We digress. Movies have respectable critics like J. Hoberman (The Village Voice), A.O. Scott (The New York Times), Manohla Dargis (New York Times), Joshua Rothkop (from Time Out New York – generally not as well-regarded as the others, but for our buck a lot more tolerable then most) and Glen Kenny (the zaftig, snobbish, but mostly deservedly so, encyclopedic critic at Premiere).
There’s tons more and many out there will disagree with us, but critics generally loathe critics, so these are the ones we can tolerate (and bother with, we won’t pretend to say we’re knowledgeable about everyone). Anywhoo, all this long-winded babbling to simply point out two recent beefs that are amusing.
Film Critic Nathan Lee just recently left got laid-off from the Village Voice, but not before one last salvo — not at his former colleagues — but New Yorker critic Anthony Lane. “Anthony Lane is a very witty, very funny writer — and he doesn’t know shit about movies,” Lee told Rotten Tomatoes.
We don’t know Lee at all personally, but have mostly liked his writing over the years which is insightful without trying to sound like a know-it-all jackass (like many critics). We probably should read Lane, but the New Yorker is for people with the luxury of time. (who the hell as time to read 10,000 word reviews on one film? bloggers certainly don’t).
Either way, we thought it was an amusing attack. His second diss of the myopic nature of movie bloggers is spot-on too. “Internet writing…It’s so narrow and insular and just about movies, and I think to be a really good writer and film critic you need a range. You need to know what’s going on in painting, you need to know what’s going on in music, you need to read books, and get laid, and go to restaurants, you know what I mean?”
And how, brother.
Then there’s Armond White. First off he writes for the New York Press, a paper that no one in America, let alone New York, reads. The fact that it still exists is mind-boggling. The general characteristics of those who write for the New York Press are contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism — mainly to stir the pot in attempts at attention because no one generally cares — and a deeply bitter tone that’s completely in step with someone who is routinely ignored.
White, the pedantic, pretentious, asshole contrarian critic follows all these rules to a T. Generally regarded as one of the most prominent film critics in America, no one outside of film critics knows who he is or reads his impenetrable and academic-to-the-point-of-sleep “prose.”
White’s latest bitter screed is a shot at every other film critic in America. “WHAT WE DON’T TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MOVIES: Armond White takes aim at the critics who write with their thumbs.” It’s typically obtuse, long-winded and self-importantly suggests that no one outside of himself knows what they’re talking about (as critics are wont to do, but especially the intolerable White).
Glen Kenny of Premiere (one of the few film critics who knows a lick about music) calls him out on his blog and it gets personal. “White’s known for spewing bile at his peers in print, and then turning around and being quite affable to said peers in person—I’ve experienced it. And I’ve had it. So: screw you, Armond. Don’t say ‘hi’ next time you see me at a screening because you won’t get a ‘hi’ back. You think you’re applying some form of moral rigor to your work, but the fact is that you’re a bully and a hypocrite, and I don’t want to know you.”
What’s the point of all this? Nerds sometimes hate other nerds too. Halfway through this post we wanted to delete it, but we figured we’d gotten this far so we should just finish it. 2% of the Internet public will give a rats ass about these beefs and rightly so. Please disperse, nothing to see here. If you’re asking where someone like Harry Knowles is on this list is, well, you shouldn’t have to ask. He and his third grade-crew don’t count.