The BIRTH of INTOLERANCE with Armond White
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Ian welcomes back National Review film critic Armond White for a look at two movies whose influence on the art form is as undeniable as it is controversial.
D.W. Griffith's 1915 silent epic THE BIRTH OF A NATION is a Klan origin fable bursting with racism and historical inaccuracies--but it's also a gripping human drama that boasts ahead-of-its-time storytelling techniques.
Griffith followed this up the next year with INTOLERANCE, an even grander project that interweaves four centuries-spanning morality tales, all connected by a theme that essentially undermines THE BIRTH OF A NATION's...intolerance.
In this wide-ranging (and by no means definitive) conversation, Ian and Armond talk about the balance between appreciating art and endorsing it; Griffith's puzzlingly inconsistent use of blackface; and what makes INTOLERANCE, in Mr. White's opinion, the "greatest movie ever made."
Show Links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch the BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) trailer:
bit.ly/2Y6VdRL
Watch the INTOLERANCE (1916) trailer:
bit.ly/3sNZfwF
Read Armond's THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) review:
www.nationalre...
Read Armond's INTOLERANCE (1916) review:
www.nationalre...
Order the book that inspired this conversation, Armond White's MAKE SPIELBERG GREAT AGAIN:
amzn.to/396BPKV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe, like, and comment to the Kicking the Seat TH-cam channel, and check out kickseat.com for multiple movie podcasts each week! www.kickseat.com/
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/n.gif)
Great to see Armond in the flesh. A hero of modern film criticism.
Yep, a truly unique voice and a wealth of insight!
Truly the greatest film critic out there. Such an interesting, unique voice that understands the art of film and is able to contextualise it perfectly.
YES! More Armond. He's a monk who preserves great art during a very dark time. God bless that man. Horrible victim of a subtle racism only found in pseudo elitist circles. Horribly underrecognized. One of very few critics worth reading and probably the only living one worth reading
Glad you enjoyed the episode, Joe! Yes, we're definitely planning more shows together (check out the recent ep on THE COLOR PURPLE and ORPHANS OF THE STORM--a really great pairing). I agree that Armond's reputation has likely kept a lot of people from following his actual work (speaking from experience until very recently). Not sure if/how race plays into that, or if he has any thoughts on the matter; I may actually bring that up in a future conversation.
@@KickingtheSeat Yes. I already watched it and it was great. He was thrown out of NY critics circle jerk because he rightfully pointed out some artistic failings of those who were deemed as "must supports" (like the talentless hack Noah Baumbach, if only every directors mother was a film critic). Race plays into this because were he white or Jewish he would've never been sacked. The evidence for this is the fact that a white and Jewish critic said very similar things about the relevant films and filmmakers, albeit less publicly and with less eloquence, and got to keep their jobs. Film critic circle jerks are similar to the white racists with southern charm as described by Flannery O'Connor ie "We only accept criticism from within and will demonize and shun those who dare do it from outside the circle jerk". The irony of course being that these people pride themselves on being progressive and lifting black voices even though, as Armond says, "they don't know shit". I'm in a forever debt to Armond for him leading me to some incredible art that genuinely deepened my friendships especially with my black friends. Armond White and Albert Murray can save us from these horrible barbarians.
I'd heard the NYFCC thing was due (at least in part) to alleged heckling of Steve McQueen at a dinner; granted, I didn't look too deeply into the matter, nor have I asked Armond about it, so who knows? As for the race issue, it's entirely possible you're correct, but it's also possible that people of different backgrounds have been reprimanded/tossed out of various groups for bad behavior--real and imagined. We can agree on Armond's unique perspective helping to enrich both of our understandings of film (and, thus, the human condition more broadly). We'll have to agree to disagree about Baumbach, who's one of my favorite storytellers.
@@KickingtheSeat Yes that is what was reported. But if you were in NYC and listening everyone knew that no one wanted a conservative Christian black guy who is smarter and better educated than them to critique films that got them trips money and prestige. Armond understands well the necessary between the critic and the artist. With all due respect that only tells me that you haven't seen or read the master storytellers. We aren't agreeing to disagree you are choosing to sacrifice a standard for opinion if you believe Baumbach should be praised as a good storyteller worthy of attempting to replicate. Nothing wrong with liking someone obviously.
Frankly, your statement is quite disrespectful. I've been watching several hundred movies a year for decades, and have encountered many a master storyteller. I'd never claimed Baumbach to be among those ranks (just that he is a "favorite" of mine). My appreciation of his work has nothing to do with a lack of personal standards or sacrificing those standards for an opinion. You don't define the universal criteria of quality; in fact such criteria don't exist. There are objective standards in art (Is a scene competently lit? If the film is a conventional narrative piece, does it have a beginning, middle, and an end?). But when it comes to how movies affect an audience, that is subjective down to the experience of a single viewer. I might think that people who consider GODZILLA VS. KONG to be a "great movie" are misguided, but I can't take away the thrills they felt while watching it--nor would I want to.
Wow!! Such an enlightening conversation. Thank you.
Thank you! It was enlightening for me, too.
goat
Indeed!
Charming discussion
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the show.
No question about their influence on film making, but, it's their messages and imagery that is what's most troubling. And truth be told, far better movies have been made since these were made more than a hundred years ago.