I didn't want to mention this whole thing, and Vadim Rizov has already done a fine job of going over the history of Armond White's critical ad hominem attacks on Noah Baumbach movies here. Publicist Leslee Dart (who did not "ban" White from screenings of "Greenberg" -- but she originally moved him to a later one) did mention that White had called Baumbach an "asshole." ("You look at Noah Baumbach's work, and you see he's an asshole. I would say it to his face," he told Steven Boone at Big Media Vandalism. "... I don't need to meet him to know that. better than meeting him, I've seen his movies.")
Dart also noted that White had said Baumbach's mother, former Village Voice film critic Georgia Brown, "should have had an abortion." And, you know, people just expect that kind of thing from White. But did he really say that?
Lots of people seemed to remember it, but from where? Was it on Leonard Lopate's radio show? (Maybe.) Was it in an interview? (Couldn't find one online.) A review? (I found myself googling "armond baumbach abortion" just to satisfy my morbid curiosity.)
Well, somebody at the Village Voice finally got themselves to a library and dug up White's June 3, 1998, New York Press review of Baumbach's "Mr. Jealousy," which concludes thusly:
I won't comment on Baumbach's deliberate, onscreen references to his former film-reviewer mother except to note how her colleagues now shamelessly bestow reviews as belated nursery presents. To others, "Mr. Jealousy" might suggest retroactive abortion.
Reactionary? That's White's stock-in-trade -- railing against his perceptions of what others have or have not said. The Voice's J. Hoberman (who went a bit White-ish not long ago by off-handedly smearing the Coens' "A Serious Man" as "Nazi porn") noted that some had begun to believe, with White's encouragement, that perhaps the whole abortion insult was apocryphal. Now we know.
UPDATE (03/10/10): A Mr. White (no relation) provides some context in a comment at Some Came Running: An exchange between Armond White and Georgia Brown in the letters section of the Village Voice in 1996. AW: "Ego means never having to say you're sorry, tasteless, and racist."
Glenn Kenny (in a post referencing the Sex Pistols) thinks he sees some writing on the wall, too:
Call me crazy, but I feel like a fundamental change in the way his colleagues view White is underway. For years this bully has been getting the benefit of the doubt, or an out-and-out pass, from people who ought to know better. As the little "Greenberg"-screening soup opera went on, and it became increasingly clear that the whole kerfuffle was more or less invented by White in a sad-sack screech for attention, the benefit of the doubt was withheld, and eventually withdrawn. Good.
UPDATE (3/11/10): No ad hominem here! Under the hilarious Hollywoodnews.com headline: "Exclusive: Film Critic Armond White Dislikes Baumbach's Movies":
White denies ever saying that Baumbach's mother should have aborted him. "Reading the English language, I am not calling for him to be aborted," White told HollywoodNews.com. "But (Hoberman) decides I am calling for Noah's abortion. He sides with the mob. What a jerk."
"Armondgeddon" UPDATE (3/12/10): (thanks to @keithuhlich for that title)
Arguing semantics at NY Press: "The debate is especially comical since Armond White is often defending the Catholic church (read his review of The DaVinci Code if you don't believe me) and most people of faith and would probably not come out in favor of abortion."
David Edelstein says White's hate is pure: "But I must take exception to the charge that Armond's attacks are solely based on antipathy toward Baumbach's mother, the former Village Voice critic Georgia Brown, rather than on Baumbach's own aesthetic."
24 Comments
Are people brain dead? It's like saying Anthony Hopkins is a serial killer. These are the same type of people that forced Peter Laurie out of Germany after "M". It's morons like this that make me want to sit down and write reviews.
Reactionary seems like too kind a word. His imagination is far too active for that.
Armond White's entire career has been a self-righteous publicity stunt. What's surprising here?
I can think of only a few other public figures who provide the world with as much unintentional hilarity as Armond White. (I would count Glenn Beck if he weren't scary as well.)
I think the most Armond-ist (i.e. "doing the contrarian") aspect of this all is that he worships at the altar of Wes Anderson while spewing hatred at Baumbach. Which would seem to be impossible. Unless you're Armond White. Of course even while singing the praises of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" he manages to take a dig:
"Essentially, Mr. Fox’s misadventures replay The Life Aquatic, re-indulging narcissism (he confesses a priggish need to “intimidate” that is not charming, which sounds like smug co-screenwriter Noah Baumbach)."
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Mr. White had no recollection of his abortion comment. I think it just comes second nature to him.
I wonder how Wes Anderson feels about all the Armond-love he gets considering all this.
I wonder how many people read the NY Press. In print and online, are AW's reviews read by more than a couple thousand people? Or a couple hundred, beyond other critics who find him appallingly funny?
Considering how many responses each Armond White review generates on the Rotten Tomatoes (RT) boards alone, I suspect he has a pretty strong readership online. The RT Armond-threads make for fascinating and scary reading.
He may not have a lot of fans (or maybe he does, I don't know) but he's got a lot of people, not just critics, who want to read his stuff simply so they can know what Armond White just said. And I'm guilty of being one of them. Sometimes I'll just look at the Tomato Meter for a critically-praised "art-house" or foreign film and as soon as it drops down a notch I'll think "I bet Armond just posted his review." And I' usually right. Just happened the other week with "A Prophet."
I wish I could say it was because I enjoyed his writing style and found him illuminating even while disagreeing with him, but it's really more drinking game territory. He said "hipster" again, take a shot.
I'll never forget when White wrote that Precious was garbage unlike great movies about black people like Norbit. Todd McCarthy and Andrew Sarris don't have full time jobs as critics but this guy is allowed to go on. I guess the universe does have a sense of humour.
Yes.
Come on, Jim, it's been more than a week now since your Polansky entry, man. Not that I don't enjoy the short, incisive posts; or those about film critics; or even the 'make-your-own-list' ones -I wouldn't visit your blog everyday if I didn't-. But I'm missing some of the old "Opening Shots Project" stuff, you know. The kind of entry that makes me want to revisit a movie -or see it for the first time- with inquiring urge. Save some time for us faithful readers. Please.
but he DOES. Just look at his recent posts
Sorry. Some posts take longer to research and write than others. Who else gives you so many links to original sources? Those take a while to find and build into the text...
I find myself torn. Sometimes I think that more words dedicated to vilifying Armond White is a noble, necessary enterprise. Other times I think more time dedicated to thinking about him at all is bringing the world closer to ruin.
That's why I resisted writing anything about the whole screening non-issue. But when Hoberman actually tracked down the abortion insult, after people were starting to think it had never been said (12 years ago!), I thought it was worth a mention. You don't need to condemn White, just to quote him. That's enough. I don't care what he has to say about "Greenberg," because I doubt it will actually be anything about the movie, and just more about those phantom filmmakers and critics tormenting him in his head.
That's why I resisted writing anything about the whole screening non-issue. But when Hoberman actually tracked down the abortion insult, after people were starting to think it had never been said (12 years ago!), I thought it was worth a mention. You don't need to condemn White, just to quote him. That's enough. I don't care what he has to say about "Greenberg," because I doubt it will actually be anything about the movie, and just more about those phantom filmmakers and critics tormenting him in his head.
Suggesting a retroactive abortion [with context] isn't an ad hominem attack: it suggests that a film is so awful, humanity might be better served if said film's creator had never been born.
[I submit this comment without reading White's entire review, assuming that he substantiated his claim that the film in question really was [to him] that awful; he's verbose enough, anyway.]
It's ad hominem because it's an attack on the person (and his mother) rather than a criticism about some aspect of the work.
But how could a film be 'awful, humanity might be better served if said film's creator had never been born'? We are all passionate about cinema here, and I hate to use that 'it's only a movie' line, but at the end of the day, we are talking about cinema, not life and death issues.
Suggesting that the world would best be served if a filmmaker had never been born, IMO crosses a line that no respectful critic should cross. It is personal abuse of the worst kind, and I don't see how you can not regard it as an ad hominem attack.
It's not the the same as saying that cinema would have been better off if this filmmaker had gone into another profession. We all (or many of us) have filmmakers whom we can't stand. For me it's Von Trier. I think that cinema would have been better off without his films and I would have been delighted if he had become a University professor or something instead; but to say that the world would be better off if his mother had an abortion, that is a rejection of his humanity. It's stating that this person has nothing to offer to anyone, not just in a professional capacity, but also to his friends and family. Afterall, his mother should have had an abortion.
White is also implying that Baumbach is a lesser being, that as someone who is not fit to live, he therefore is less than human. If that's not hate speech, I don't know what is. I also would hate to know what White would do if he was in a position of power and had the means to put his words into action. He strikes me as an extremist, and if he's not serious, then he is completely out of touch with reality and humanity. Either way, he's a horrible, horrible human being (but NOT someone whose mother should have had a retroactive abortion.)
BTW, I read somewhere that he accepted an award at the NY critics circle awards on behalf of Mo'Nique, he said something like 'she could not attend tonight, the award is hers' while letting everyone know what he thought. What a classy guy.
This is allegedly what the beginning of White's review of Baumbach's Margot looks like:
"Noah Bambauch makes it easy to dislike his films. Problem is, he also makes it easy for New York’s media elite to praise them. Start with his style: The Squid and the Whale and Baumbach’s new Margot at the Wedding are two of the decade’s most repellent movies. Visually, both look like mud; their smart-ass, low-budget affectations (shot by high-price cinematographers) bridge lo-fi mumblecore with Conde Nast hipsterism. This anti-aesthetic lays waste to the bromide that nobody sets out to intentionally make a bad movie; Baumbach does. His deliberate ugliness makes him the Lars Von Trier of Brooklyn and the Hamptons."
I won't bother making any sense of the abortion comment as film criticism until I have sorted out what White actually thinks he has against Baumbach's films. (I have neither seen any of Baumbach's film nor am I a frequent reader of White's.)
Judging from his review of the film (not to be confused with the above excerpt), I can't say that his film criticism is all that bad. At the very least he does try to give arguments to support why Margot is one of the "most repellent films of the decade". I am hardly qualified to say that it is "... of the decade". But judging from White's writing, the film isn't exactly the sort of thing one would enjoy the thought of sitting through.
Taking a glimpse at the Margot trailer, which is not alluring at all, one gets the impression of a just another indie film (perhaps even comparable to your previous 'generic movie' post).
Then again I don't have a clear idea of what White means exactly by "New York’s media elite" or the sort of crowd that would fawn over Baumbach's film. What White seems to be reacting to is the goo-goo-gaaing of those who identify something deep and meaningful in the film. That's what pisses him off. And more peculiarly, for reasons I cannot comprehend, it becomes personal for him.
Regarding the abortion comment, I think there would be a fair number of people who would say the same about White. The only difference being that they would most likely be less loutish, more civilized, and perhaps mildly sensitive of the slight ring of racism to that suggestion.
You have to give White some credit, though. I didn't know it was physically possible for a human being to have his foot in his mouth and his head up his ass at the same time. And to keep talking, too!...this man is a scientific treasure trove, not the freak of nature you assholes are trying to make him look like.
//But how could a film be 'awful, humanity might be better served if said film's creator had never been born'?//
That depends entirely on one's noetic structure; there are umpteen implicit philosophical positions in that single statement: a statement that, I should note, is White's--not mine. I'll play devil's advocate:
//Suggesting that the world would best be served if a filmmaker had never been born, IMO crosses a line that no respectful critic should cross.//
White's been juxtaposed with a plethora of adjectives, "respectful" not one of them.
//White is also implying that Baumbach is a lesser being, that as someone who is not fit to live, he therefore is less than human.//
Which goes back to his noetic structure; again, there are umpteen philosophical positions in his statement. Likewise, there are philosophical positions in your response; the intelligent philosph [read as, someone other than White] might respond: does anyone "deserve" life; does one necessarily "hate" someone if they determine that said someone's existence is detrimental; and how would one objectively measure a human, in order to determine if one were "less than human"--and is there a certain value shared by all humans; and, if so, whence comes that value? Etc., etc., etc.
//He strikes me as an extremist, and if he's not serious, then he is completely out of touch with reality and humanity. Either way, he's a horrible, horrible human being (but NOT someone whose mother should have had a retroactive abortion.)//
Which goes back to the question, What makes someone a good human being; and what/who establishes "goodness" perimeters?
All of which is to say, it's easy to [incorrectly] dismiss what White said as an ad hominem attack; it's harder [read as, more time consuming] to actually examine his philosophical position[s].
Disclaimer, CTRL+V: [I submit this comment without reading White's entire review, assuming that he substantiated his claim that the film in question really was [to him] that awful; he's verbose enough, anyway.]
That's really interesting, however the problem is that White isn't engaging in a philosophical discussion. He's a film critic writing a review. In this context, I think that utilising such personal abuse is crossing the line.
I mean, White could go into detail explainging his views on what constitutes someone who is worthy to be alive, and why he doesn't think that this filmmker should be alive. But he's not doing that. Saying 'To others, "Mr. Jealousy" might suggest retroactive abortion' (which concludes the review) comes across to me as no more and no less than an ad hominem attack, and a hateful one at that.
You argue that it's incorrect to dismiss it as an ad hominem attack, well, firstly, I don't think it should be dismissed, I think it's too serious for that, but why doesn't he explain why he said what he said? He denies it, when we can see that he did say it, and he does not make any attempt to explain why he would make such a statement.
I've seen The Squid And The Whale and Margot At The Wedding and I would fight you with all my strength before watching them again, but they were clearly well-made movies. The characters and dialog seemed way more real than almost any movie I've ever seen. That realness is probably what makes them so unbearable. If Noah Baumbach has directed any movies that aren't about miserable situations, I'd bet they're really good.
Armond White is like one of those douchebag Republicans from... um, which day is it (or, for that matter, is Glen Beck missing his Clarence Thomas)? He makes big incendiary remarks and is a contrarian for his own sake. The guy can call Noah Baumbach an asshole all he wants, and we're the suckers for reading it: to my knowledge he gets paid to see and *review* his movies, so the worst thing White could do is not go and not get his paycheck. I try not to read anything he writes, but come across his work through blogs and notices like these - he's like the film critic answer to Rush Limbaugh: he says a lot of stupid and horrible things, and is most likely a hypocrite to boot, and whenever one comes across a byte like this the reaction is, as usual, "ugh".
I am a big fan of Baumbach's writing, although I find myself agreeing with a lot of Armond's criticisms of his direction. Kicking and Screaming is still my overall favorite, and it is much less depressing than his more recent films. It may come off as a bit dated now, but I highly recommend it.
Leave a comment