4 ms·

This is an article bashing Ebert and siding with contrarian "intellectual" film critic Armond White. Here's what Armond White wrote of Toy Story 3: "But Toy St

This is an article bashing Ebert and siding with contrarian "intellectual" film critic Armond White. Here's what Armond White wrote of Toy Story 3: "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." Let's pick apart his argument. I'm guessing that for White a movie in which children grapple with adolescence and sentimental value over their childhood belongings is celebrating consumerism. In my book celebrating consumerism would be a movie about a child not being able to decide what new toy to buy at Toys R' Us. Consumerism, at its worst, is about companies convincing you that your old stuff isn't good anymore and to forget it and to buy the new stuff. Toy Story is about just the opposite. But you wouldn't think that right away for the seductive allure of agreeing that a popular movie "celebrates consumerism." My point is that Armond White takes big words, in the tradition of French literary and film criticism, drops them in to troll and get attention, and then sheepishly backs off when you try to scrutinize what he says. This is the same school that brought you "the author is dead" and "writing precedes speech." There's nothing for White to defend here. His way of doing criticism is a house of cards.

boredguy8 16y ago
It's not really picking apart his argument when you "guess" at what he answers in the review. He writes, "As...Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) tries fitting in with East Side debutantes, he discovers his toy cowboy pistol in his estranged father’s trash....evok[ing] childhood, lost innocence and Townsend’s longing for even imagined potency." That's very much what it is to grapple with "sentimental value over...childhood belongings." No where does White accuse that movie of celebrating consumerism. It also seems to me that a 3D movie is very much about "buy[ing] the new stuff." That the movie 'endorses' toy recycling and passing on the toys to other people, does not mean that fundamentally it escapes its consumerist message. The want of more toys, even if recycled, is still a message of consumerism. Having one last play with the toys as they're passed on doesn't fix it. That the film isn't "consumerism at its worst" doesn't mean it's not fundamentally consumerist. The message isn't "Maybe I didn't need so many toys as a kid because I'll grow out of them," the message (as it relates to consumerism) is far more, "As long as I pass things along, I can buy as much as I want." Whether or not a movie should talk about consumerism responsibly is certainly an open question. But "guessing" what White thinks when he gives you data, or saying that because TS3 isn't the WORST consumerism it's not consumerism, is disingenuous to the argument he makes. And Armond White's criticisms are useful as a reminder that films, even Dreamworks ones, can aspire to something higher. Does he sometimes go overboard? Probably sometimes. But the above is certainly not 'picking apart his argument'. Ebert most often asks, "Will this film entertain?" White seems to ask, "Is this film good?" He concludes his TS3 review, "When a movie is this formulaic, it’s no longer a toy because it does all the work for you." I have to say I liked TS3 because it did all the work for me, and did so with excellence. But its excellence at delivering on fundamental plot arcs does not mean we shouldn't sometimes ask for more from what we watch. And White reminds us to keep asking. (To see White displaying his talent more cleanly, check out his review of Eat, Pray, Love: http://www.nypress.com/article-21533-pretty-woman-with-an-appetite.html http://www.nypress.com/article-21533-pretty-woman-with-an-ap...)
- siglesias 16y ago
  I don't see how a movie review can be founded an argument so vaguely articulated. What does it mean to "celebrate consumerism" if not glorifying the purchase of things while simultaneously discarding the old irresponsibly? That doesn't happen in the movie! Where is consumerism bring celebrated? Where is the movie doing a bad thing?

boredguy8 16y ago

It's not really picking apart his argument when you "guess" at what he answers in the review. He writes, "As...Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) tries fitting in with East Side debutantes, he discovers his toy cowboy pistol in his estranged father’s trash....evok[ing] childhood, lost innocence and Townsend’s longing for even imagined potency." That's very much what it is to grapple with "sentimental value over...childhood belongings." No where does White accuse that movie of celebrating consumerism. It also seems to me that a 3D movie is very much about "buy[ing] the new stuff." That the movie 'endorses' toy recycling and passing on the toys to other people, does not mean that fundamentally it escapes its consumerist message. The want of more toys, even if recycled, is still a message of consumerism. Having one last play with the toys as they're passed on doesn't fix it. That the film isn't "consumerism at its worst" doesn't mean it's not fundamentally consumerist. The message isn't "Maybe I didn't need so many toys as a kid because I'll grow out of them," the message (as it relates to consumerism) is far more, "As long as I pass things along, I can buy as much as I want." Whether or not a movie should talk about consumerism responsibly is certainly an open question. But "guessing" what White thinks when he gives you data, or saying that because TS3 isn't the WORST consumerism it's not consumerism, is disingenuous to the argument he makes. And Armond White's criticisms are useful as a reminder that films, even Dreamworks ones, can aspire to something higher. Does he sometimes go overboard? Probably sometimes. But the above is certainly not 'picking apart his argument'. Ebert most often asks, "Will this film entertain?" White seems to ask, "Is this film good?" He concludes his TS3 review, "When a movie is this formulaic, it’s no longer a toy because it does all the work for you." I have to say I liked TS3 because it did all the work for me, and did so with excellence. But its excellence at delivering on fundamental plot arcs does not mean we shouldn't sometimes ask for more from what we watch. And White reminds us to keep asking. (To see White displaying his talent more cleanly, check out his review of Eat, Pray, Love: http://www.nypress.com/article-21533-pretty-woman-with-an-appetite.html http://www.nypress.com/article-21533-pretty-woman-with-an-ap...)

siglesias 16y ago
I don't see how a movie review can be founded an argument so vaguely articulated. What does it mean to "celebrate consumerism" if not glorifying the purchase of things while simultaneously discarding the old irresponsibly? That doesn't happen in the movie! Where is consumerism bring celebrated? Where is the movie doing a bad thing?