Misc. inanity

"Jim" Hoberman begins his work day...

By March 17, 2010No Comments

No Comments

  • Sam Adams says:

    I’m gonna send you to Sing-Sing, Gettys! Sing-Sing!”

  • Craig says:

    My favor­ite part of that laugh­ably vain­glori­ous piece is the sug­ges­tion that Baumbach’s DP for Greenberg paid a visu­al homage to a joke in White’s review of Margot at the Wedding.
    I’d say that Armond rises below vul­gar­ity, but that would be an insult to Mel Brooks.

  • Jeff McMahon says:

    What an asshole.

  • Keith Uhlich says:

    As my edit­or is so fond of say­ing: “Well played, old bean!”

  • Anonymous says:

    To the unbiased, I am known as a crit­ic who speaks truth to power; it will test our film culture’s com­mit­ment to demo­cracy if I suf­fer repris­als for the free­dom of speech expressed in this article.”
    Oh boy…

  • TheJeff says:

    Thanks for being classy enough not to post a link to that obnox­ious fuck­’s “review.” I’m sure that his paper is lov­ing the traffic that his tan­trums are driv­ing to their site.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @ Keith: Your edit­or is Bertie Wooster? How cool!

  • Keith Uhlich says:

    Should Bertie ever grow a dev­il goat­ee and go mosh pit cas­u­al, they could very well pass for twins.

  • Jaime says:

    Glenn, I don’t know how Oscar-completist friendly your blog is, but in case the weath­er is good, I wanted to report that the hard-to-see SKIPPY, win­ner of the fourth Oscar for Best Director – a film that was nev­er con­sidered lost, just ignored by its rights-holders – is view­able on Netflix Instant.
    On top­ic, I’ve learned to ignore the Wellses and the Whites and etc., but man, did that screen grab make me want to take a work hiatus and just chill with the Mabuse films. It’s pos­sible that Fritz Lang nev­er rocked harder.

  • John Svatek says:

    Glenn, The worst part of all this is that you won’t be able to use “scoundrel-czar of con­tem­por­ary film cri­ti­cism” as SCR’s tagline.

  • Michael Worrall says:

    White says Hoberman is a shill for the film industry?! Just ridiculous.

  • SpodoKomodo says:

    White’s review is hard to read, he actu­ally sounds bor­der­line para­noid schizo­phren­ic at this point.

  • bill says:

    Borderline?

  • Anonymous says:

    It’s a sad spec­tacle. The piece is hard to read because it’s so deeply embar­rass­ing. I think the people at The New York Press should be ashamed of them­selves. Publishing the piece (and let­ting him run on and on without any vis­ible edit­ing for so many years) is bad enough, but put­ting it on the cov­er is hor­ri­fy­ing. It’s like giv­ing a junkie the keys to the pharmacy.

  • I am pretty sure we can mark Armond’s lun­at­ic mani­festo as the low point of film criticism.

  • rdmtimp says:

    Just read White’s pice…
    I need some industrial-strength brain bleach, stat!!!

  • Claire K. says:

    I agree with Anonymous–it seems like, at this point, the NYP is act­ing in very bad faith for an employ­er. Publishing this kind of crazi­ness feels like exploitation.

  • wilson hl says:

    Really? Outrageous and sad? I laughed at that. Laughed and laughed then stopped read­ing and laughed some more! Really it’s my belief that “Armond White” is a per­form­ance artist, who built a per­sona of Ron Burgundy/Stephen Colbert as film critic.
    I mean, accus­ing all his detract­ors of being racists, fas­cists and pro-Lifers? Comedy gold, my friends!

  • msic says:

    A per­sona built from parts of Ron Burgundy and Stephen Colbert would most likely be, you know, funny. I’m stick­ing to my own pet the­ory: that Todd Solondz is involved in some kind of long-term gonzo “real­ity” pro­ject, and Armond White is really just his metic­u­lously craf­ted protagonist.