Armond White doing Armond White things...TRASHES 12 Years A Slave

HHR

Do what you love
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
19,023
Reputation
1,653
Daps
39,422
http://cityarts.info/2013/10/16/cant-trust-it/

Brutality, violence and misery get confused with history in 12 Years a Slave, British director Steve McQueen’s adaptation of the 1853 American slave narrative by Solomon Northup, who claims that in 1841, away from his home in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., he was kidnapped and taken South where he was sold into hellish servitude and dehumanizing cruelty.

12-years-a-slave-film.jpg
For McQueen, cruelty is the juicy-arty part; it continues the filmmaker’s interest in sado-masochistic display, highlighted in his previous features Hunger and Shame. Brutality is McQueen’s forte. As with his fine-arts background, McQueen’s films resemble museum installations: the stories are always abstracted into a series of shocking, unsettling events. With Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), McQueen chronicles the conscious sufferance of unrelenting physical and psychological pain. A methodically measured narrative slowly advances through Northup’s years of captivity, showcasing various injustices that drive home the terrors Black Africans experienced in the U.S. during what’s been called “the peculiar institution.”

Depicting slavery as a horror show, McQueen has made the most unpleasant American movie since William Friedkin’s1973 The Exorcist. That’s right, 12 Years a Slave belongs to the torture porn genre with Hostel, The Human Centipede and the Saw franchise but it is being sold (and mistaken) as part of the recent spate of movies that pretend “a conversation about race.” The only conversation this film inspires would contain howls of discomfort.

For commercial distributor Fox Searchlight, 12 Years a Slave appears at an opportune moment when film culture–five years into the Obama administration–indulges stories about Black victimization such as Precious, The Help, The Butler, Fruitvale Station and Blue Caprice. (What promoter Harvey Weinstein has called “The Obama Effect.”) This is not part of social or historical enlightenment–the too-knowing race-hustlers behind 12 Years a Slave, screenwriter John Ridley and historical advisor Henry Louis Gates, are not above profiting from the misfortunes of African-American history as part of their own career advancement.

But McQueen is a different, apolitical, art-minded animal. The sociological aspects of 12 Years a Slave have as little significance for him as the political issues behind IRA prisoner Bobby Sands’ hunger strike amidst prison brutality visualized in Hunger, or the pervy tour of urban “sexual addiction” in Shame. McQueen takes on the slave system’s depravity as proof of human depravity. This is less a drama than an inhumane analysis–like the cross-sectional cut-up of a horse in Damien Hirst’s infamous 1996 museum installation “Some Comfort Gained From the Acceptance of the Inherent Lies in Everything.”

hirst-some-comfort-gained-300x300.jpg


Because 12 Years of Slave is such a repugnant experience, a sensible viewer might be reasonably suspicious about many of the atrocities shown–or at least scoff at the one-sided masochism: Northup talks about survival but he has no spiritual resource or political drive–the means typically revealed when slave narratives are usually recounted. FromMandingo and Roots to Sankofa, Amistad, Nightjohnand Beloved, the capacity for spiritual sustenance, inherited from the legacy of slavery and survival, was essential (as with Baby Sugg’s sermon-in-the-woods in Beloved and John Quincy Adams and Cinque’s reference to ancestors in Amistad) in order to verify and make bearable the otherwise dehumanizing tales.

It proves the ahistorical ignorance of this era that 12 Years a Slave’s constant misery is excused as an acceptable version of the slave experience. McQueen, Ridley and Gates’ cast of existential victims won’t do. Northup-renamed-Platt and especially the weeping mother Liza (Adepero Oduye) and multiply-abused Patsey (Lupita Nyong‘o), are human whipping posts–beaten, humiliated, raped for our delectation just like Hirst’s cut-up equine. Hirst knew his culture: Some will no doubt take comfort from McQueen’s inherently warped, dishonest, insensitive fiction.

These tortures might satisfy the resentment some Black people feel about slave stories (“It makes me angry”), further aggravating their sense of helplessness, grievance–and martyrdom. It’s the flipside of the aberrant warmth some Blacks claim in response to the superficial uplift of The Help and The Butler. And the perversion continues among those whites and non-Blacks who need a shock fest like 12 Years a Slave to rouse them from complacency with American racism and American history. But, as with The Exorcist, there is no victory in filmmaking this merciless. The fact that McQueen’s harshness was trending among Festivalgoers (in Toronto, Telluride and New York) suggests that denial still obscures the history of slavery: Northup’s travail merely makes it possible for some viewers to feel good about feeling bad (as wags complained about Spielberg’sSchindler’s List as an “official” Holocaust movie–which very few people wanted to see twice). McQueen’s fraudulence further accustoms moviegoers to violence and brutality.

The very artsiness of 12 Years a Slave is part of its offense. The clear, classical imagery embarrasses Quentin Tarantino’s attempt at visual poetry in Django Unchained yet this “clarity” (like Hans Zimmer’s effective percussion score) is ultimately depressing. McQueen uses that art staple “duration” to prolong North’s lynching on tiptoe and later, in endless, tearful anticipation; emphasis on a hot furnace and roiling waves adds nature’s discomfort; an ugly close-up of a cotton worm symbolizes drudgery; a slave chant (“Run, ******, Run,”) contrasts ineffectual Bible-reading; and a shot of North’s handwritten plea burns to embers. But good art doesn’t work this way. Art elates and edifies–one might even prefer Q.T.’s jokey ridiculousness in Django Unchained, a different kind of sadism.

Chiwetel-Ejiofor-in-Amistad-300x300.jpg
McQueen’s art-world background recalls Peter Greenaway’s high-mindedness; he’s incapable of Q.T.’s stupid showmanship. (He may simply be blind to American ambivalence about the slave era and might do better focusing on the crimes of British imperialism.) Instead, every character here drags us into assorted sick melancholies–as Northup/Platt, Ejiofor’s sensitive manner makes a lousy protagonist; the benevolent intelligence that worked so well for him as the translator in Amistad is too passive here; he succumbs to fate, anguish and torment according to McQueen’s pre-ordained pessimism. Michael Fassbender’s Edwin Epps, a twisted slaveholder (“a ******-breaker”) isn’t a sexy selfish lover as Lee Daniels flirtatiously showed in The Butler; Epps perverts love in his nasty miscegenation with Patsey (whose name should be Pathos).

And Alfre Woodard as a self-aware Black plantation mistress rapidly sinks into unrescuable psychosis. Ironically, Woodard’s performance is weird comic relief–a neurotic tribute to Butterfly McQueen’s frivolous Hollywood inanity but from a no-fun perspective. By denying Woodard a second appearance, director McQueen proves his insensitivity. He avoids any hopefulness, preferring to emphasize scenes devoted to annihilating Nyong’o’s body and soul. Patsey’s completely unfathomable longing for death is just art-world cynicism. McQueen’s “sympathy” lacks appropriate disgust and outrage but basks in repulsion and pity–including close-up wounds and oblivion. Patsey’s pathetic corner-of-the-screen farewell faint is a nihilistic trope. Nothing in The Exorcist was more flagrantly sadistic.

***

Some of the most racist people I know are bowled over by this movie. They may have forgotten Roots, never seen Sankofa or Nightjohn, disliked Amistad, dismissed Beloved and even decried the violence in The Passion of the Christ, yet 12 Years a Slave lets them congratulate themselves for “being aghast at slavery.” This film has become a new, easy reproof to Holocaust deniers. But remember how in Public Enemy’s “Can’t Truss It,” pop culture’s most magnificent account of the Middle Passage, Chuck D warned against the appropriation of historical catastrophe for self-aggrandizement: “The Holocaust /I’m talkin’ ‘bout the one still goin’ on!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am9BqZ6eA5c

The egregious inhumanity of 12 Years a Slave (featuring the most mawkish and meaningless fade-out in recent Hollywood history) only serves to perpetuate Hollywood’s disenfranchisement of Black people’s humanity. Brad Pitt, one of the film’s producers, appears in a small role as a helpful pacifist—as if to save face with his real-life multicultural adopted family. But Pitt’s good intentions (his character promises “There will be a reckoning”) contradict McQueen, Ridley and Gates’ self-serving motives. The finite numeral in the title of 12 Years a Slavecompliments the fallacy that we look back from a post-racial age, that all is in ascent. But 12 Years a Slave is ultimate proof that Hollywood’s respect for Black humanity is in absurd, patronizing, Oscar-winning decline.

Steve McQueen’s post-racial art games and taste for cruelty play into cultural chaos. The story in 12 Years a Slave didn’t need to be filmed this way and I wish I never saw it.

He also guested on the /Filmcast this week for their review of it....and it's insane.

http://www.slashfilm.com/filmcast-e...st-armond-white-from-city-arts/#disqus_thread
 

jwinfield

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
44,083
Reputation
9,647
Daps
215,419
Reppin
NULL
http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_ran...whites-greatest-contrarian-hits-2007-2011.php

Pans for Otherwise Well-Reviewed Films (Tomatometer Percentage in Parenthesis)

Toy Story 3 (99%): "Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination -- the usefulness of toys -- and strictly celebrates consumerism."

Up (98%): "All this deflated cinema and Pixarism mischaracterizes what good animation can be (as in Coraline, Monster House, Chicken Little, Teacher's Pet, The Iron Giant). Up's aesthetic failure stems from its emotional letdown."

The Wrestler (98%): "Aronofsky inflicts as much pain on the audience as self-flagellating Ram Jam does when brutalizing/mutilating himself in and outside the ring."

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (97%): "Now that the Harry Potter series is over, maybe the truth can be realized: This has been the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises."

The Social Network: (96%) "Like one of those fake-smart, middlebrow TV shows, the speciousness of The Social Network is disguised by topicality. It's really a movie excusing Hollywood ruthlessness."

King's Speech: (95%): "Each scene in The King's Speech is so poorly staged that its ineptitude sometimes borders on the avant-garde."

The Dark Knight (94%): "The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can't see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight's dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product."

Iron Man (94%): "Iron Man is a dispiriting attempt to apply superficial principles to inherently silly kid culture."

Milk (94%): "A bizarre manipulation of the gay political impulse."

In the Loop (94%): " Instead of inspiring geniuses, Iraq war backlash has only resulted in snarky self-righteousness that -- from Charlie Wilson's War and now British import In the Loop -- has demonstrated the low ebb of modern comedy."

The Town (94%): "The Town is nearly as ludicrous as [Affleck's] debut Gone Baby Gone -- another poison pen letter to Beantown."

Gone Baby Gone (94%): "So far this year, no other movie has more risible dialogue."

Midnight in Paris: (92%): "The groupie-like celebration of Allen's doubled-up cultural insecurity and ambition represents a global degradation of culture standards."

District 9: (91%): "District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema -- the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture."

There Will Be Blood (91%): "'No!' is the first word spoken in There Will Be Blood, and it should be the last said in response to Paul Thomas Anderson's latest pretend epic."

Up in the Air: (90%): "Only seriously deluded people could enjoy Reitman's funny-sad whiplash. He's playing that same Hollywood game: keeping people ignorant of political economy."

Michael Clayton (90%): "Hipster filmmakers keep looking backwards to the 1970s, hoping to disguise how ill-equipped they are to deal with contemporary social issues."

Bridesmaids (90%): "It's an overly contrived jumble, trying out too many comic ideas that eventually swamp the central subject of what a modern young woman expects regarding friendship, courtship and marriage."

Tangled: (89%): " By mixing up and confusing the purpose of cinematic amusement and fairy tales, Tangled is aptly named for the mass misperception of popular entertainment as a mechanism of gimmicks rather than an expression of feelings."

Black Swan (88%): "Aronofsky's ethnic denial and escape into Nina's psychological trauma actually trivializes her artistic pursuit. Turning art into genre movie silliness is a careerist's dance."

Blue Valentine (88%): "Despite Blue Valentine's blatant sensememories of nakedness and affection, irritation and itch, what Gosling and Williams reveal about their own concepts of heterosexual experience is ultimately inane."

Easy A (85%): "Easy A is now frontrunner for worst film of 2010."

Accolades for Otherwise Panned Films

Clash of the Titans (28%): "Leterrier certainly shows a better sense of meaningful, economic narrative than the mess that Peter Jackson made of the interminable, incoherent Lord of the Rings trilogy."

Your Highness (26%): "By trashing fairytale propriety, Green and McBride personalize the genre enthusiasm of the Star Wars generation."

Lions for Lambs (27%): "In the best directing of his auteur career, Robert Redford turns Carnahan's original script into a modern-day version of what Sergei Eisenstein called 'Intellectual Montage.'"

Resident Evil Afterlife (26%): "If critics and fanboys weren't suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Afterlife would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level."

Next Day Air (21%): "Filmgoers who think outside the artmovie box will discover that the artful and enjoyable Next Day Air offers an episode of 21st-century black American life that August Wilson never got to."

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (20%): " Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof [Bay] has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement."

Just Go With It (19%): "The humorous tangents of Just Go With It are testaments to the fine art of improvisation and of comedy that doesn't take itself overly seriously."

Dance Flick (18%): " It isn't highbrow -- or encumbered by scruples -- but the Wayanses retain their vulgar, adolescent derision of sex, class and race. In this bow down to Hollywood millennium, their irreverence is almost subversive."

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (14%): "It's a modern classic (despite a cheap-shot plug for Giuliani). By comparison, Hollywood's most celebrated gay comedies -- In and Out, Chuck and Buck, Blades of Glory, even the laughable Brokeback Mountain -- were all failures of nerve."

Grown Ups (10%): " Cheerful and surprisingly heartfelt."


Bonus

Precious (91%): "Winfrey, Perry and Daniels make an unholy triumvirate. They come together at some intersection of race exploitation and opportunism."

The Blindside (66%): " All Bullock's films promote an edifying sense of human experience -- she has an instinct for what people like to see -- and that gift makes The Blind Side the perfect, God-sent antidote to Precious."
 

HHR

Do what you love
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
19,023
Reputation
1,653
Daps
39,422
Ya'll should listen to that podcast though, it's kind of hilarious.

When he's not calling McQueen a "con-artist" or Ridley (screenwriter) a "race hustling opportunist" he spends most of the time complaining that the film wasn't about something else....or a different movie entirely. He basically just lists a bunch of films about slavery that no one has ever heard of and insists they are better.

It's awesome.
 

Bobhoward

Baseball Ready
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
681
Reputation
76
Daps
1,488
Clash of the Titans (28%): "Leterrier certainly shows a better sense of meaningful, economic narrative than the mess that Peter Jackson made of the interminable, incoherent Lord of the Rings trilogy."

:lolbron:
 

Box Cutta

Bumbling Sidekick
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
16,783
Reputation
2,273
Daps
39,499
Reppin
Sanitation Department
I don't think he's a "troll", I just think that he lacks a true "taste" or "preference"...seems like he just takes in every individual movie as is without reference to the conventional genre tropes, popular opinion, marketing hype, etc. He also doesn't pander to modern..."superfans" as he calls them....nerd audiences that base their personalities and "culture" around what are essentially childrens stories.

Of course, considering the level of fame that he now has (Relative to other critics), I'm sure he's aware at this point that his reviews are now seen as "an event". But what should he do? Not being honest about how he felt about a film? Or should he just try to keep writing what he feels?

And on that point, say what you want about his conclusions, but dude usually makes his points very well. He's not an idiot. Of course, Antonin Scalia is one of the better writers on the Supreme Court, but the guy is a fukking bigoted idiot...so take that for what you will. Just saying, I rarely see people arguing the actual substance of his articles just "OMG, The Cape-Men had a 100 percent on Rotten Tomatoes until Armond White's review waaaaah".

People also fail to cite times when he agrees with consensus. Or times where a film was really popular but later (rightfully) caught backlash. I saw someone mention LOTR's above...you might not have seen it breh, but there are PLENTY of people who are iffy about TTT, and ROTK was always seen as a bit of a mess. Inception and Avatar are considered bad in plenty of circles. Etc. Sometimes both he and popular consensus get it wrong, I just researched "Speed Racer"....a film that was panned by Armond White and most critics upon release but that has slowly gained a fan-following which I am apart of. I really don't give a shyt, Speed Racer was one of the most ambitious blockbusters of the past decade, consensus be damned, I stand by that film. Is that a "troll" opinion?

:yeshrug:....I just don't have anything against the guy being contrarian and disregarding popular consensus.The Hollywood machine...does get a lot of passes. You've got films like Star Trek 2009 with a 95 percent on Rotten Tomatoes....is it really so horrifying that one reviewer dares to question the hype (Or, sometimes, praise the "punts") of these massive films? "Feel Good", "Turn off your brain", "Cool action" are now the biggest arguments in favor of the most popular films out right now. Some people feel like modern film is the best it's ever been, if you feel that way, cool. But I personally tend to side with those that feel like we might be on shaky ground...

And I say this as a guy that enjoys a lot of the films he shyts on.

In regards to 12 Years A Slave...there are plenty of people on this very forum that have been frustrated with the modern "civil rights/helpless blacks" genre that Hollywood seems in love with. This is a strange review to jump start the topic on here...The Coli is likely the place online most in agreement with his critique of 12 Years. His comparison to "torture porn" isn't particularly outrageous....in fact, I remember reading that Precious was "poverty porn"...I think that's a valid statement.
 

HipHopStan

Top 113 Poster
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
17,794
Reputation
5,046
Daps
66,555
Reppin
I LIVE IN A CARDBOARD BOX!
Why the fukk are we even giving a fukk what Armond White has to say in 2013?!? Nobody should be paying him no mind about what he has to say since he trashed Toy Story 3 in 2010. To quote the late, great Roger Ebert "It is baffling to me that a critic could praise Transformers 2 but not Synecdoche, NY. Or Death Race but not There Will Be Blood. I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll; a smart and knowing one, but a troll."
 

Bobhoward

Baseball Ready
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
681
Reputation
76
Daps
1,488
I don't think he's a "troll", I just think that he lacks a true "taste" or "preference"...seems like he just takes in every individual movie as is without reference to the conventional genre tropes, popular opinion, marketing hype, etc. He also doesn't pander to modern..."superfans" as he calls them....nerd audiences that base their personalities and "culture" around what are essentially childrens stories.

Of course, considering the level of fame that he now has (Relative to other critics), I'm sure he's aware at this point that his reviews are now seen as "an event". But what should he do? Not being honest about how he felt about a film? Or should he just try to keep writing what he feels?

And on that point, say what you want about his conclusions, but dude usually makes his points very well. He's not an idiot. Of course, Antonin Scalia is one of the better writers on the Supreme Court, but the guy is a fukking bigoted idiot...so take that for what you will. Just saying, I rarely see people arguing the actual substance of his articles just "OMG, The Cape-Men had a 100 percent on Rotten Tomatoes until Armond White's review waaaaah".

People also fail to cite times when he agrees with consensus. Or times where a film was really popular but later (rightfully) caught backlash. I saw someone mention LOTR's above...you might not have seen it breh, but there are PLENTY of people who are iffy about TTT, and ROTK was always seen as a bit of a mess. Inception and Avatar are considered bad in plenty of circles. Etc. Sometimes both he and popular consensus get it wrong, I just researched "Speed Racer"....a film that was panned by Armond White and most critics upon release but that has slowly gained a fan-following which I am apart of. I really don't give a shyt, Speed Racer was one of the most ambitious blockbusters of the past decade, consensus be damned, I stand by that film. Is that a "troll" opinion?

:yeshrug:....I just don't have anything against the guy being contrarian and disregarding popular consensus.The Hollywood machine...does get a lot of passes. You've got films like Star Trek 2009 with a 95 percent on Rotten Tomatoes....is it really so horrifying that one reviewer dares to question the hype (Or, sometimes, praise the "punts") of these massive films? "Feel Good", "Turn off your brain", "Cool action" are now the biggest arguments in favor of the most popular films out right now. Some people feel like modern film is the best it's ever been, if you feel that way, cool. But I personally tend to side with those that feel like we might be on shaky ground...

And I say this as a guy that enjoys a lot of the films he shyts on.

In regards to 12 Years A Slave...there are plenty of people on this very forum that have been frustrated with the modern "civil rights/helpless blacks" genre that Hollywood seems in love with. This is a strange review to jump start the topic on here...The Coli is likely the place online most in agreement with his critique of 12 Years. His comparison to "torture porn" isn't particularly outrageous....in fact, I remember reading that Precious was "poverty porn"...I think that's a valid statement.

I get everything you're saying and I have no problems with critics who go against the consensus. Obviously the big budget franchise movies like Batman, Star Trek, LOTR all have problems and are far from perfect films but I think it's pretty apparent from the reviews that Armond White is a professional troll.

I think most likely it's just his schtick in an attempt to be more well known. Outside of Roger Ebert, Richard Roper and a few other bloggers I really can't think of many other film critics off the top of my head, however I do know who Armond White is and that's just from coming across his negative reviews on RT.

There's thousands of internet movie critics and you've got to do something to differentiate yourself if you want to stick out from the pack. Shock value writing is just the path Armond White has chosen.
 
Top