Denialism, and Toy Story 3
Many of my favorite people hold opinions I don’t. They enjoy things I find annoying, and support positions I find misguided.
That’s good. Part of being a grown-up is accepting that others don’t have to share your tastes and beliefs, just as you don’t have to embrace theirs. Surrounding yourself with only like-minded people is narcissism by proxy.
When you zoom out to society as a whole, you want a healthy mix of opinions to generate discussion. Yes, you get a few blowhards and demagogues, but they often foster enjoyable debate. Culture is the result of a never-ending game, and you want good players.
But do you know who’s no help at all? Denialists.
“Denialist” is a term often linked with Holocaust or climate change skeptics, but in a general sense applies to anyone incapable of rational discussion on a given topic. You can’t debate them. Not really.
DENIALIST
There are huge gaps in your “fossil record.”
BIOLOGIST
Between which species?
DENIALIST
All of them! Pick any two, and there’s a gap between them.
With topics that can be argued from objective facts, you can ultimately feel pretty secure calling a denialist wrong. But what if you’re talking about a subjective experience, like art or literature or movies?
What if you’re talking about Toy Story 3?
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.
In his widely-panned review of the widely-adored Toy Story 3, Armond White seems to have segued from film critic to film denialist. “Contrarian” feels too small, too polite — he’s not just paddling in the opposite direction of most critics, he’s climbed out of the boat and started grabbing fish with his bare hands.
Criticizing Toy Story 3 for celebrating consumerism is so non-sensical as to be objectively wrong.
Or maybe we’ve all been duped:
[Toy Story 3 is] essentially a bored game that only the brainwashed will buy into. Besides, Transformers 2 already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence.
Oy.
Paul Brunick does a point-by-point dissection of the Toy Story 3 review, revealing its many factual inaccuracies. Never mind what movie is being projected on screen — White is here to catalog how it falls short of his ideals:
What makes Armond’s reviews perversely fascinating is that he is so obviously intelligent, yet this intelligence has been harnessed to the warped imperatives of an increasingly frustrated personality. Where your average critical hack job is just banal, White’s ability to disconnect the dots exerts a kind of bizarro brilliance. Try to take any of his recent reviews as seriously as he insists and you’ll find yourself, like Alice and the Red Queen, running in hermeneutic circles, getting nowhere fast. It makes for mediocre criticism but lurid psychodrama.
Don’t feed the trolls
Since you can’t debate a denialist, shouldn’t you just ignore them?
In forums and message boards, yes. On their own blogs, sure. But when a denialist has a platform that otherwise feels legitimate, are you doing society a disservice by letting the counterfactual opinion sit there uncontested?
Take evolution, per my example above. By attempting to engage with denialists, defenders of science paradoxically lend their opponents legitimacy — particularly if they can portray themselves as persecuted. “Teach the controversy” starts to sound like a reasonable middle ground, drawing in otherwise-reasonable people who want to be perceived as wise and fair.
I don’t have a good answer. I haven’t devised a formula for figuring out when to just ignore it. And thus I spend a few hundred words on a terrible review of an excellent movie.
43 Responses to “Denialism, and Toy Story 3”
Leave a Reply
RSS feed for comments on this article.
Get a Gravatar. They're free and work on lots of different sites.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I believe White crossed from film critic to film denialist LONG before TS3, unfortunately…
July 14th, 2010 at 10:12 am
I’ve run into another large (and growing) army of denialists: those who refuse to accept that Twilight is bad writing.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Any chance he’s being a denialist on purpose, just to elicit a reaction and create controversy? Or, if not him, maybe the people who published his review? I think those possibilities bother me even more than someone just being a denialist…
Regardless, your opening 3 paragraphs are quite eloquent. :)
July 14th, 2010 at 10:23 am
In other recent denialist film critic news we have Roger Ebert saying that:
…which is just silly. And before anyone leaps to his defense, he recently admitted that he was wrong after weeks of using this argument to gin up traffic to his website while asking for people to become paying members.
As crazy as I find the kinds of denialists you describe, watching a Pulitzer winner act like a troll was even more offensive.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I couldn’t get past his use of “Transformers” and “greater” in the same sentence.
But up to that point, his words suggest to me he’s more interested in his own writing than reviewing a movie.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Heads up for everyone: Armond White is going to be on the /Filmcast this week (www.slashfilmcast.com), and he’s going to be challenged on his controversial reviews for Toy Story 3 and Inception.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:58 am
White is the same knucklehead who, while slamming TS3 and INCEPTION, raved about such stinkers as JONAH HEX, GROWN UPS and FROM PARIS WITH LOVE.
His reviews are always good for a laugh and not much else.
Less amusing is how he lobbied (unsuccessfully) against Sidney Lumet getting a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NY Film Critics Circle a few years ago.
And to think he’s one of the Circle’s Chairmen! What, Rex Reed (busted for shoplifting CDs a few years ago) wasn’t availble?
July 14th, 2010 at 11:13 am
“I haven’t devised a formula for figuring out when to just ignore it. And thus I spend a few hundred words on a terrible review of an excellent movie.”
For the record, I’m very glad you spent those few hundred words … it is true that trying to reason with someone who doesn’t speak the language is a waste of time, but it’s also true that pointing out obvious, verifiable truths about the dishonesty of denialists (especially the ones with major media platforms) to others is something I consider to be of great value.
So thank you for that.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:47 am
+1 Kristan (comment #3) Film critics are a special species designed to fill up “culture” pages. They are basically trying to outwit their colleagues at least once in a while.
The real movie (or art) critic job is not about going out to see everything to publish a fast comment. People who love cinema don’t watch movies for a living, they do it when and because they feel attracted to a movie. And there also are some happy accidents.
Commenting film reviews is really like replying to trolls: an endless loss of time and energy. Critics are only detrimental to some creative people’s egos and they should only answer with irony or cynicism (Hitchcock saying a bad review makes him cry on his way to the bank). It’s really not the same as hollocaust/climate change/evolution denialist who really challenge the intelligence of humanity.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
John, while agreeing with the thrust of your piece, I think the review you criticize is not engaging in “denial”. Rather, that reviewer simply did not buy into the premise, as made clear by: “But 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.” He might as well have said, “The font they used for the titles was so ugly that anything after that was impossible to enjoy.” His perception of “a celebration of consumerism” trumped any and all other factors. After that, his comments are “irrelevant” — a word I use here in its neutral sense.
For example, consider Groundhog Day. Let’s say a reviewer starts out with, “This film offers the entirely unacceptable premise that a day can repeat itself. That someone can become stuck in time. I cannot accept that.” I’d say that any comments after that are irrelevant. At least to the TS3 reviewer’s credit — whether he did this intentionally or not — he clearly signaled his rejection of the premise.
Now, there may well be good reason to consider that reviewer a “denialist”, but I’d suggest that, by itself, this particular review is not a great foundation for that.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Just like Rush Limbaugh, I believe he’s being controversial for the sake of it. He’s going for shock value — just so he can stand out in the crowd of critics. I guess he subscribes to the theory that any publicity is good publicity.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Igor – good point, although that would make White even a worse critic in theory, if to flat out reject a premise ESPECIALLY if the concept of Transformers is, to him, acceptable – never mind the glaring hypocrisy of his issues concerning “blatant consumerism”.
White is the Skip Bayless of movies. Somewhere, somehow, there’s a point to his aggressively contrarian reviews, but his arguments are flat-out awful and wrong, which denies his point any merit or validity.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
John — A clarification of my comment above. I agree with you that, “Criticizing Toy Story 3 for celebrating consumerism is so non-sensical as to be objectively wrong.” I’d go so far as to simply say “wrong” — for a movie review.
I’d also say he’s wrong entirely, but I can see political scientists of certain political persuasions making the same point and it would be a valid point of view, even though (again) wrong on substance.
He criticized the movie for being something HE (not God, but the reviewer) did not want it to be. But if you ask someone his opinion of your new suit and he replies, “I hate all suits”, do you then ask for his opinion on 2-button versus 3-button? Yes, some people can say, “I hate all suits, but I’ll put that aside and let’s see what I can offer”, but it seems that that reviewer is not that sort of person. (He reminds me of Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory.)
If a reviewer doesn’t accept a film’s premise, I think s/he should limit the rest of the review to why the premise is not worthy of acceptance and skip other factors.
And that’s why I say “irrelevant” is a better primary tag for that reviewer.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I was going to mention Roger Ebert myself, but Jemaleddin beat me to the punch.
It’s sad when professionals have to stir up BS to get any sorta notice. It’s like they think they’re Steven Colbert or something. What they don’t realize is they aren’t celebrity actors, we need honesty in SOMETHING that isn’t just witty sarcasm. Oh well.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Word to the wise re: Toy Story 3.
Do not, I repeat, DO NOT go to see this movie with your son who leaves for college in five weeks if you’re a mom of middlin’ years and uncertain hormonal imbalances.
I cried like the baby I still want him to be all though the last part of that darn animated cartoon!
July 14th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Out of curiousity, what toys is he talking about? Cowboy dolls which no kid has played with since 1950 or Buzz Lightyear who doesn’t exist? A piggy bank? A toy dinosaur? The teddy bear, Bug action figure man, the toy clown and Big Baby? Fine, I’ll give you Barbie, Mr & Mrs Potato Head and Slinky Dog if he’ll admit the latter three aren’t played with by anyone over four years old.
I find it odd that someone thinks they can make a movie about toys and somehow not incorporate mass produced toys into it. It would invite the same reaction I get when I watch those Rankin Bass Christmas specials and kids are playing with wooden soldiers. I suppose you could have made the lead characters marbles and a hoop that my grandma used to push with a stick but who wants to watch that? One of the genius bits of “Elf” was watching elves make video game graphic processors and Etch-A-Sketches.
It’s hard to write a detective story without someone investigating something that is much more difficult than anticipated. Why would you take a case when you might get killed? It’s hard to write a romance without something that keeps the two characters apart.
And it’s hard to write a mainstream children’s cartoon without incorporating identifiable toys. You’d think a critic would understand that.
As for denialists I saw a comic the other day say (and I am paraphrasing), when people complain about science of say something like they don’t see homosexual acts in nature he likes to tell them what he never sees in nature… angels.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Just read the review.
Oh dear…
To state that Hamm is in the camp of Lotso is pretty sloppy reporting. If you haven’t figured it out after 3 movies or 15 years, you shouldn’t be reviewing films.
And: “I admit to simply not digging the toys-come-to-life fantasy (I don’t babysit children, so I don’t have to)” smells like the guy hates kids.
If this man had had an ounce of integrity, he would not have reviewed the film.
July 14th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
He starts off the review faulting the entire Toy Story trilogy for not being as good as an isolated scene from a Whit Stillman movie.
Absolutely effing priceless. I really do think we’re all playing right into this joker’s hands. He’s not writing reviews based in any way on what he actually thinks; he’s writing them as performance art. They’re the textual equivalent of a YouTube mashup. “Taking Toy Story 3 as my basis, let’s see what I can whip up to shock the masses.”
July 14th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
White isn’t the first critic to be so off base that he’s funny to read – and by loving movies most of us think of as bad and hating movies most of us think of as good, he gets quoted in newspaper adverts for those stinky films. So, he may just be an interesting “quote whore”.
I don’t know if this fits into your denialism theory, but I see a lot of reactionary responses to popular movies among folks trying to break into screenwriting, where the more popular a film is, the more they hate it. They will dig for flaws in hit films… and often love films that most people did not like. This has nothing to do with the quality of the film – a movie might be a huge critical success as well as popular success, and they still hate it. If this were their actual tastes it would be okay – but I think these folks are just being reactionary. If everyone else loves a film, it must be bad. If everyone else hates a film, it must be special and a work of misunderstood genius.
I don’t know the answer on the larger problems because if you ignore them they spread their insanity unchecked, and if you argue with them you give them credibility. Damned either way.
July 14th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I wonder if the deeper issue is just plain stubbornness. A recent article in one of the trades – can’t remember which one right now, probably the L.A. Times – talked about the expected critical backlash to INCEPTION. I write reviews for an obscure San Francisco website, MediumRareTV.org, and I understand how critics can (A) be asses and (B) be wildly obstinate about certain movies, directors, or stars, just for the sake of being difficult. I suspect that while White may truly believe his own bullshit – I personally really enjoyed TS3 and it seems to me that the guy just has hideous taste – some of his denialism stems from the need to escape the pack, as John pointed out… but while John mentioned that fleetingly, I believe it’s central to White’s opinions. He needs to be SO DIFFERENT that he’ll resort to being sort of willfully stupid. And while rudeness can be forgiven, the tendency to be willfully, knowingly stupid, is unforgivable.
July 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
What if a “denialist” believes what he’s saying because as he sees it (and provides enough examples to back up what he believes) what he says is true. Saying the denialist is wrong because you don’t agree is also a way of being a denialist as well, isn’t it?
July 14th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Wait, if someone disagrees with your opinion of a movie, that’s good, but if they disagree a lot then they’re a “denialist”? What is Armond White “denying”?
I’m not arguing that White’s TS3 review was good criticism. His piece is obviously flawed, both factually and analytically. But I don’t think that has a damn thing to do with why TS3 lovers are so vocally opposed to the guy. People were hopping mad about the review long before any of the deconstructions or point-by-point rebuttals began floating around the web; people weren’t angry because of the way White made his argument — they were angry because he dared to criticize something they didn’t want criticized.
To argue that any movie is somehow “so obviously good” that no alternative viewpoints can be heard is a form of fundamentalism; like religious fundamentalism, it’s based on an unwillingness to tolerate dissent, and its adherents respond to “purveyors of doubt” by closing ranks and attempting to discredit, shout down, and attack heretics. That, you will note, is the behavior of Denialists.
Again, Armond White is a tough guy to defend, because his tastes are so aggressively odd that it’s sometimes hard to see them as anything more than ploys for attention. But you know what? I have no reputation to nurse, no newspapers to sell, nothing to “deny,” and I didn’t like Toy Story 3. Believe it or not, some people honestly didn’t.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Two things:
1) Subjectivity vs. Objectivity. There are objective criteria, even for art. If a film is out of focus and you can’t see what the hell is happening, that is poor film making – bad craftsmanship. There are two components to judging a film: objective issues (craftsmanship) and subjective issues (did I personally like it). There are many movies that I do not like at all that are objectively great films. If you are unable to separate objective and subjective, you’re in a heap-o-trouble.
2) If White just did not like TS3, that would be fine – but his arguments against it are not objective at all… he does not find flaws in the way the film was made. And even as subjective criticism, he’s wacky – he doesn’t dislike the film for reasons that make any sense. He’s grasping at straws – finding reasons to dislike the film. “Commercialism” is a does not apply reason. It might be a legit reason if the film were filled with product placement designed to sell the products (there’s some danged movie with James Garner where he plays a pharmacist and talks about how great Tylenol is and later there are conversations about other products… and the film was famous for being financed with product placement – um, that’s a film where commercialism gets in the way of the story a few times). But a film about children’s toys is about children’s toys – so complaining that it’s about children’s toys is a made up reason for disliking the film. If he had a geniune reason, there would be no issue. There are other critics that did not like TS3.
Whenever I debate anything, I am open to being proven wrong. The problem these days is that people show up with their subjective opinions and think they are equal to objective facts. Dude, the film is out of focus.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I was the editor on IN THE BEDROOM, and I thought Armond White’s review was the most entertaining bad review of the film. I wish I could find a copy of it to look over so I wouldn’t have to simply rely on my nearly ten-year-old memory of the review, but I recall White using much of the review to heap huge amounts of praise on Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE, and then basically dismissing IN THE BEDROOM as nothing like Lynch’s movie.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
I don’t think anyone would have an issue with White if he were just more up front about being a satirist. It’s the fact that you have this guy’s satire of film criticism being presented as genuine criticism and factoring into a site like rottentomatoes that causes problems.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I noticed that some posters have lumped together Ebert and White. I should mention that about a year ago, Ebert took into White for his wacky reviews, calling him a troll. Ebert still says White is interesting and insightful, though. My feeling is that the current state of Hollywood movies, the decline of journalism, and the temptation to say whatever the eff you like on the Internet has gotten to White.
Ebert should not be compared to White. They are about as far apart as possible in the way they assess movies.
So White has the temerity to attack Pixar. I say good for him! They should be taken down a notch.
Consumerism is the problem; Pixar is the ultimate consumer-oriented story factory.
The problem with not liking TS 3 and other Pixar products these days is that almost everyone thinks you’re crazy when you say it. You’re going against not only the best marketed phenomenon to hit the silver screen, but also BY FAR the best produced and best thought out. How can anyone with a heart not love Wallee? Or that booby dinosaur?
Well, I don’t.
I for one have been mildly irritated by Pixar products. To me, they seem more like toys for eliciting emotions than like movies that can express the true range of emotions of their creators. The product is so slickly packaged and made with the utmost care to avoid controversy. And yet each one can manipulate the audience to an extent that Hitchcock would envy. Lassiter really does care about the story! He and his crew pull at your heart strings until they almost break with temporary sentimentality. I watched Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Wallee with my kids, and I felt their spell more than my kids did. My god, that robot is really emotional, and what a predicament, not to mention the environmental message!
But Pixar movies are a limited form, and the producers are single minded in their goal to get you hooked on this emotional bandwagon of theirs. There’s no emotional truth in Wallee. It’s a product of endless story meetings that have the goals of ensuring that audience doesn’t simply identify with the protagonists, They Must Love Them! Within the first minute or so—it has to be love at first sight!
Oh, that montage in Up!! Even before I saw it, I shedded a tear reading the screenplay excerpt. Even Stalin would’ve choked up.
Sorry, but I’d rather wait for Stimpy to blink, Mighty Mouse to not be aware of the white powder around his nose, or the Coyote to look at the audience and frown with full knowledge of impending doom. I got more out of watching Bugs Bunny than my kids ever will watching a Pixar movie, and I know why. It’s not denialism to dislike TS 3 because it is so emotional-consumer oriented, but maybe I’ll have to retreat into it with the hail of criticism I will receive for saying it.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
It’s funny that White is suddenly getting all this publicity. He’s been doing the same shtick for years and years. I remember when he insisted that Jurassic Park 2 was one of the best films of the year way back when. I think that non-New Yorkers don’t realize that White works for a strange little ultra-right-wing free weekly that most locals have never even heard of. I’m not even sure they actually hand it out anymore– I haven’t seen a copy anywhere for many years.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I think on the larger issue of, “debate vs ignore”, I think saying something in response is appropriate and helps to understand the point of the person forwarding it (are they rational or a denialist?) And if it’s discovered they are open to honest debate, then go forward, but if it’s found that they’re in the “D” camp, then leave it alone…because at least you’ve put forth your two cents and tried to balance the universe, but going any further reduces you to the saying, “When a wise man and a fool are seen arguing…”.
-RTA
July 14th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Can anyone offer some advice on how to deal with denialism in other walks of life?
We seem to be having the most important political discourse of the past 40 years and it’s not between people with differing opinions, but differing sets of facts.
How do you not pull you hair out in a world like this?
July 15th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Whoopi is the ultimate denialist.
This post reminds me of attempting to discuss The Last Airbender’s racebending issue to people on forums and boards for the past year. It always seemed like an one-sided argument with pro-casters (aka denialist) that I gave up completely and avoided going to it’s imdb page like a plague. Around the time the movie was about to be released, I felt terrible for not trying to spread the movement as much as I could of that I reengaged with the denialist only to once again be frustrated with the same side-step responses as before.
Someone needs to invent that formula so I can avoid the frustration and wasted words.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:59 am
What an interesting read. Though I must admit that at first glance with morning blurry eyes I thought the real problem was Dentists.
July 15th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“…disconnect the dots…” Fantastic! That’s my new go-to turn-of-phrase.
John, I think coining the term denialist is a good start toward finding the line you’re looking for. There are simply trolls who can be ignored largely because of their anonymity, and then there are speakers on public forums who need to be actively refuted, at least once and soundly, so everyone gets to hear the truth.
July 15th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Rose’s comment was the inevitable one I was waiting for… because I knew at some point John would have to define denialism from the ground up.
“Wait, if someone disagrees with your opinion of a movie, that’s good, but if they disagree a lot then they’re a “denialist”?”
No. – A denialist is someone who’s doing the opposite of scientific research. – They’ve decided what the results of their experiment are going to be first… retaining only supportive evidence as they go.
There is a finite, convergent reality. A reality wherein, regardless of your likes and dislikes, I can point to a purple object, and say, “That object is purple” …and you agree. And everyone else agrees… except for one guy… who is quite adamant that the object is yellow. And he’s wrong, because purple light has a measurable frequency, and this is it. – Its not an OPINION that the object is purple. – (That’s the difference between opinion and theory. Opinion is like and dislike. Theory is provable/disprovable hypotheses.) – So whether its a Tea Party protester complaining about their taxes being lowered, a Christian saying that the Muslims culture is responsible for a high number of deaths, or a modern American meat eater claiming to be an environmentalist… the facts speak otherwise.
“I didn’t like Toy Story 3″ is an opinion.
“Toy Story 3 strictly celebrates consumerism.” <– is a theory… which takes only 3 seconds to disprove.
So really, like all denialists, THE TRUTH is what he’s denying… as well as:
“only the brainwashed will buy into.” <– hypothesis. – One which, obviously nature disagreed with.
“Since it serves the same time-keeping purpose as a chick-flick digression, it’s not satirical.” – Really? The scene being useful makes it un-funny and free of satire? Innnnnteresting.
“Toy Story 3 suckers fans to think they can accept this drivel without paying for it politically, aesthetically or spiritually.” <– Ummm… ‘you will pay for your patronage of this movie spiritually’ – Is definitely theory… but ummm… when your justifications for dissuading people from a Pixar film extend into the supernatural, well, here, let me just get you a soap crate and a megaphone.
A denialist will all but always follow a pattern when cornered as well. They will not cop to the last thing they were wrong about. (Despite the 1700 witnesses and 15 different angles of video, one of which they shot themselves) They will choose another accusation (an unrelated-to-previous attack), and change the subject, while lowering the conversation.
“His piece is obviously flawed, both factually and analytically. But I don’t think that has a damn thing to do with why TS3 lovers are so vocally opposed to the guy. People were hopping mad about the review long before any of the deconstructions or point-by-point rebuttals began floating around the web; people weren’t angry because of the way White made his argument — they were angry because he dared to criticize something they didn’t want criticized.”
Not a reasonable conclusion. – Given the standard inarticulacy of the American public, I think its more safe to say, “People knew why they were mad, they just didn’t have the articulacy to express it.” I.E. “Hey, he just called us brainwashed and thoughtless because we loved this movie!” <– and in fact, in literal terms, he was wrong about both claims. Ergo, OF COURSE ITS CONNECTED! Its a direct path!
“they were angry because he dared to criticize something they didn’t want criticized.”
They were angry because he criticized THEM. And labeled them as a lower species for liking the film. And he was wrong.
July 15th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@Livcov
RE: “It’s really not the same as the hollocaust/climate change/evolution denialists who really challenge the intelligence of humanity.”
Yeah. – It is. Art is everything, including the barometer by which we measure human tragedy, and we wouldn’t even have our civilization without it. You may not think Toy Story is Shakespeare or Aristotle, but I see Artist Amnesty in exactly the same way I see freedom of speech… if its there, its there for everybody.
As far as devising a formula for when we should ignore it… I don’t think we ever should.
July 15th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Let me preface this by saying I love your blog and generally agree with everything you say.
Many people seem to take issue with Armond White not because many of the facts that he uses to support his opinion are inaccurate, but because they disagree with his opinion. Imagine that instead of bumping Toy Story 3 from the (in my opinion) dubious honor of 100% fresh on the TomatoeMeter, he’d written a glowing review of Toy Story 3. Paul Brunick would not have bothered to dissect it in his dense, just-studied-for-the-vocab-section-of-my-SATS prose and Pixar would have had one more person to quote in their ads. In denying him his opinion under the pretext of factual inaccuracies, his detractors seem hellbent on reinforcing their own positive opinions of the movie.
I must also confess that I saw TS3 based on all the positive reviews and was bored to tears. However, I don’t feel alone in my dislike as I have yet to meet another person who has seen it. Call me sheltered.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:48 am
The film is always someone like someone doesn’t like, though some of your ideas I agree, but some things and not see surface
July 16th, 2010 at 9:05 am
This man is a troll from way back, agreed. That said, criticism is an idiosyncratic art; because most of his reviews are contrarian doesn’t make them bad.
Sure, nine out of ten times he’s wrong, but that’s no reason to silence his voice. Who else would compare Grown Ups to something directed by Jean Renoir?
July 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am
I haven’t seen Toy Story 3 yet. Now I’m thinking I should…
July 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
To everyone who’s responded in defense of disliking TS3:
That’s really got nothing to do with the concept of denialism, or why John calls White a denialist.
Now that I think about it – the point pretty much is that the content of an argument is irrelevant/incidental to a denialist.
The impossibility of discussion that John refers to isn’t based (solely) on objectively incorrect content – it’s based on a flat rejection of the worth or relevance of factual accuracy or logical consistency and substance.
Discussion with them is impossible because they refuse to interact with any concept existing outside of their decided-upon thesis.
Though I don’t blame you for feeling bitter about disliking a movie that’s so totally adored, I think you’re feeding into little persecution complexes there, guys. Calling John a fundamentalist because you imagined that he’s declaring a subjective value judgment to objectively incorrect is…
…well, is overlooking the facts to feed an a priori platform. What’s that sound like?
There’s a snappy aphorism I’ve heard attributed to Churchill, that I kind of like (yes, I know a witty quote proves nothing, just sayin’):
A fanatic is someone who can’t change their mind, and won’t change the subject.
July 17th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I say this as a guy who’s written over 100 movie reviews, but critics are a weird bunch.
I did a stint reporting for a website in NYC a while back and attended a lot of movie press junkets with critics and film journalists. Not with White specifically, never spoken to him, but, generally, they’re a weird bunch. Super socially awkward, but also high-school gossipy…I know that you see that in any profession, but a couple people I met, I just can’t take their reviews seriously anymore.
As for White, instead of worrying whether he’s a satirist, or a troll, or insane, or stupid, I’m just going to assume the guy’s an asshole.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:52 am
You are funny and should be awarded a PhD on account of the intellectual maturity of your post.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
In the immortal words of Mr. T, “I pitty the foo!” I don’t know why anyone reads critics anyway. I even quit reading Ebert, and I though he was pretty good.
As an engineer of some thirty years, I’ve really gotten tired of analyzing everything. Oh as a wanabe filmmaker, I do think about what works and what doesn’t work in stories and films, but not to the nth degree.
Did I like it? How much?
I watched “The Road” last weekend. It was very well done but not very entertaining, at least for me. It didn’t touch me even enough to make me sad. But I’d take “Toy Story 3″ over death and dying every time.
Peace, Love, Laughter,
Rob:-]
August 5th, 2010 at 9:00 am
“They should be taken down a notch.”
Why? They have been the most consistent group of guys making movies in years, maybe decades. Um, how dare they?