Armond White Has No Heart
I wrote this email to the guys at slashfilm in response to Armond White’s visit to the SlashFilmCast.
Hi guys,
Ryan from Denton, TX here.
I’m in the middle of the episode with Armond White right now and I’ve listened to about as much as I care to. This is not to dismiss the episode or Armond White, I think you guys have done a stellar job interviewing him (I would have ripped his throat out MacGruber style) and to his credit, White has some interesting things to say. There’s just only so much pretentious bullshit I can take in one sitting. Maybe after I write this email I’ll finish the episode.
So why am I writing in? Basically I feel like Armond White is misunderstood as a film critic. Or maybe it’s that there is a disconnect between what Armond White thinks a film critic is and what you and I and most people feel a film critic is.
The best I can do to describe what Armond White does is to say that he is a practitioner of Academic Film Criticism (capital A, capital F, capital C. In fact, underline that A and that C). I have encountered many such people through articles and books as I have pursued a Master of Fine Arts in Film and I can tell you that, in my experience, academic film critics can be a bit hard to read, but in general have really interesting things to say. They look at movies from a perspective that is much different than an average moviegoer and is indeed different than many professional film critics.
Mostly, an academic film critic is someone who is looking at every film as a cultural artifact and/or a representation of a director’s view on the world. Academic film critics are also interested in notions of genre. How does a particular film function in terms of the genre it’s working in? What does that genre say about our culture. Some critics are interested in psychology. How is a film working within (or perhaps playing with) certain theories of psychology? I would also say that most academic critics look at films from many different points of view at once, even if the focus of what they’re writing has to do with a specific academic train of thought. For example a critic might be writing a piece on how post classical American films deal with the idea of pedophiles in suburban culture. A paper like that would be firmly rooted in theories of psychology, gender and sexuality. However, the author would most likely also pull in genre theory or auteur theory if they felt it germane to their paper or article.
This is the type of critic I feel that Armond White is (or is “trained” to be). When he talks (or writes) he refers to how films work in cultural terms. What is the film saying? How is the film working in relation to our cultural or artistic past? And there’s nothing wrong with this. I find academic film criticism really interesting and I’ve written of film in this manner quite a bit in grad school. Where White goes wrong is in two main ways.
First, he has so isolated himself by ideas of academia, and has placed so much importance on these ideas, that he has devalued the craft of making film. He places no value on whether a movie is good or bad (at least good or bad in conventional ways). No value on entertainment. No value on technical achievement. And apparently no value on dialogue, music or sound effects as he stated quite clearly that you don’t need sound to make a film.
To boil it down even further I would say that he has lost his ability to FEEL anything about movies. His concerns are with the head, not the heart, which is a damn shame because movies are able to tap into our emotions like no other art form.
White’s other main problem is that he has positioned himself as a Professional Film Critic (capital P capital F capital C). But professional film critics answer to casual readers and people who want to know which movies are good and which are crap, as opposed to answering to other academics. Professional film critics HAVE to feel. They have to use their heart.
White gets into trouble because people read his reviews looking for what is good and what is bad and instead get a cultural analysis of the film. And to be honest, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Some of my favorite critics mix in the academic with their reviews. Guys like AO Scott and Roger Ebert are great at this. You guys even manage to mix in the academic sometimes. And this is ok, so long as it is part of a holistic view of the film, which is what people want from their professional film critics. They want to know if a movie is good or bad and why.
Overall, I think Armond White is a frustrated academic who has turned to professional criticism to pay the bills. I have done no research on this, but I would be willing to guess that his writing is not received well in the academic community (after listening to him on the SlashFilmCast and reading some of his reviews I can see where his ideas are contradictory and muddled—I mean, there’s probably a good reason why his Michael Jackson book is only for sale on a blog rather than Amazon or other major book sellers). And so, rather than continue to work as an academic, he has turned to professional film criticism and probably hopes that his unconventional (read: contrarian) views will amp up his readership and page views.
I could go on more about why, as an academic, White fails as a critic, but for now I think it is enough to say that he has no heart and thus he is an utter failure as a professional film critic as well.
Sorry for the long email, hope it doesn’t get lost in the insanity of ComiCon. I’d like to know what you guys think.
Best, Ryan
Public Enemies: Technical Deficiency
I saw Public Enemies for the second time on Saturday. Its not unusual that I would see a movie twice, but it is unusual that I would see a movie a second time after having a terrible first experience. I decided to give Public Enemies a second shot for a few reasons, 1) The sound at the theater I first saw the film at was retched so I was only able to catch about half the dialogue, 2)I was pretty damn tired and not in a great mood when the movie started and I think we can all agree that that is not the ideal state of mind to view a movie in, and 3)The theater I was at (the Bijou for all you San Antonio friends) had the worst food ordering system I’ve ever seen at a dinner theater. Normally you push a button or stand up your menu (or in some way signal the waiter/ress that you would like help). Here you just have to wait for someone to come to you. Also, throughout the movie they would come and shine a really bright flashlight in our eyes as well…not good. Not a good movie going experience by any means.
So that’s how I found myself nestled in the glorious AMC Northpark here in Dallas on Saturday at 4pm. Overall I found the film more enjoyable this time as opposed to last time and I was able to appreciate more things about it. On the other hand, seeing it in better viewing conditions (physically as well as mentally) brought some very specific flaws into stark relief.
First, the camera work. I’m not talking about the whole HD vs film debate. I went into the film sort of dreading the HD and came out liking it. It looks great and gives the film a really unique look. I even liked some of the grainier shots at night…it added to the immediacy of the picture. But that’s not the issue for me. I’m talking about basic composition and camera technique.
Now, I know in the big Hollywood Book of Camera Work there’s a big bold rule that says “Hand-held camera work makes people think they’re watching a documentary, hence it feels more real,” and generally I’m ok with this rule. I’ve seen lots of filmmakers use it to great effect (and the same filmmakers use it to their detriment—I’m looking at you Paul Greengrass). Couple of problems though.
First, I’m going to declare the use of hand-held camera to increase reality now CLICHE. I’ve seen it a million times and used in places it has no business being in. Camera work, just like everything else that goes into a movie, should serve the story. No one should be doing anything just because “its cool” (now I’m looking at Michael Bay, not that he can tell, he’s looking at a robot pop up book).
Second, if you are going to use this technique to enhance the reality of the situation, if you are indeed going to invoke the aesthetic of cinema verite or direct cinema documentary, then please, do it like the documentary filmmakers would do it. I’m the last one that should be saying this (as you would know if you’ve seen any of my camera work), but hand-held camera work should not be inherently shaky or unstable. We hand-hold the camera because it gives us greater freedom and the ability to respond to things that happen spontaneously. And good camera operators know how to make every frame usable, even if they’re whip panning to get something that is happening behind them. Their motions are smooth and controlled. Instead of using this technique correctly, these cinematographers (and maybe the directors who are giving them their instructions) have decided that they have to bash us over the head with just how hand-held these cameras are. They move the camera around and shake it all over the place as if to say, “Hey! Look! See how real I am! I’m HAND HOLDING the camera!” STOP IT!
There are moments in Public Enemies where almost nothing is happening on screen other than people sitting still or calmly walking to a door and the camera is rocking back and forth like they’re on a freaking boat. Its not motivated at all and it feels like they couldn’t figure out what else to do with the camera, so they just shook it around a bit. It’s annoying as hell.
My next big problem, and what I think ruins the movie, is the sound mix. I know most of you are rolling your eyes at me and shaking your heads. I’m being too picky right? Nobody notices if there’s a couple of things wrong in a sound mix right? Only us film nerds right? Just google “Public Enemies AND sound” and see what comes up. Originally I thought the sound problems had to do with the first theater we were at and partly they were (they had the sound dialed down maybe one setting too low). Only after having seen it at the AMC on Saturday did I realize that a lot of the sound problems are inherent in the film and are indeed ON PURPOSE. There are moments when the level shifts dramatically up or down from word to word. There are times when the sound is at a normal volume while they are shooting and then the moment anybody speaks the level drops down so much that I had trouble hearing what they were saying (and this was at the AMC, just think how bad it was at the Bijou!).
After the film was over I talked to the manager. I explained that this was the second theater I had seen the film at and that I was noticing the same sound problems. He told me that they have received more complaints about the sound in this film than any he has ever been around for. He also told me that they contacted the distributor of the film and was told that the film was mixed that way on purpose to try and give dramatic effect and emphasis to the gunfights. They INTENTIONALLY made the dialogue just a little too low so that the gunshots would be that much louder. This theater manager also told me that his theater runs the film in Dolby Digital but that he’d also called around to other managers who are running the film in SDDS and they are having the EXACT same problem.
So why would the filmmakers do this? I read an article in which the sound mixer of the film was interviewed and he specifically said that Michael Mann was in there giving them instructions on where the levels should be down to the syllable. I’ve heard mixes like this before and usually they’re from filmmakers who are either inexperienced or rushed for time and aren’t able to finesse. Michael Mann was in neither situation. I think he had the film mixed in this way because he realized he’d shot a film with little to no character development thus, there was no dramatic tension. Sure, the gun battles are thrilling. Michael Mann knows how to create a realistic, exciting gunfight. He’s been doing it for years. And he knows how to create interesting characters as well, but for whatever the reason (I’m thinking the script) the characters just weren’t there this time. The film feels like all the work went into recreating the period, which it does magnificently. But we never get close to Dillinger, at least not emotionally. We get close to him physically (close enough to see his pores), but as an audience member I never really got into his head. Never really identified with him or anyone else in the film which is a real tragedy because they had a great cast for this film.
Overall, its not a terrible film. Johnny Depp is always fun to watch and, like I said, the gun fights are really great. Its just a shame that these other technical problems (along with an underdeveloped script) got in the way.
Post with 1 note
Common Sense For The People Of Iran
I read this earlier and it seemed to speak to the moment:
“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying of a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and the extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is the author.”
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Let us stand up and take notice, let us stand up and say no. Call your congressmen, call your senator, call the white house comment line and tell them that the United States cannot stand by and watch people be punished for exercising their God given right to speak their mind. If not now, when? If not this, then what else? If this is not worth fighting for, then what is?
White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
How to contact your congressmen: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
How to contact your senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I cut this video/remix for BatDance like a year ago and forgot about it…enjoy! :)
Page 1 of 4
