On 'Critical Condition' and Angry White Guy Don Hall

Timeout Chicago's "Blog Critics: Critical Condition" (http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/features/25801/critical-condition)
Don Hall: An Angry White Guy" (http://donhall.blogspot.com/) Blog post about mid-life crisis

Don Hall is: some nonprint, nonprofessional, nonedited, nonpaid, nontrained writer.

He thinks reviewing is a compulsive disease with both mental and physical symptoms. When Kris Vire asks who would still review if they stopped getting paid for it, everyone said of course they would. Don Hall said this, “Which indicates that for all the bitching about money, money has little to do with this thing we do.”

They even give that to him as the last word, granting his sentiments the professional seal of approval. The professionals like the image Hall paints of an impassioned writer working diligently for a noble cause, untainted by economics. But though they all agree, their answers are still different based on the context in which they are given. Hall is responding to Anne Holub who said, “Definitely. Of course, I don’t get paid now sooo…” Three “o”’s and the dreaded ellipses—no wonder she isn’t getting paid.

The point still stands, Hall and Holub are not getting paid yet they are doing it. And maybe what’s most important is that they are doing it at a level above not only the user submissions and forum posts, but also above their blogging peers. Out of the World Wide Sea, Timeout selected these two fish, fresh and fat. The professionals are probably telling the truth. They would probably still do it even if they weren’t paid. But how would they still do it? Could they possibly maintain the rigorous standards they impose on themselves now? Where would the research, the quality of writing, the editing and authority all go? Some would likely end up like Hall and Holub, but others could just as easily end up like the basement-dwelling mouth breathers who populate the net. My point is that these professionals haven’t been tested whereas Hall has—and he passed.

Still, reviewing is nothing courageous to Hall. It is just a “stubborn need to express our opinion.” He thinks it can be courageous to speak truth to power, and he shares a populist distrust of “megacorporations” with his internet comrades.

But the key difference between Hall and the rest of the panel is that he is the only one who believes his opinion are true and that a good critic renders a correct verdict. He says you only need to be “as sharp and precise as what you are slamming”—a funny way of disagreeing that negative reviews should be restrained. Instead he believes readers form a report with critics whom share their personal opinion. He calls critics he disagrees with hacks. He is like George W. Bush, unable to separate politics and religion. To him, it wouldn’t be his opinion unless he was 100% sure it was true. Yet he does say that “in order to appropriately criticize, a dollop of self-awareness is necessary-knowing your own prejudices, etc.” So while his Id may be wrong, his Ego won’t be if he has his Superego trained.

The professionals stress the need for education and editing, but don’t make the connection to correctness. It begs the question of why all that education is necessary. Hall focuses on passion, and says education will naturally follow. And in general, he seems to be a very passionate person. He is the only quoter on the panel, meaning he will restate a line another person said that he enjoyed. He’s also an a negative asshole mostly. And his website is a blog with some reviews—not the other way around. He has no shame, and no restraint. He will rant and write unfocused, meandering, enjoyable, and probably accurate reviews—when he isn’t busy telling us about his cats or failed marriages.

Reviewing Reviews – Critiquing two reviews of Pixar’s “Up” (Directed by Pete Docter and co-directed by Bob Peterson, 2009)

Armond White of the New York Press had an awful review of the film (http://www.nypress.com/article-19876-the-way-of-pixarism.html), while Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle had a good review (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/29/MV6617S4LC.DTL)

 

While both White and LaSalle share disdain and disbelief for the film’s middle stretch of action and adventure, it is LaSalle—who wrote the overall positive review—whose criticism is better formed. Lasalle speaks plainly to the shortcomings of the film in clear specifics while White is so muddled in the larger issues he invents that he mostly ignores the movie. White’s few comments on the film are little more than assertions without evidence or support.

White begins his review with an analogy linking Pixar to General Motors at its zenith. That he spends the rest of his introductory paragraph explaining his meaning demonstrates it was not easily recognizable, and not the kind of easy opening that draws a reader in. At the time his review was published, it was the first negative review for “Up” on RottenTomatoes, taking the film from a perfect 100 down to 98. This arcane fact should have nothing to do with his review as it has nothing to do with the film. But apply this knowledge to a lens for reading and lo, some shape begins to form within the void of seemingly random discontent.

Armond White is a contrarian—that is why he spends more time complaining about the praise the film received than articulating his own criticisms. He sees himself as responding to a world gone mad, so it is understandable if his reaction is a bit scattershot. White throws around references to Robin Williams, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” (Directed by Stanley Kramer 1967) and Mr. Magoo, all in a description of the lead character. He mentions every single other Pixar film as well as 5 “good” animated films. He speaks at some length about Charlie Chaplin, Chuck Jones, and not just “The Red Balloon” (Directed by Albert Lamorisse, 1956) but also “The Flight of the Red Balloon” (Directed by Hsiao-hsien Hou, 2007). A choice selection of a few meaningful references can certainly enhance a piece of criticism, but too much leaves too little substance.

LaSalle’s lede contains elements of the “poetic wisdom” he finds in “Up”. It is poetic because of its lilting praise contrasted by practical criticism and wise because it provides a clear roadmap for the review to follow.

Both critics tried to make the same point about predictability in “Up” and Pixar’s other films, but did so in their own ways. White writes, “When Up trivializes Carl and Russell’s loneliness” without first establishing the point, and goes on to list a number of other Pixar films. LaSalle takes a different approach, writing, “Yet 'Up' also contains boring stretches of mindless freneticism and bland character interaction that test the ability of any adult to stay conscious.” LaSalle has a practical list of grievances and touches on the issue of whether animation is for kids or adults—a debate more intuitive and relevant than how animation relates to General Motors. He goes on to talk about not just the plot, but the elements that connected with him.

LaSalle’s review recounts his personal relationship to the film while White takes the film personally and breaks a cardinal rule of journalism—he becomes the story.