"Don't look now, homey, but I think your computer's got a knowledge virus."

"Don't look now, homey, but I think your computer's got a knowledge virus."

The NY Press’s Armond White is the real deal, the lyrical gangsta Snow falsely claimed to be in his 1992 super hit “Informer,” from the seminal album “12 Inches of Snow.”* But because of White’s unpopular opinions and easily-parodied intellectual slam poetry, the internet frequently uses him as its whipping boy.  What a bunch of jerks.  Naturally, Armond White has issued a lengthy response, accusing people like me (sort of) of being “crude interlopers of a once august profession.”  Fear not for my honor, friends, for his mouth’s impudence shall soon earn his face the sting of my white glove!  But first, let’s hear what he had to say (edited for length, obviously):

All this distortion owes to what’s been called film culture’s “democratization,” a misleading term for how the expansion of film discussion beyond journalism’s art pages and all over the Internet has weakened our cultural foundation and decentered aesthetic and political authority.  As uncredentialed experts multiply and flounder, we’re all victimized by hype. [...] Professional dignity is the last thing Internetters respect. Their loudmouth enmity and lack of knowledge are so overwhelming that it is imperative to put this crisis in perspective.

BIG POPPA HAS NO TIME FOR Y’ALL RIFF RAFF! NOW KISS A-DUB’S RINGS, BIATCH!

What has not received widespread attention is the total disregard for interpreting or understanding a film. Useless clamor distracts from the fact that the decline of intelligence regarding popular culture has become routine; fanboy enthusiasm has replaced reflection.

Y’ALL MOTHERF***RS WOULD LIKE REFLECTION MORE IF YOU SAW A FACE AS PRETTY AS A-DUBS’ IN THE MIRROR, SKEET SKEET!

This summer’s most alarming movie event was watching the critical profession get drowned out by trendy aggregate websites. Reviews of blockbuster films Toy Story 3 and Inception by established professional film critics (myself particularly) received a record number of largely intemperate posts on the RottenTomatoes site, which then expanded into wholesale Internet attacks by agitated fanboys and upstart blogs. A new model of cultural response is taking over: criticism of criticism—and critics—as a pointless, snaky substitute for examining films themselves.

AIN’T NO SNAKE A SNAKY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SNAKE IN A-DUBS’ DRAWERS!  DEEEEZ NUTS!

This generation has never been affected by lively, impassioned, informed criticism, only by Hollywood hype, which guides their naive habit of buying and buying movies. And job-panicky critics have helped this dumbing-down by going along, responding to movies like thrill-hungry teenagers, colluding with commercialism. They are allied with blockbusters that, by the very impersonal nature of blockbusters, leave fanboys feeling anomic, running to the Internet, screaming for attention. Ignorant of their own minds, they throw brickbats and bad names at any professional opinion that brings attention to their own susceptibility.

I’M A DROP AN ANOMIC BOMB ON YO *SS FROM MY FLYING THESAURUS!  I’M RICH, BIATCH!

Now, moviewatchers—including some scared reviewers—have lost faith in journalistic criticism as a trustworthy source of information or judgment.

The Internet’s free-for-all and anonymity fosters gullibility and incivility even among those who consider themselves film-lovers. And when film discourse becomes discourteous, mindlessness take its revenge on reason. This critic’s nightmare is a movie huckster’s dream. It demeans us all.

INCEPTION SUCKS!  TAKERS RULES! STOP CLOWNIN’ YOSELF!

Okay, okay, enough parody. Allow me to retort.

As always, there’s a ton of truth in what Armond White says.  That’s part of why I enjoy talking about him so much.  His truths are just so couched in hypocrisy, pretension, and old-fart elitist contrarianism that people are quick to respond to that.  Which is to say, the attacks on him are mostly his fault.  Don’t troll a troll, playa.

I do agree that the notion that you can break all movies down into a percentage of “good” and “bad,” and that that’s some how more meaningful than a single, well-expressed opinion is ridiculous, but I would argue most us are already aware of that.  That doesn’t mean it’s not still fun to talk about.  I also agree that the cozy relationship between Hollywood marketing and people allowed to call themselves “critics” has created a lot of a-holes like Pete Hammond who have turned what was supposed to be a fun discussion into a race to see who can spout the most idiotic one-liners that will go on the poster.  I’m convinced that guy writes his reviews based on the trailer. But keep in mind, he came from print.

You say moviegoers have lost faith in journalistic criticism, but why do you think that happened, Armond?  Wouldn’t you say it might be partly because the so-called intellectuals of the old guard wanted so badly to distinguish themselves from the masses that they’d stoop to writing thousand-word, devil’s advocate pieces about why Transformers 2 is “opulent” and Toy Story 3 is “crass commercialism,” instead of responding to the actual work?  Is that really erudite analysis, or is it a critic forcing his audience to help him work through his own insecurities?  Don’t write a deliberately provocative piece and then complain when people find it entertaining.

As for us online critics (or comedians, such as the case may be), yes, our discourse is different from yours.  Many of us write the way we would talk, or even value communication over scholarly peacocking. But do you really think mainstream print media (or in your case, alternative print media) is any more a formula for meritocracy than the formula for whose voice cuts through the cacophony online?  Does time spent fetching coffee for editors and copy editing obituaries really make a person a better writer than time spent, say, writing?   I don’t know the answer to this, because, as you’ve said, I’m just an ignorant, uncredentialed, loudmouthed, discourteous, gullible, glib, juvenile, ugly, undignified upstart from the lunatic fringe who insists on insulting his peers like some sort of cave creature.  But I’m hoping you in all your dignified professional wisdom as the Chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle do.  So if you can enlighten us, please fax your answer to www.suckmynutsArmondWhite.com, and in the meantime, I’ll be photoshopping Keanu Reeves eating a cupcake into pictures of dogs wearing hats.

Sincerely,

Vince Mancini

*Correction: It was Ini Kamoze in “Here Comes the Hot Stepper” from ’94.  I am so very ashamed.