Back to IndieWire

Armond White For Dummies or: Why I Enjoy Reading Him, and Why His Latest is His Lamest

Armond White For Dummies or: Why I Enjoy Reading Him, and Why His Latest is His Lamest

I enjoy reading Armond White. Let me qualify that: under the right circumstances, White can be insightful, as in a recent article he wrote for Out Magazine on Dwayne Johnson’s multiracial Hercules, his reviews of “Love Is Strange” and “Get On Up,” or most of his writings on Steven Spielberg. Granted, under the wrong circumstances, he’s deeply frustrating, as his insight gives way to  bullying attacks on critics who disagree with him and misrepresentations of their reviews to further his own viewpoint (e.g. claiming none of “Boyhood’s” supporters cite the Antoine Doinel or “Up” films, even though most of them do).

But frankly, sometimes I even enjoy his shit-stirring (see: his positive but still caustic review of “The Lego Movie”), which can veer towards weird performance art. He might be a jerk (OK, he’s almost definitely a jerk), but he’s a wildly entertaining jerk. That’s why his latest article, “Across the Ungreat Divide,” is such a disappointment to me. 

In the article, White makes the case for “20 films listed here effectively destroyed art, social unity, and spiritual confidence.” Hyperbolic to the point of insanity? Yes. Clickbait? Definitely. Another part of White’s ongoing belief that everyone who disagrees with him is both a toady and out to silence him? Arguably. None of those are the problem with the article though. My complaint is that it’s all too brief. Here are a few samples:

12 Years a Slave (2013) distorted the history of slavery while encouraging and continuing Hollywood’s malign neglect of slavery’s contemporary impact.

“Knocked Up” (2007) — Judd Apatow’s comedy of bad manners attacked maturity and propriety.

Lincoln” (2012) — Spielberg succumbs to Tony Kushner’s limousine-liberal cynicism to valorize Obama-era political chicanery.

I’ve read most of White’s full reviews of the films, which also include “There Will Be Blood,” “The Dark Knight,” “The Social Network,” and “The Hangover.” Some of his views I actually agree with (“Precious,” included here, is the “sociological horror show” he pegged it as in his review). Some I strongly disagree with but can see why the films rubbed him the wrong way (“12 Years a Slave”). Some of his cases here seem insane, like his argument that “WALL-E” is “Nihilism made cute for children of all ages who know nothing about cultural history or how to sustain it” (“WALL-E” nihilistic? Children should know how to sustain cultural history?). I’m also curious as to how non-events like “Ocean’s Twelve” and “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” could have been so powerful as to destroy the whole concept of art, given how little they’ve been canonized as White seems to argue.

But here’s the thing: I want to hear those arguments. White doesn’t elaborate on any of these or even link to his earlier reviews. Most of these one-sentence dismissals are Tweet-friendly, theses to cases that he doesn’t actually make. They’re all peeks inside the mind of Armond, a look at his politics and personal beliefs that he never explicates. I want the full look, however much his arguments might end up annoying me. I want to know why these films, above all others, are so abhorrent to him (and it can’t just be big targets, or else he wouldn’t have selected middleweight prestige pics like “Good Night, and Good Luck.” and “Frost/Nixon”). I can’t help but be fascinated by the man and the critic, so an impassioned, even infuriating and hypocritical essay on the films that he claims destroyed art would be valuable, or at very least interesting.

Hell, he links to that kind of essay in the article, in which he makes a case that in 2004, the divide between liberal “Fahrenheit 9/11” fans and conservative “The Passion of the Christ” supporters broke film culture. The essay is often irritating, but it gives a full idea of how White views the world differently from just about everyone else. This is mostly just Armond for Dummies, an introduction to who he is and what he’s about for any movie lover who might not be aware at this point. And at this point, are there any of those that exist?

This Article is related to: News and tagged , , , , , , , ,


Dustin Philipson

To the commentator who pegged White as the "Ann Coulter of film criticism", you do know that Armond is a Black, Conservative, Gay Christian? So maybe the comparison holds water under the "Conservative" & "Christian" banners. But Black and Gay sorta destroy your thesis. This is a critic who writes for both ‘The National Review’ (a conservative publication) & ‘Out’ magazine (A Gay/ Lesbian publication). He defends movies that he sees as truly conservative and moral. He also writes impassioned and heartfelt reviews that extol what he sees as the the virtues of particular Gay & Lesbian centric films. So do your research before you jump to blanket conclusions.


This is the sort of nonsense he does all the time, including in his supposedly more in-depth reviews. What's the difference?

Marlon Wallace

I agree with Max in that Armond's premise is flawed. It's why I wouldn't to see fleshed out arguments of his one-liners because it would only flow from a faulty premise. How can anyone or anything destroy art? Are we to take from this that no good movie was made past 2004? Plus, some of the films he listed I don't think had the impact he implies. He says, film culture broke in 2004. In other words, people like movies I don't, and if the world likes something that I don't, then clearly it's the world that's broken. Also, every time, Armond references Obama it's in a negative connotation. Obviously he's a supporter of her current President, so his political bias isn't showing at all.

Peter Labuza

Here's the problem though – there aren't any arguments. Since the loss of his editors at NYPress, White isn't making cases for his arguments as much as dropping buzzwords and thinking they will do the job. Look for "hipster," "humanism," "Nihilism" throughout his pieces, and you'll see them repeated, but never with the same definition. I've seen White debate in person and everything is a mobieus strip in terms of his argumentation—it goes round and round and he just returns to the same undefined points again and again.


You know what's really destroying film culture? That Armond White still gets paid to write about film when other talented folks – who do not attempt to pass off their personal grudges as contrarianism – do not.

White's "article" contains enough trolling to populate a fairy tale bridge. He's the Ann Coulter of film criticism – he intends to shock and offend, rather than take part in any sort of meaningful discourse.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *