Armond White on OGF
>The humorless appeal to adolescent taste ultimately infects Refn’s concept of heroism. Though Julian sometimes has psychic visions of dismemberment, he displays a catatonic chic. His confrontation with Chang is spoken with schoolkid childishness: “Wanna fight?” is an attempt at conveying innocent depravity. Such stupidity must strike Refn and his fans as cool. Given the film’s pervy, incestuous teases, Gosling is like a little boy wearing Mommy’s dress, necklace and high-heels. And director Refn is his playmate. Each of Gosling’s Refn roles is a drag act in which he strikes poses too grown up for his callow brooding and too silly for Refn‘s overwrought style. A truly cool actor might wink at Refn’s conceits but Gosling plays at intensity and mysterious depth that seems borrowed–and it is a drag. (Scott Thomas beats star and director at their game: her decadent, racist matriarch suggests the damnedest impersonation of Ellen Barkin in Johnny Handsome.)
Was he right?
He makes a massive assumption in thinking Julian is meant to seem cool when his adolescent attitude and Oedipus complex are clearly intentional.
>>68706499
>Armond White
The man has made his career out of expressing not liking stuff through overtly complicated word salads.
>>68706541
Plenne detected, back to the MTV crowd you go.
>>68706541
Yeah, I'm pretty fond of Armond, but I genuinely believe he missed the point of this motion picture.
>>68706644
He disliked this, and critics disliked this. Therefore he should've liked it is what the reigning stupidity (your post included) would assume.
>>68706499
>1'09"
Jesus
>>68706499
He's used to seeing stereotypes, a hero stereotype playing out the stereotypical tale of good vs. evil. Anything that strays from this formula upsets him, he's indoctrinated by hollywood. The funny thing is he's black, part of a group that's constantly being typecast to fill in stereotypical roles, yet he's defending this system as if his career depended on it. Classic example of an uncle Tom, a black hypocrite
he's articulating why /tv/ liked the movie, it's drive but sicker and darker and in thailand
also the following paragraphs are much better
>This nonsense is so inorganic to any sense of globetrotter restlessness or anything explicitly or metaphorically to do with British or American colonialism that it just feels derivative. That Kubrickian scene in Drive of dead-eyed strippers watching an assault gets extended here in a more elaborate whorehouse sequence where catatonic hookers bear mute witness to instances of police corruption. Refn’s tableau of organdy-gowned call-girls listening to pop while watching violence in a bouquet-bedecked whorehouse is the ultimate David Lynch parody.
>Gosling and Refn have art ambitions–a strange sense of fun. But how can film culture progress with fantasies like this? There’s no shock or outrage left. Refn relies upon a level of menace (unerotic, non-provocative) that precludes caring about or responding to violence, vulnerability, mortality. This is cinema for unsophisticated viewers who don’t already know Bunuel’s eye-slashing, Altman’s Coke bottle assault or Shakespeare/(((Julie Taymor)))’s Titus. Children of Kubrick, Friedkin, Lynch and Tarantino, they remain infantile about movies.Shakespeare/Julie Taymor’s Titus. Children of Kubrick, Friedkin, Lynch and Tarantino, they remain infantile about movies.
>>68706541
nailed it.
the worst part is i see a lot of critics fucking up and dropping the ball on this movie, somehow getting 2deep4u'd when the depth is mostly straightforward and not even that multidimensional. if anything its a little too overt and heavy handed, which is part of why it comes off pretentious..
but nope. still missed it. unbelievable how badly they fall for shit sometimes and completely miss it others.
daily reminder that gravity (a 3/10 drama flick masquerading as a sci fi movie with actual themes) still has 96% on reddit tomatoes and was nominated for 10 academy awards the same year as ogf.
>>68706499
He is right about Kristin Scott Thomas.
She was the best part about that movie.
>>68707649
Imagine what he would've said about A Few Dollars More when it was released? That movie was backwards when compared to it's John Wayne contemporaries; a morally ambiguous lead who hardly spoke, had no backstory and killed everyone with a flick of his revolver. Dude would have panned it like the establishment did in their confusion. Leone's work was constantly butchered by studios and critics because he did things they weren't used to seeing. This guy is a long winded pleb, if you want to increase your film cred stay away from him
>>68708084
>Dude would have panned it like the establishment did in their confusion
>critics disliked this. Therefore he should've liked it
>>68708084
kinda hope you're kidding but i know you aren't
i reccomend you go read a book
