them with "history lessons". As Armond White once wrote re: the "civics lesson" of "Amistad": "What country could need it more?" Your website helps prove the point.

For the lowdown on how to parse Armond White's criticism, I offer the following as an example to your readers:

http://www.cinedrama.de/LFNY/lfny3.html

I hope it proves helpful.

Matty, We saw it, alright. We actually want to ch...

2006-12-30T16:03:00.000-08:00

Matty,

We saw it, alright. We actually want to check out Nacho Libre, considering how much we loved School of Rock. Though Armond hated SoR, so . . .

filmbrain, We dig yr site, too. Once we create a ...

2006-12-30T15:59:00.000-08:00

filmbrain,

We dig yr site, too. Once we create a links section for other film sites Like Anna Karina's Sweater will be there.
As for White's relationship to noir, wouldn't it be accurate to say he's not a genre man at all? In the case of De Palma, a director who again and again drinks from the noir fount (via a Hitchcock cup), auterism trumps genrism.

Did you see that Armond put "Nacho Libre" at #5 on...

2006-12-30T12:21:00.000-08:00

Did you see that Armond put "Nacho Libre" at #5 on his top 10 list? Amazing. God bless that crazy man.

Wow. First off, great site. Parsing White is no e...

2006-12-29T13:18:00.000-08:00

Wow.

First off, great site. Parsing White is no easy task, and I commend you for the effort.

The Black Dahlia must have given Armond sleepless nights. How would he, could he, defend his beloved DePalma when the film is clearly noir through and through? (For those not in the know, Armond despises noir, neo- or otherwise.)

The answer -- he can't, as your dissection reveals. He's clutching at straws by attempting to bring class into it.

I must get my hands on this article.