Armond White vs Gary Indiana on Christianity & Bresson

White's new piece is pretty weird: http://www.nypress.com/18/47/news&columns/subfeature.cfm . He's making what appears to be a pretty obvious point about the smugness of a lot of pseudo-indie fare (about ten years too late). I haven't seen many of the films he discusses, which he asserts are getting rave reviews (The Weather Man? The Dying Gaul? I haven't seen once positive piece about either of these movies). He's clearly right about much of Good Night and Good Luck, though I thought there were a couple redeeming features in it. But on the The Squid and the Whale, he either didn't get the movie at all or is tackling it from some oblique standpoint that he never makes clear. He claims that the movie is smug about it's BoBo characters, when it's clearly critical. It's certainly tenable to argue that despite the critique there's still some sort of glorification going on, but he never says that (and he big-ups Whit Stillman, who would be guilty of the same offense). Any thoughts?

Here's what I said in response:

The thing is, White sort of has a point when it comes to cultural
critics falling for works that either a) remind them of themselves or
b) congratulate them for their intelligence/taste/whatever. I'm sort
of glad to see someone dissect that, actually.

But the mistakes he makes are that a) this is an inevitable part of
criticism (I'd rather see a critic respond honestly to a work than to
try to ignore his/her own impulses in an attempt to be "objective"),
and b) he's often so preoccupied by the favorable reception of certain
films from "bourgie" critics that he's blinded to *any* redeeming
quality these films might have, and they thus become unspeakably awful
in his mind. In the end, there's something just as smug and
self-satisfied -- if not more so -- about White's brand of populism
than the approach taken by most of his targets.

I haven't seen any of those films yet though.

Has anyone read the journal he edits?

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1897/armondwhiteisntinsane.jpg

can't believe that list forgot 'torque', which he will simply not stfu about.

what can he say, he's a dork 4 torque

ha, he liked The Foot Fist Way?

who'd a thunk it, armond white and i have something n common

other than us both being raving lunatics, obv.

I saw Torque in the theater.

It was fucking stupid.

http://www.nypress.com/article-18530-hell-hath-obvious-limits.html

The Ting Tings offer a sassy refutation of ignominy and alienation—themes that ought to be at the heart of Hellboy's story of a housebroken miscreant (standing in for the formerly misunderstood teen). The Golden Army is too snarkily satisfied with its illusion of subversion to actually examine the issue of inherited cynicism (Hellboy fights a evil scion who wants to usurp his father's throne and command an underground army—"a harbinger of death, the unstoppable tide"). This idea was also handled better in Adam Sandler's 2000 Little Nicky, a sketch-comedy revue about an individual (the son of Satan) discovering his own morality. The Ting Tings' exuberance celebrates what Sandler's persevering half-demon/half-angel desired. Their cheekiness, like Nicky's irreverence, subtly reconsiders modern ethics and identity—themes Hellboy fails to accomplish.

anyone read any of gary indiana's fiction books? i just started horse crazy, enjoying it. also bought three month fever on a recommendation, the one about andrew cunanan.