Ebert Calls New York Press Critic Armond White a Troll

Published by Jeff Leins on: August 14th, 2009

On his personal blog, Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert wrote “WTF?” and called New York Press critic Armond White a “troll.”  I’ll explain, but first the back story…

Anyone who closely follows the RottenTomatoes “Tomatometer” knows White frequently offends readers by turning in a harsh review for a well-liked film.  While his press credentials are sound, his constant disagreement with the critic population and the public at large is suspect at best.

According to the site, the infamous White agrees with the meter 50% of the time.  However, if you scroll through his voting history you’ll see a suspicious pattern forming.  Armond didn’t like The Wrestler (one of only 5 “rotten” reviews on the site), Up (97% positive), The Dark Knight (94%), Star Trek (95%), Slumdog Millionaire (94%), Milk (94%), or any of the Harry Potter movies.  The list goes on.  Armond White is either deliberately playing the devil’s advocate for publicity (it’s working) or he’s some kind of diabolical genius, a literary Andy Kaufman laughing while ruining everyone’s fun.  I’m still not sure, but neither seems very professional.  Most RottenTomatoes users believe he is a “troll,” an Internet term for someone whose intent is to provoke others.  Ebert agrees, but we’ll get to that.

In a New York Magazine piece on him, White defends his decision by saying movies like Iron Man are contributing to an “infantilized culture.”  This doesn’t explain why White felt Transporter 3 was “kinetic art” and The Dark Knight was only the favorite of “impressionable teenagers,” or how he manages to defend Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (20% positive) or give a positive review to I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (13%).  What’s worse is he rarely backs up these arguments with anything substantial, instead resorting to seemingly random art house comparisons and bitter insults.

If you take his dissenting opinions one by one, you can make an argument he simply didn’t like the movie while just about everyone else did.  A perfect example is this weekend’s science fiction film District 9, which sparked controversy and started what RottenTomatoes staffer Jen Yamato called “a virtual lynch mob.”  His “rotten” review, titled “From Mothership to Bullship” was the first against after positive feedback from 49 of his colleagues.  The blunt opinion gathered 545 comments at last count (and that’s after the threatening ones were deleted).  Since White, 8 other critics have expressed their disapproval (out of 98).

Enter Ebert, who has become the de facto champion of criticism by being the most famous critic alive.  He wrote a blog post titled “In Defense of Armond White” on Thursday night.  In it Ebert explained how the Tomatometer isn’t a measure of quality (and he’s right), but that White shouldn’t be taken to task for having a passionate opinion or for upsetting the sanctity of the 100% score. However, White invoking the foreign film You, the Living prompted a “WTF?” from the 67-year-old writer. Ebert concluded the entry by writing, “Armond White was pretty much on the money.”

Well, until this morning when Ebert updated his post withdrawing his defense.  Someone pointed out White’s voting history, causing Ebert to rethink his stance.  Here’s a quote from the blog post, “It is baffling to me that a critic could praise Transformers 2 but not Synecdoche, NY.  Or Death Race but not There Will be Blood.  I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll. A smart and knowing one, but a troll. My defense of his specific review of “District 9″ still stands.”

Thumbs down for Armond White.