RSS Feed (xml)
I thought that Armond White was a bit rough on "Talk To Me" and Kasi Lemmons....sure, it wasn't the greatest film, but it was no "Soul Plane" either. (I posted his review yesterday).
So I did a bit of snoopin around on dude, and found some interesting tidbits. Even though they kinda speak for themselves, I will give up a bit of commentary:
He is known for his support of Steven Spielberg, Brian DePalma, D.W. Griffith (?!!), and Charles Stone III (who directed the classics Mr. 3000, Drumline, and Paid In Full) *1
He started at the New York black weekly newspaper "The City Sun" extolling the virtues of Morrisey, The Pet Shop Boys, and Erasure. *2
Goes on about people like Spike Lee "sullying the Black Experience". *3
Gave high praises to the films "Torque", "Little Man" (?), "Sahara", and "Against The Ropes" *4
Had the audacity to write a book about Tupac. *5
*1 He gives big love to the richest man in Hollywood, a misogynist director who has never featured anyone black in his films, the director who made "Birth of a Nation", the most racist film in history, and some bootleg director to show he is "down"? Dude seriously knows what side his bread is buttered on.
*2 That's like your grandmother buying Jet magazine to find out about all the latest going-ons of Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Jessica Simpson.
*3 Huh?
*4 No comment necessary
*5 Do we really want someone who was writing reviews before I was born and who emulated Pauline Kael to write a book about the effects of Tupac on the world?
He reminds me of another mainstream "expert" who also had his origins in the non-black world decades ago, whose "expertise" is also questionable, but not the ability to generate controversy. "Stylist" Andre Leon Talley:
8 comments:
See, this is the problem with the blog-o-sphere in general. Yes, everyone has opinions, but they are not all created equally. Plenty of people have "opinions" about global warming and unfortunately, a lot of those people's opinions contradict the science on the issue. Who do you listen to, the science or an opinion?
Criticism is supposed to come from an informed place. It's more than just an opinion. It's not Damon Wayans and David Allen Grier on "In Living Color" ("hated it"... etc., although in a lot of circles that's what it's been reduced to). Criticism puts a work of art into context, placing it somewhere within the narrative of the given medium. It's not about whether you'll like it or not and really has little to do with the reader, but rather deals with the art itself.
I wonder, would you have been so hard on Mr. White if here were, er, white?
If you don't already, check out David Edelstein of New York Magazine. I think he's the best critic going. He's a really strong writer.
And yes, D.W. Griffiths was a bigot, but his shooting and editing radically transformed film's story-telling possibilities, giving medium the opportunity to turn the flickering images into an art. That, more than his movies, is his legacy.
Dogg is just watching out for self, forget you and me, he's only looking out for himself. Kissing up to the establishment for that dollar. He'll never be real or feel real being like that. And I'm so sorry he forgot about you - big mistake - you had to call him out Invisible Woman. I tried to warn him.
***GLENDELL-THE ART MASTER***
See masterful works now at:
Framed Art
glendellsartandmusic.blogspot.com
Thanks for the love as always, knownit2.
Anonymous-I can get into how I've taken film theory, Italian Neorealism, French New Wave, etc., etc. (which I have), but I won't, since that isn't what this blog is about. I assume that this isn't the first blog you've read, so you know that most blogs are really a lot of folk's hobbies, or just a way of expressing themselves about things that are important to them.
I appreciate you coming in to mix it up; you are obviously thoughtful and intelligent, but at the same time, I'd like you to have fun, too. This isn't Yale, just my observations, and there will probably be very little to do with the underlying themes, motivations, and intent of a film or director (maybe once in a while). There are some very serious high brow film blogs out there.
But as I said, please feel free to comment any way you'd like-I'm sure my readers will find it all very interesting; I know I do....cheers! :-)
Oh, and by the way, in answer to your question, believe it or not I would have been less bothered if he were non-black...
Ha! This post made me laugh out loud! I'm not sure if anonymous took it in the spirit it was intended but I thought it was really witty. I think this kind of post is representative of the strengths of the blogosphere not the 'problems'.
Thanks, Kate. :-)
Wow, I think anon is the critic dude that you were referring to, the way he defended D.W.Griffith. I finally made myself watch the movie about a year ago on Tuner "Classic" Movies, and was sick. I don't care what anybody says, anybody that could make "Birth" WILL NOT be on my favs list. I don't care if he was the inventor of sound in film, Technicolor, or film itself!
To amend my comment yesterday, hottniks (that had me LMBAO by the way) I have suffered through more than one class or seminar that included the "innovations" of D.W. Griffith's film, while the lecturer eyed me guiltily throughout. I was also the Creative Developer for a production company at a major film studio, which required me to know both the creative and technical aspects of film.
And guess what? I can give 2 figs about Griffith's "contributions"; as far as I'm concerned he was a steaming pile of you-know-what. Someone else was probably right on his heels anyway with the exact same early technology to offer.
Post a Comment