>Everyone knows the Star Wars series peaked with that confrontation in The Empire Strikes Back (1980) between Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and the villain, Darth Vader (played on screen by David Prowse, but voiced by James Earl Jones).
>The “Luke, I am your father” revelation resonated because it expressed how George Lucas, like his movie-brat peers (Coppola, Bogdanovich, Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma) struggled with Sixties generational ambivalence. A father–son antagonism resounds through all their films as a reflection of Vietnam-era student protests and the privilege of those draft-dodging filmmaker progeny. Even Lucas, in his escapist outer-space mode, iterated the era’s unease, culminating in Luke’s fear and symbolic castration.
>It’s seldom realized that the movie brats’ films are essentially conservative, politically speaking. Yet, in the new millennium, filmgoers’ superficial political awareness makes them nostalgic for Star Wars to maintain the gullibility of their youth. Longing for innocence is all that the insipidness of the latest sequel, The Force Awakens, signifies. When director J. J. Abrams re-stages that primal moment, he does it for brand recognition, but so unimaginatively that it feels hackneyed. Even though it’s meant to be painful for rabid Star Wars fanatics, it lacks mythological significance. Star Wars fans are not required to think metaphorically, so any Oedipal meaning is lost (although there is something of millennial ingratitude in the new filial confrontation), just as the original scene’s impact was ignored in subsequent sequels.
>The new characters in The Force Awakens are banal. John Boyega’s black superhero, Finn, updates and restyles Han Solo’s jockish heroism — a cultural evolution that evokes Obama (“I was taken from a family I’ll never know”) for global commercialism. Boyega is appealing-enough to surpass the series’ previous racial tokens, Billy Dee Williams and Samuel L. Jackson, but he is subordinate to the new gallantry of Daisy Ridley’s Rey, who embodies the female empowerment denied to Princess (now General) Leia. Rey “leans in” when she grips the Skywalker light saber, so that feminists can rejoice at the Disney Corporation’s calculated political correctness (although Rey’s competence with weaponry contradicts liberals’ convenient attitudes toward gun control.)
>By now we all should know that there’s nothing of adult interest in Star Wars. Even when it premiered back in 1977, the sci-fi premise and comic-book characters were eclipsed artistically by the visionary spirituality of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Yet the continued prominence of Star Wars signifies something that is politically serious, if not dreadful: The great renaissance of American filmmaking during the 1970s and its regeneration of film culture (when movies were seen as a vital means of approaching and understanding contemporary experience) were doomed by Star Wars’ pseudo-imaginative, non-campy rehash of escapist junk. Now, the rebooted, politically empty The Force Awakens suggests a boot stuck in the rear of film culture’s flabby remains.
>The Force Awakens is a bread-and-circuses carnival (disguised as “The Rapture,” a young videomaker told me) that is intended to keep millennial audiences docile. Maybe that explains the film’s unavoidable sell and both the media’s and the public’s desperate genuflection. Love of Star Wars is not love of cinema, just consumerist habit. The Star Wars Generation — that unfortunate rabble primed to see these films at the precise moment they were becoming culturally responsive — are not necessarily the audience the movie brats deserved; they’re spawn of Baby Boomer affluence and narcissism. Star Wars turned their natural curiosity and wonder into self-satisfaction, artificially dependent on media and merchandising (a tragedy also evident in Apple and Pixar evangelism).
>TV-show runner J. J. Abrams brings his game-changing banality to the Star Wars franchise. He follows the template as originated by Lucas and appeals to adolescent thralldom, keeping the brand recognizable. The Force Awakens is paced better than Star Wars’ other dismal episodes, yet it’s even more impersonal. There’s no visual or spiritual excitement, as there was even in a cynical sci-fi product like Ridley Scott’s Prometheus. Abrams is making product to salute the cultural and economic status quo. With Star Wars, product has not only taken the place of art; it has replaced myth.
STAR WARS NEETS BTFO
>Rey “leans in” when she grips the Skywalker light saber, so that feminists can rejoice at the Disney Corporation’s calculated political correctness (although Rey’s competence with weaponry contradicts liberals’ convenient attitudes toward gun control.)
LIBERALS BTFO TY BASED ARMOND
>The Force Awakens is a bread-and-circuses carnival (disguised as “The Rapture,” a young videomaker told me) that is intended to keep millennial audiences docile.
THE BTFOS KEEP COMING THANK YOU SO MUCH
>>63885820
>glib as fuck cuz
>>63885421
This thread is samefag central. Literally every post is OP. I'm probably OP.
>>63885421
I don't agree but that's a really good review
>product has not only taken the place of art; it has replaced myth.
Every time
>>63885547
>mentions Obama in a review of a Star Wars film
What the fuck is this guy rambling about? This is the most retarded review of this film I've seen so far.
>>63885421
I love National Review and keep up with it every day, but holy shit fuck Armond White.
>>63885820
>(disguised as “The Rapture,” a young videomaker told me)
Can anyone explain this dog whistle? The Rapture was a film about the biblical event starring boob goddess Mrs. Tom Cruise I Mimi Rogers. I don;t get this aside at all.
>White, who has asserted in an interview that "most films are dismissable",[23] has been described as the "world's most contrarian film critic"[24][25][26][27] of film critics for allegedly "position[ing] himself in diametric opposition to virtually every film critic on earth".
>"world's most contrarian film critic"
Sounds about right for /tv/.
>>63886256
Funniest thing is that he criticizes TFA for not having any political influence while comparing Finn with Obama.
>>63886811
I'm glad you are using Wikipedia to form your own opinions
Kek literal blank slate human being
>>63885421
Pedantic: The crittic
>>63885421
>gave a positive review to Jack and Jill
Do they pay him to be a contrarian?
>>63885421
>Armond White
>He's actually black
fuck this false advertising
>>63886933
>Check the Wikipedia article to get an overview of who this person is
>Find a funny quote
>This upsets the self-proclaimed "patricians"
Armond can be kind of hit and miss sometimes but he fucking nailed this one, holy shit.
>>63886902
Obama is pop culture not political influence
the man knows what he's saying
>surname is white
>hes a nigger
Top kek
>>63887563
He's black, not a nigger
Back to Reddit
>>63887552
>Obama is pop culture
just like ur mom lmao
>(although Rey’s competence with weaponry contradicts liberals’ convenient attitudes toward gun control.)
How does this even begin to make any sense
what a fucking hack
ARMOND 'HONORARY' WHITESTRIKESAGAIN!
>>63885583
>Love of Star Wars is not love of cinema, just consumerist habit.
this is true, i knew in my heart it would be a so-so JJ film but still went to see it
>>63885421
Liberal shills on suicide watch.
His review of Precious is fucking golden
>>63887877
Very little about this review makes sense. It's like he's trying to take jabs at the political beliefs of JJ, I assume, through the review of his film, but none of his comparisons or juxtapositions make any sense.
>>63887877
Shut up, shill.
>>63885547
>By now we all should know that there’s nothing of adult interest in Star War.
Confirmed. He browses /tv/.
>>63888094
Do you know what shill means? Do you just parrot words here to fit in because everyone else are doing it?
reminds me of scaruffi
>>63888178
Hi shill!
>>63888069
the makers have made noise about how progressive they are, but ultimately its a film that glorifies violence
>>63888207
Yeah, Star Wars was always right wing.
>>63888069
That's Armond White's MO in general. Fucking everything has to interpreted and critiqued through his specific political lens and he has to go through some ridiculous intellectual contortions to try and justify hating a movie because Liberal Progressives like it.
>>63888253
you're projecting onto Armond senpai
>>63887877
It is impossible to reconcile any liberal's love of gun control with the unrestrained fetishization of weapons those same people endorse while watching Star Wars.
If you really believe in disarming populations as a means of imposing non-violence, then you should find the entire prospect of an armed rebel force using lethality for political purposes to be abhorrent.
Do you even read NRO?
>>63886811
>not knowing the king of /tv/
Do redditers really do this?
>>63885421
>Oedipal
stopped reading there, what a joke
>>63888069
>What is the National Review.
Dude. If Mother Jones had a film critic what do you think she would sound like?
>>63888425
Nah, I'm the anon who posted up here >>63886311
I'm heavily conservative but I feel that he goes too far in trying to be contrarian, going against what's "accepted" to be good and worthwhile in cinema by a traditionally liberal-skewed community of critics.
>>63888207
Still doesn't make sense. Especially since Star Wars has never been a series that shuns violence. It makes no sense at all to pick through the personal politics or beliefs of the director or whomever he is referring to, and then project them onto a film, especially one like this
Would it make sense to criticize Martin Scorsese for supporting the beliefs and practices of the Italian mafia via the film Goodfellas?
>>63888253
P much. Every review I've read is a commentary on what he perceives as the sociopolitical message of the film. But that's not really reviewing the cinema of the matter.
I agree with him that Star Wars is mediocre, but plebs here will recognise muh hamlet, muh apocalypse now muh seven samurai shots and call this "art"
>>63888253
This.
It's especially frustrating when you share his overall opinion, and he's the only person who likes a movie (or hates a movie) but defends his position in such a convoluted way.
>>63888486
The Oedipal themes in the original Star Wars are pretty blatant, m8.
>>63888510
he is critiquing the film and doing it through his own lens. He has a schtick but what he doesn't do is review, he is a critic
>>63888440
Yeah because situation are completely the same and comparable in every way, right? The everyday life in USA is exactly the same as a space nazi faction fighting against rebels. That's what you face when you go do your groceries or come home late at night
>>63888682
militias fighting a government has nowt to do with american history?
>>63887877
Rey "leans in", anon.
You can smell the breakfast before it's cooked.
This is the smartest review of TFA I have read so far. Fucking based Armond.
>>63888746
How in the ever-loving fuck do you draw parallels between gun control and a militia fighting a government
Do you even understand what gun control is about?
>He follows the template as originated by Lucas and appeals to adolescent thralldom, keeping the brand recognizable
nothing true to this is there Disney shills?
>>63888897
Making it easier for government to be tyranical
>>63888897
I'm all for gun control, but you have to be wilfully ignorant to not recognise that the opponents of gun control have a deep distrust of government
>>63888440
>a director must believe 100% in the political or social views his films might portray
How does somebody become this insular and stupid? Goddamn I hate the radicalization of the political parties in the US.
>/v/ gets a sticky
>king of /tv/ doesn't
And there are people who think mods aren't shills.
>>63889002
You know who else had a deep distrust of government and put in checks and balances and guaranteed rights for citizens to make sure that it wouldn't overstep its boundaries and become tyrannical?
>>63885421
>>63885547
>>63885583
how can one man be so based?
>>63888963
guns prevent it how, exactly?
>>63889002
What's your point? Do you argue it's hypocritical to want gun control and not trust your government?
>>63888253
sounds like /tv/ alright
>>63889125
the government?
>>63885421
>there is something of millennial ingratitude in the final confrontation
Boo hoo cry more boomercuck
>>63889063
You don't know what shill means
stop posting
>>63889257
Sup Reddit
>>63885421
>The “Luke, I am your father” revelation
Gotta love people who can't even get famous quotes right and expect to be taken seriously.
>>63889257
chill dude, try and contain your involuntary outbursts
>>63889133
>guns prevent it how, exactly?
we can see that private ownership of firearms doesn't completely prevent tyrannical government but it makes those in power think more seriously about what they can get away with. what we need is an independent ethical press in addition to the right to bear arms.
>>63889358
Normalfags never say the actual quote. It's like "beam me up scotty"
>>63889479
>we can see that private ownership of firearms doesn't completely prevent tyrannical government but it makes those in power think more seriously about what they can get away with
No, it really doesn't. It doesn't affect anything at all. Do you really think a bunch of rednecks having a gun home will prevent the government from doing anything? Has it prevented this far, what do you think? What the FUCK would they have to fear, that the people will start a huge riot with guns and start shooting? Fucking please
How about countries with gun control, can you point a single one with tyrannical government that would be any different without gun control? Can you find ANY examples where these two things correlate in any way?
How about nordic countries, regarded as some of the least corrupt and best in the world. They have gun control
>>63885421
>Armond White
>he's black
>>63889696
Nordic countries weren't founded on armed insurrection
>>63889785
If you for a second think this person is credible on any level you should consider suicide or at least step away from the internet sometimes
>>63885421
BASED ARMOND
You can't complain about Armond using ideology when JJ uses Nazi imagery cynically
>>63889949
>I can't refute any of the points he made
>I know, I'll just attack his character instead!
>>63889696
lmao this retard.
>>63889696
you say this as those nordic countries governments are busily screwing over their people
>>63890054
Refute points? Fucking WHAT points? He rambles about shit pretending to be a former red team planner for the government which he obviously isn't, and all of his 'points' rely on the on the reader just blindly believing him for no reason. He just talks out of his ass without any kind of sources of even attempts at proving the shit he says. Because he doesn't have to, because the retarded delusional fucks at /pol/ think 4chan is so relevant that the government and ex-employees actually give a flying fuck about the neckbeards here. This is a teenagers playground. What a fucking joke
>>63890041
>JJ uses Nazi imagery cynically
name a jew that doesn't do that
>>63890288
le jew meme is tired senpai
>>63890228
Unlike the US government since they're too afraid of the people, right? Do you read the news ever?
>>63890315
not a meme, senpai
does this nigger say anything of substance
every other word he says is banal or some other pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo by saying he didn't like it in a pretentious way without backing it up with any real criticism
>>63890447
go read some debbie schlussel, she seems more your speed
>>63890447
That way he can sound smart and when criticized, change and twist his vague shit so that nobody can really call him out. All the self-important retards eat this shit up because it sounds educated
>>63890447
>By now we all should know that there’s nothing of adult interest in Star Wars
you're denying this?
>>63887215
Contrarian even in his name.
You have to admire his dedication
>>63885421
>>63885547
>>63885583
I don't understand half the shit he's saying.
Sounds smug as fuck though
>>63890279
>still can't explain what was wrong with the analysis
Nothing he said was unreasonable or hard to believe. Whatever, cuck, believe what you want.
>>63890523
>By now we all should know that there’s nothing of adult interest in Star Wars
that's not meaningful criticism at all and has nothing to do with reviewing this particular movie
you don't go into a movie with your own prejudices about a series and how "adult" it is
This is also the guy who praises GI Joes the movie and Fast five
>finn is obama
>all movies are actually political allegories guys i'm serious
>because everyone in hollywood is absolutely obsessed with politics tot he level of filling every scene in a movie with subtle propaganda, like totally man
>star wars has no adult audience
>finn is obama
Wow, this guy has his head up his ass.
Bonus:
>everyone who likes something I don't like is a shallow consumerist sheeple
>>63885421
GLIB FACSIMILE
G
L
I
B
FACSIMILE
So I'm guessing he is a republican?
>>63890678
>"“G.I. Joe must be understood as an authentic measurement of our cultural values. Its unabashed appeal to the pop-commercial synapses also demonstrates livelier filmmaking than such utter banality as Iron Man and Star Trek and Harry Potter’s Half-Blooded Chintz.”
what did he mean by this?
>>63890706
he never said all movies are political allegories but movies do pick up on the cultural zeitgeist of our time
>>63885421
this guy is literally /tv/ embodied
what a fuckstain
>>63890706
>he's such a try hard contrarian that he gave Jack and Jill a positive review just because everybody else was giving it negative reviews
He is /tv/. Or maybe even worse than /tv/.
>>63890833
Idealogues can see shades of red or blue in anything, if they squint hard enough, you can see anything in shades of red or blue. This guy is squinting like a motherfucker.
>>63890802
Jesus Christ, what a faggot. He's actually worse than the most contrarian faggot on this board.
>>63891037
yes, that's how human experience works, you see the world how you have been conditioned to see it, and make films with the same conditioned world view
>>63891037
Are you saying star wars had no ideoligical agenda?
Because you are wrong.
Anything that has a smidgeon of politics infused in it makes it instantly bitter. This goes for both this review and the film.
You dumb faggots, everything Armond says in this review can be understood if you have the mental capacity to understand it
>>63887607
>le black=/=nigger meme
No, you should go back to reddit.
>>63891746
No the reality if that you need to fuck off back to whatever board you crawled out of recently thinking that episode 7 was an invitation for you to post here
>>63891566
>If you have the capacity to understand it, then you can understand it.
Yeah, no kidding.
>>63885421
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/not-in-defense-of-armond-white
>>63885421
If Armond hates it this much, it must be good.
Going to watch it now.
>>63891908
ebert is a grade A pleb
Oh look it's another meme critic post. I'll just leave this here so you guys realize who you're dealing with:
http://betterthanvoodoo.com/2011/11/14/reviewing-the-reviews-armond-white-loves-jack-jill/
>>63886336
>(disguised as “The Rapture,” a young videomaker told me)
I still don't understand this part. What does he mean "disguised as The Rapture"? WTF is he talking about?
>>63891993
Why is he wrong about that movie?
>>63892063
the second coming
as in the return of the "real", "good" Star Wars
>>63891993
You're honestly to much of a pleb to enjoy Jack and Jill
>>63890515
>>63890515
eloquence != pompous verbosity
or to simplify it for you underage troglodytes: him using big words you don't understand doesnt make him pretentious
>>63891993
He also liked Transformers 2, Land of the Lost, Dance Flick, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Bedtime Stories, Transporter 3, What Happens in Vegas, and thought Chuck & Larry is a "modern classic". He's a troll critic and it's hilarious that people fall for it.
>>63890764
He writes for the National Review.
What do you think.
>>63892134
Hello?
>>63893097
Maybe you can answer then since looking at your list you know a lot about films
thanks
>>63893097
He was one of the people who felt that Lego Movie got robbed of an Oscar nomination though so I'll give him credit for that.
>>63893097
What is wrong with any of those films
I bet you didn't even watch any of them
>>63887898
he is not honorary white though, he is his own thing tbqh.
like an intelectual, he sounds like one but I doubt he is an intelectual
>>63893097
He also recognized the genius of Neveldine and Taylor before it was hip.
>>63893163
bump in case hes writing up
