Armond White: Make Criticism Great Again (The Kicking the Seat Interview)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Controversial film critic Armond White returns to the Kicking the Seat Podcast to discuss his latest book, MAKE SPIELBERG GREAT AGAIN!
In this bold collection of essays, reviews, and commentary, White lays out his career-long fascination with the iconic creator of E.T. and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and makes a case for the writer/director's evolution as an artist of supreme social consciousness--the trajectory of which, White argues, has ultimately led Spielberg astray in the early 21st Century.
In addition to exploring the book's themes, Ian and White talk about its origins; the trouble with critics; the hazard of political labels; and why everyone may be wrong about the Internet's most reviled movie reviewer.
Show Links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy MAKE SPIELBERG GREAT AGAIN at Amazon:
amzn.to/36uMGNw
Buy THE PRESS GANG at Seven Stories Press:
www.sevenstori...
Follow Armond's writings at THE NATIONAL REVIEW:
www.nationalre...
Listen to Ian's interview with Armond White, Matt Zoller-Seitz, and Godfrey Cheshire about THE PRESS GANG:
• Meet THE PRESS GANG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
The fact is White wants to be considered one of the greatest film critics of all time, along with Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris. But he is not in league with them because, in their day, film critics were of higher importance than they are nowadays. He can be very thought provoking when he is not busy trying to settle some scores, like with why the world ( and the Internet ) doesn't recognize his self importance.
The first and last book I bought from this author was Tupac Shakur rebel for the hell of it in 97. The book was very derogatory of anything the west coast music was putting out. The east coast could do no wrong apparently bigs 1st album ready to die was "the masterpiece the chronic should've been". Snoops debut album was "really bad and buying it represents the rotten system....." and as for 2pac he never had anything real positive to say about him yet he has time to write that "it's nice to hear him put nas in his place"...I bought it but got a refund within 48 hours. Never been a fan of this man ever since
I haven't read that book, but it doesn't sound like Armond was shy about his opinions. I don't agree with his every take. Frankly, that's the fun in engaging with ideas. If you haven't watched this episode, or the one we did afterward, maybe give it a shot. I can't speak to his positions on Biggie and Pac, but his knowledge and assessment of Spielberg is spot-on. Besides, twenty-four years is an awfully long time to hold a literary grudge without at least checking back in.
Bro’s camera cannot be any foggier lmaooo this guy is hilarious
Armond likely has an old laptop.
Armond's a legend and an incredible film historian
Fantastic conversation. Armond is brilliant.
Thanks! And as a teaser for 2021, we'll soon have more opportunities to enjoy his brilliance.
Nah.
@@johanliebert4622 th-cam.com/video/0uRmgKUeMqQ/w-d-xo.html
Fascinating!
Armond needs to turn on the light in his room and put ring light behind his camera lol
What he said 38:02 about Roger Ebert is absolutely true. Roger Ebert was basically an entertainment shows version of a critic. It's like if Entertainment Tonight was a criticism show it would be what Roger Ebert did on tv. No one should take Ebert seriously but unfortunately he became the symbol of what film criticism is.
This is actually where I somewhat disagree with Armond, though I didn't have the time to really explore this drive-by comment with him (perhaps on a future show). I have great respect for the way Roger Ebert helped make film criticism accessible to people who didn't necessarily see critics as, well, people. Reading Ebert and watching his discussions with Gene Siskel every week were very formative experiences in my own journey as a film critic. The fact that the format and the "thumbs" short-hand would lead the way to issues with the craft and the medium it commented on...well, that's not something I can pin on Ebert--but I definitely see it as opening the door to easily dismissable rankings, like thumbs, stars, Tomatometer rankings, etc. Ebert was also a helluva writer. I recommend reading LIFE ITSELF, and watching the stellar documentary adapted from it.
@@KickingtheSeat You could have asked him also about something I find somewhat odd. I know Armond is always slamming liberals and Obama. Yet he's gone down the path of a hardcore conservative. On twitter he regularly praises people on the alt-right like Mike Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson. He also gives props to Diamond and Silk, Mike Huckabee, Candace Owens, Brigitte Gabriel, Mollie Hemingway and Greg Gutfield. He was even cheering on qanon politician. These people are just the lowest of the low yet Armond seems to think they are so great. He has a problem with liberals yet he goes in this complete opposite extreme. It's just utterly bizarre.
Slamming liberals and Obama is not at all at odds with being a hardcore conservative (one might say they're key characteristics). As for Twitter, I don't make a habit of policing the social media of people I interview--partially because I don't have that kind of time, but mostly because I don't care. Cernovich and Watson are controversial figures, but I have also listened to what they have to say and found myself agreeing with (or at least being entertained by) some of their material. I also find some of their stuff to be a bit nuts. I can say the same for the other people you've listed. I also agree with people on the left on some issues, and vehemently oppose them on others. I'm not in lockstep with either "side", and neither is Armond White, from what I can tell, based on the surprising revelations about the innate progressivisim (though he might not call it that) he exhibited more than 30 years ago in writing about THE COLOR PURPLE. I'd been suckered into thinking of him as a monster, as a troll, based solely on his reputation and several out-of-context lines from reviews. But reading his work and speaking with him have revealed a thoughtful, respectful, and, yes, highly opinionated critic who doesn't acknowledge labels or constraints.
@@KickingtheSeat I think the problem is that people take Roger Ebert’s opinion as fact which has lead to everyone agreeing on his opinion.
I agree to an extent, but that's not really a problem with Roger Ebert so much as it is with the people who take his opinions as fact. And there are plenty of people who disagree with Ebert's takes (even Ebert himself, who I once heard describe his turnabout on the movie A CLOCKWORK ORANGE).
Hey, I'm a student interested in interviewing Armond. How did you contact him? Thank you