So what's Brendan Gleeson in "Mission Impossible II" got to do with the price of beans?

You're going to have to go to The Auteurs' Notebook and check out my Topics/Questions/Exercises of the week to find out. And of course you want to!

Comments

[Brian]

I thankfully only read Wells when you mock him at your sites. But I get the sense that "Whatever That Means" could also work as the name of his blog.

[Tom Russell]

We actually have the old Kino set of MABUSE THE GAMBLER at home from the library, and have been dragging our feet, waiting for The Right Mood. But I think your words about Mabuse might provide just the impetus we've been looking for...

[The First Bill C]

"Maybe love's a tomb where you dance at night.
Maybe sanctuary is an electric light"

And you're making fun of Tears for Fears?;-)

[bill]

At first, I was primarily bothered by the fact that White was at best so-so on THEATER OF BLOOD (which ain't perfect, but it has moments of greatness), but this is really the kicker:

"Almost 10 years before Vincent Price’s definitive performance as the ghoulish rapper in Michael Jackson’s 'Thriller'..."

He really thinks his performance in the THRILLER video is Price's definitive performance? He really and truly thinks that? For really and for true?

[Tom Russell]

This is something I've grappled with for a long time. Let's grant, of course, that Armond White is a bully, that his arguments are nonsensical, that his prose is nearly unreadable, and that his opinions go far beyond contrarianism to the point where it's really hard to take them or him seriously. We all know that, and I think most of us can agree on those points without much controversy.

But are his opinions, as Bill so aptly put it, for really and for true? Does he really believe the things he says, or is it an act?

When I say that Scorsese's greatest and most essential film is KUNDUN, I know it's a contrarian position to take but I do believe it sincerely. The same when I pick out THE STRAIGHT STORY as David Lynch's crowning achievement. When I champion HUDSON HAWK as a misunderstood satire on big-budget action films, I know I'm pretty much standing on my lonesome and, to a certain degree, attracting attention to myself, but, again: I do believe it's a very funny film. I am a strident defender of 1776 and a huge fan of Rock Hudson.

I know that these are contrarian opinions, but I'd like to think I came by them honestly and not just to be difficult. The question is, are White's opinions held for the former or the latter? Is he self-aware of the myriad contradictions in his reasoning?

[James Keepnews]

TR -- Since I made my White (in perhaps two senses?) point on The Auteurs comment thread, as far as your grapple avec l'Armond goes, I'd say the answers are, in order: yes, yes, yes and yes.

Which is to say: I fully believe he fully appreciates his often contrarian opinions as the polemical, consensus-bucking screeds they regularly are. I'm not so cynical as to suggest he deliberately stakes out his turf with contrariness aforethought, but it often reads that way, doesn't it? Moreover, someone so besotted with morality and ethics in his criticism -- can we agree, a dangerous or at least untrustworthy inclination in any arts critic? -- can't have that good a sense of humor. In this regard, Kant comes off like more of a joker than White.

That said, I still have not parted with White's collection of City Sun/Film Comment essays from the mid-90's, _The Resistance_, which demonstrates AW's erudition in an earlier, less hectoring period (80's into the early 90's). His unironic love for singular artists ranging from Terence Davies to Bill Gunn started there, and I'd venture to say never became more ironic over time. He did not lack for WTF-worthy statements, but it's also unlikely someone would have been able to feature "Armond White-ism of the week" back then.

[Tom Carson]

I can think of several critics -- including the latter-day Pauline Kael, to my sorrow -- who began judging movies (or whatever) in terms of "What fits my persona?"I doubt they're conscious of the distortion, though, since self-dramatization is a powerful motor that doesn't leave much room for self-scrutiny. But it sure helps to have a persona that's appealing/rational/trustworthy/creditable in the first place.

[otherbill]

@ Tom Russell- I wonder the same thing about Mr. White on a weekly basis (TORQUE!?!?). I can only add my own bemusement to the pile.

On a more positive note- know that your are not alone on the patch of ground you have staked out w/r/t KUNDUN.

[partisan]

If we're talking about villians (and actually it seem we're talking about Armond White), nothing suits Halloween and essential villiany than brutal murders! Here's something on the internet you might find interesting: Some guy's collection of the 100 greatest murders in the movies: http://angryflower.com/paulsmurders.html