If you keep up with the American critical scene, you’ll probably have got the message by now that people kinda like “Toy Story 3.” No surprise there: every one of Pixar’s features since their 2006 misfire “Cars” has been greeted with the kind of mass veneration usually reserved for returning messiahs, and on at least a couple of occasions, they’ve deserved it. (That’s no dig at their latest, which I have yet to see.)
You’ll also likely have heard that a certain Armond White is less impressed, dismissing the film as “drivel” and adding that “‘Transformers 2’ already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence.” Of course, in its own way, this is as knee-jerk and predictable a response as many critics’ annual ejaculation over the Pixar brand; White is accused virtually on a weekly basis of disingenuous contrarianism. It’d have been greater cause for concern if he’d liked the movie.
As exasperating as he can be, I’ve stood up for White on these pages before, and I continue to do so: as I wrote on Twitter last night, I see his reviews as calculated provocations to the reader, forcing them to engage with the idea of critical responsibility. And for all the talk of “trolling,” I do think he’s conditioned himself to the point where he believes every word he writes — for better or worse.
But I don’t really want to talk about White so much as a bizarrely hostile online response to his minority view that has far more worrying implications than the ramblings of one eccentric. CinemaBlend’s Josh Tyler exemplifies the problem in a petulant and wildly misguided editorial that crucifies White and another critic, Cole Smithey, for going against the grain. This paragraph represents the worst of it (the bold highlighting is mine):
It’s impossible for an opinion to be wrong. Most of the time. Sometimes though, something is so self-evident that it moves beyond opinion. When everyone in the world gets together and agrees that yes, this is really good, that one lone voice standing in the corner and shouting the opposite isn’t just a different opinion, it’s a wrong opinion.
Tyler goes on to brand White and Smithey “assholes” (and, with needless spite, “baldies”) for daring to sully “Toy Story 3”‘s hitherto perfect Rotten Tomatoes score with their negative reviews — and it’s principally this wholly trivial statistic that has him so riled up. In focusing on this, he taps into a vein of thought familiar from comment threads (including some on this site) that places undue, even obsessive, emphasis on the significance of review-aggregate sites — useful but deeply flawed resources that attempt to reduce complex critical thought to cold, hard numbers.
The fundamental silliness of Rotten Tomatoes’s 50/50 “fresh” or “rotten” ranking system — not one that copes particularly well with conflicted individual reviews — wouldn’t be bothersome if readers, and now certain bloggers, didn’t refer to it so consistently, and with such po-faced seriousness. The scores may give a broad indication of a film’s critical standing, but by the time people start using single point differences to determine which of several films is more well-regarded (or, worse, “better”), they truly aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.
So, “Toy Story 3” won’t have a 100% RT report. Who cares? Why are some viewers so hungry for consensus? More to the point, who would believe such a perfect record anyway? There isn’t a film in history — not “Citizen Kane,” not any Academy Award winner for Best Picture, and certainly nothing from the House of Pixar — that everybody on the planet likes, and to pretend that a website can authoritatively declare a film irrefutably perfect is, at best, naïve.
If Tyler sincerely believes (and I suspect he doesn’t) that there can be any such thing as a “wrong opinion,” one would have to deduce he has never been a minority detractor (or defender) of a film loved or loathed by the critical majority — and anybody who can claim that plainly doesn’t love or think about cinema hard enough.
As you know, it’s a position I’m quite familiar with, whether it’s over “Gentlemen Broncos” or “I Am Love.” Only last month, at Cannes, I was left unmoved by the critically revered Palme d’Or winner, “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives.” Believe it or not, when I said as much to my colleagues on the Croisette, they didn’t cry “Wrong!” or even call me an “asshole” for bringing down its criticWIRE rating. (I still have enough of my hair that I’m exempt from “baldie” potshots for the moment.)
Rather, we cheerfully argued about the aspects of the film we disagreed on, briefly attempted to talk each other round, admitted failure, and ordered another beer. I suspect Kris reacted similarly when he found himself amongst the naysayers for another beloved Pixar product two years ago.
On the other end of the scale, earlier this week, I joined a critic friend at a repertory screening of “Myra Breckinridge,” the batty 1970 sex-change comedy that is routinely described as a catastrophe, an abomination, among the worst films ever made. Unintimidated by that reputation, I dared to find it an adventurous, frequently admirable romp with a spectacularly good lead turn by Raquel Welch — and yet I wasn’t struck dead by lightning for having a “wrong opinion” on that one either.
I do, however, look forward to someday debating its merits with one of its attackers (alas, my companion was on my side), as it’s that kind of conversation that makes being a critic, a blogger, or simply a casual moviegoer, worthwhile. Hurl rocks at Armond White if you must, but I’ll tell you this: when there’s a film that he and 100% of the world’s critics agree on, I won’t be interested in seeing it.
Comments
73 responses to “Who needs consensus?”
@Guy His Precious review was rather great I admit, but couldn’t it be that we both feel this way because we agreed with him on that occasion.
@Kris I think he stays on because he gets his newspaper website the bulk of their hits and links. He is, whatever the circumstances, very widely read after all.
The worst part is that I think his beliefs lack conviction. I find it hard to believe that when enjoying the year’s best, he pops in the dvd of Clash Of The Titans or Motherhood or Daddy Day Care and is profoundly entertained and moved.
@Kris: I get your point, I do. But White generates more relevant film-related discussion than any American critic, bar perhaps Ebert. For that, I think he deserves to keep his job. (I agree he’s not the ideal figure to head up the NYFCC, but it’s not as if he has much sway over its members — they routinely award films he dislikes.)
@Bing147: As I said to Aaron in comment #41, there’s a vast difference between having an opinion and erroneously believing something to be fact.
Thanks Guy! Many a time I’ve been accused of “contrarian” opinions – all of which I’m completely sincere about. I haven’t seen ‘Toy Story 3’, but for all I know I’ll feel the same way as White does. I think rabid defenders of consensus opinion are far worse than ‘disingenuous contrarians’.
I think more than anything White should be pitied if being a dissenter to popular opinion is the only thing that gets him off (so to speak). Whether it is conscious dissent on his part or if he actually genuinely feels that way about films he’s bashed (and loved) then that’s just a really cynical, ugly world view and something I wouldn’t wish upon my worst enemy. Obviously I wouldn’t want everyone to like or dislike the exact same things, but looking at that image floating around the internet of films White liked vs. disliked it’s hard to consider his opinions genuine.
But rather than bash him for his opinions, no matter how misguided they may seem, I’m just going to feel sorry for him if this is the be-all, end-all of his life.
What Lee Unkrich tweeted (but has since wisely deleted, I just noticed), quoting Buzz Lightyear, was actually very accurate to how I feel about White: “You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.”
That sounds awfully entitled coming from the director of the film in question. Just saying.
A.J., well I think “Slumdog Millionaire” IS atrocious, but “Wall-E” far from it so there’s a good argument for one’s opinion.
I agree with everything Guy’s written. Whenever I go to Rotten Tomatoes it is not to see if a movie is “rotten” or “fresh”, it’s to have a quick and easy access to all the reviews written for a movie. I almost always find myself more intrigued by the reviews that go against my own feelings. I think that’s natural for anybody who has, ya know, a brain and the desire to correspond and discuss instead of live in a yes world where everyone agrees.
@aspectratio/Guy: Unkrich’s quote is actually a line from Buzz Lightyear in the first Toy Story, in case that means everything.
edit: anything, not everything. This site needs an edit button.
Toy Story 3 now has 3 negative reviews on Rottentomatoes. So where’s the threshold for a critic being “wrong” to dislike the film?
Only 5 reviews were negative for The Wrestler (out of 207), and only 6 negative reviews for The Hurt Locker (out of 199). Should we condemn people that aren’t fond of those films as well?
As Kris pointed out earlier, when critics like Todd McCarthy are getting laid off, and Armond White keeps his job not only as a critic, but head of the NYFCC, it’s a little infuriating. And I’m going to have to completely disagree with your defense of him Guy. He doesn’t add any kind of fresh perspective at all. If he actually contributed some kind of meaningful insight to the discussion of any particular film, that would be one thing. But as it stands, his reviews rarely have anything to do with the films themselves. He conjures up wacky political and commercial themes and subtexts that have absolutely nothing to do with the films, then uses that as his reason for hating them. Plus as has been noted before, he always publishes his reviews late and long after the critical consensus has been formed, only to go against it. And, again, if he could form some kind of logical argument to defend his position, that would be one thing. But as it stands, his reviews are nothing but meaningless grabs for attention. When White writes a review that actually is relevant and more sensical than the comments of an everyday internet message board troll, I’ll be happy to take his view into consideration. Until then, he’s just a troll.
Thank you for this, Guy: the 100% consensus police have been getting me down ever since I’ve started having even minor problems with Pixar films. Some of the Pixar faithful have always reacted especially strongly to naysayers and treated their films with kid’s gloves (Wall-E is just so endearing! Doesn’t Up make you cry?), while at the same time building them up as untouchable masterworks. The effect, strangely, is that these are often the least critically discussed of each season’s RT/Metacritic darlings — look no farther than the alternately dismissive and hostile “COME ON” groans that met people who voiced concern with Wall-E’s “fat guys are unproductive blobs” allegory. I also remember getting branded with jabs like “asshole” and “heartless” when I said the celebrated montage
from Up didn’t quite work for me because dammit, going silent was too easy: the film establishes that Carl and Ellie were a *talking* couple, with Ellie as the firebrand, and suddenly their lives are compressed in such a way that neither of them has a voice. My point being: objecting to aesthetic decisions in a Pixar film is often seen as firebombing a sacred object rather than having a discussion about artistry.
I think partly what’s going in here is that the lot of Pixar films meet a high aesthetic standard: as a brand, they are dependable in a way that even most critically worshiped directors aren’t. As a result of this remarkable consistency, I think it’s just been assumed over the years that all of these films are going to deliver, and well, if they don’t here and there, it’s easy to overlook the blips and just call the product glorious anyway, because it delivers (e.g. all the reports about critics crying as evidence for why White simply has to be dead wrong). Everyone thinks his/her pet is perfect. And partly it’s the fact that these are classy, slickly made children’s films, so any failings in thematic ambition or narrative structure — e.g. the overreliance on chase sequences that clog the last third of nearly each one — can always be explained away by the audience: “it’s for kids, stupid!”
In other words, there’s an unrealistic cult of perfection that’s developed around Pixar that just seems counter to how film criticism works: you give props to great achievements, sure, but you also talk about them, and, yes, sometimes just have to say they didn’t work for you. Forget the fact that White is a blowhard and a contrarian-for-life for a second: why would we want to make the issue about some critics just being WRONG when the beauty of having a multitude of reviews out there is the variety of their perspectives? Yeah, it’s great to celebrate consensus critical darlings, but since when did consensus become so absolute — 100% or nothing?
Just back from it. All I know is: Armond White’s review is moot. I pay it no mind. This film was excellent. It is quality entertainment; funny, sad, & everything in-between. It’s well-made. Beautifully detailed. Wonderfully scored, etc..
I hurt from crying the last 15 minutes. Seriously, hurt. I’d prob give this a solid 9 or 9.5/10.
In the Pixar pantheon, I’d put it probably 3rd or 4th behind Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, & Wall-E. And believe it or not, it’s my favorite ‘Toy Story’ film, as well. Having just seen it, my knee-jerk feelings for it are very, very good.
@Qwiggles: I agree with every single word of what you wrote, particularly with regard to what you (and I) see as the recurrent structural weaknesses in Pixar’s output. Liking (or even loving) something with reservations doesn’t seem to be conceivable for many of the defenders.
Well put, Guy. While I don’t see any glaring, or even subtle structural weakness in Toy Story 3, I definitely saw it in Wall-E (which I loved overall), and Up (which I liked). “Loving a film with reservations” should be my cinematic middle name, haha.
@Gwiggles… wonderful. Bravo! Disliking a Pixar film, or even liking it and finding faults with it at the same time is like being a psychiatrist at a Scientology convention.
The swarm surround you and tell you that your own glib weaknesses are to blame and not the work itself.
This is a bit distrubing to anyone not interested in reasonable and critical thought bending in submission for a 100% percent score at Rotten Tomatoes.
Guy, he deleted the tweet so I’m sure he realized that himself. It was never directly aimed at anyone though.
That said, why shouldn’t he be allowed to be upset like any other human being? Yes, with so many positive reviews it’s not like he needs to care whether or not Armond White gives a fuck, and I can’t imagine in all fairness that he really does. But he’s just a person like everyone else and if anyone should be offended shouldn’t it be the one who made it, especially when White is just so far out in space it’s ridiculous? It’s one thing to take a negative review when it seems to come from an honest place, a wholly other one when the reviewer just seems to want to give you a negative review to go against the grain.
But anyway, I think that quote was really rather perfect, because White deserves nothing more than our pity. Save the anger for BP.
Guy, I’ll have to both agree and disagree with you.
Revering the tomatometer so much is just silly. As are the lamely attempted personal attacks against Armond White.
Where I disagree is whether he is constructive to have around so that the idea of critical responsibility is addressed. Is this supposed to be akin to saying that the Deepwater Horizon is a good thing because it might force us to face our dependence on oil?
I ask because I see him as totally absolving himself of all responsibility of being a professional critic. Which has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not, as there shouldn’t be any issue with him, or anyone else, having an opinion that is different than mine. But he in not just anyone blogging away on the web, he’s supposedly a professional film critic which carries a responsibility not only to his audience but to the craft itself. His writing should be causing people to think about whether or not to see the films he is critiquing. Especially if it’s something that they might not ever otherwise see. If the usual label applied to his work is “troll”, then he’s hardly anything more than an arsonist. He’s not contributing to the discussion of the films he likes or dislikes. Instead it’s a discussion about him, which hardly helps film in any way. Which is also basically what’s happened with both your article and the majority of commentary.
There’s been a few off-shoots of interesting discussion that could be made about Pixar and it’s films. But, it’s actually very minimal. Mostly a very long discussion about Armond White. Which, as far as an intelligent discourse about the strengths and weakness of TS3. Causing interesting conversation by accident isn’t helping anything.
I believe that the most spot on comment was Kris’ in that Armond White should be marginalized exactly due to his methodology. We have quite a few very intelligent and well-versed critics. We should be rewarding them, especially as many of them are being marginalized by the current economic times, not someone who is most often described as a troll. It should be completely possible to have worthwhile discussions about film, and promoting good work, without having to invoke boorish trollish behavior.
First of all, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Really IS better than Iron Man.
And guess what, the opinion isn’t that shocking. Matter of opinion. Both movies are certified fresh on RT. Public at large and critics liked the film. Deal with it. One is a terrific Action/Sci-Fi/Adventure. Another is an overrated comic book origin story with more logical lapses than I can remember. Hope you like your sequel.
Did I mention that Indy 4 has better action?
And last I’ve seen, Roger Ebert isn’t madly in love with Toy Story 3, either.
I will also mention two things:
There is nothing lamer than a bunch of “online” (read: worthless) critics ganging up on a fellow (published) critic just because they happen to disagree with him. Cry me a river. My suggestion is to stop being so nerdy. The guy’s opinion is as valid as yours is. Especially when you conveniently overlook the fact that he’s not the only one who gave it “thumbs” down. TS3, as good as it is, is not the film to cry over not having a 100% rating.
Secondly, about the ratign itself: Just because most people agree that something is fresh doesn’t mean the movie is a masterpiece. That’s the difference of 100 tomatometer and say, 95 Metacritic. Think about it.
its like this, when i agree with armonds take on things, i think he is great, when i dont then i think he is a troll. does that make sense. i mean, i just think he is against what he sees as unfair cannon building in american culture etc.
i dont think he wanst to be a run of the mill dime a dozen type reviewer of which there are many.
at the very least like Guy said, he is a fun read. I mean, i dont see much differnce between him and Rex Reed to be honest.
at
Also, this 3D thing is bugging me. I get that a lot of people love it. I DO think it was the optimal way to watch ‘Avatar’. But there has not been one movie, not “one”, that I have seen since which I thought improved my viewing pleasure and/or opinion of a movie because of the 3D.
I chose to watch TS3 in 2D and found it completely clear, crisp, colorful, vibrant, & beautiful. Oh, and I saved a good 4-5 bucks.
All that said, while I respect most of Ebert’s opinions. I don’t quite get his critique of TS3 being tied-in so much witht he success rate of it’s 3D application.
Granted after watching Toy Story 3 I left thinking it was a solid film. However, it didn’t leave me with that “wow” feeling I had after watching the first.
A satisfactory conclusion that was all I wanted. Certainly not the poor film White would have people believe.
I do find many of Pixar’s films vastly overrated ( I haven’t seen Toy Story three yet). Most of them are just good animated films nothing more or less. They aren’t life changing or films that I will remember 10 years from now. I can barely remember Finding Nemo today.
I don’t get why people are so riled up with White. Many have said he just attacks films, he’s a poor writer and he’s just wants attention. Then why do people still talk about him or read his reviews. Wouldn’t it be best to just ignore. Is it something that people just can’t help ” oh I want to see what Armond White has to say”. Um who cares.