Film criticism or Op-Ed piece: Armond White and the smugness of torture victims

A question for all of you — where does film criticism end, and knee-jerk reactionary political diatribe begin?

NY Press film critic Armond White has suggested, on several occasions, that certain film critics should recuse themselves from reviewing a particular film for one reason or another, and it's not uncommon for him to direct his criticism at his peers, rather than the film itself. Yet if ever a critic should have walked away from an assignment, it would have to be Armond and his not-even-half-hearted attempt at "reviewing" Michael Winterbottom's The Road to Guantanamo.

Like Christopher Hitchens before him, Armond's politics went all funny after 9/11, and his blind, unyielding support of Bush, the administration, and the so-called war on terror has left many scratching their heads in wonder. That Armond loathed Winterbottom's film is hardly surprising, but never before has he sunk to such wretched lows as witnessed in this vicious attack piece. Not only are there factual blunders (does the NY Press no longer employ editors?), but Armond even betrays himself by denying the film's humanitarianism — the very thing he's criticized other films for lacking.

Beginning with the inaccurate claim that the Tipton Three were in Afghanistan on 9/11 (they were still in England at the time), Armond reduces the film to a "whacked-out piece of anti-American propaganda, pretending Human Rights rhetoric", and goes on to call it "a Weapon of Crass misInstruction." Pretty typical of White's snarl, and nothing like the reprehensible sentence that follows, one that even he should be ashamed of — "Using the Tipton Three’s smugness to discredit the Bush administration, the film condemns the U.S. military for treating al-Qaeda suspects worse than the Taliban brutalized the Mideast."

Where to begin? First off, that Armond sees fit to drop an S-bomb (one of the most favored weapons in his arsenal) when referring to victims of illegal imprisonment and torture is sickening, and to equate the members of the Tipton Three with young film critics and Noah Baumbach characters is simply asinine. But his contempt for the three young men that exposed some ugly truths about our country's policies is further revealed when he criticizes them for remaining "arrogantly defiant" throughout the whole ordeal. I guess Armond would rather they confessed. To something. Perhaps he forgot that they were released without any charge.

Allegations of smugness aside, White also appears to be justifying the use of torture on al-Qaeda suspects, for chaining somebody to a hook on the floor and bombarding them with strobe lights and death metal is not nearly as bad as the barbaric acts of the Taliban. Huh? Does one have anything to do with the other?

If The Road to Guantanamo is a work of propaganda, then its cause is humanitarianism. The film is less interested in the guilt/innocence of the Tipton Three than it is with humanitarian treatment and the rule of law. Love Bush or hate him, holding people for years at a time without charging them is in breach of international law and the Geneva conventions on the rights of POWs. Yet Armond, who has lashed out at films and filmmakers for their alleged anti-human stances, here rejects the human rights issue for it clashes with his own political agenda.

It doesn't take The Road to Guantanamo to discredit the Bush administration or to demonize US foreign policy — one only need read a newspaper to reach those conclusions. (Other than the NY Press, of course.) Even by Armond's often over-the-top standards, this "review" is appalling, and would be better suited for the Op-Ed page of The New York Sun than the Film section of any publication.

Even in his infamous review of Fahrenheit 911 (where he labeled Michael Moore a fascist), White spent equal time discussing it as film qua film as he did spewing forth political vitriol. This time, however, there's virtually none of the former. What are your thoughts? Do Armond's inaccuracies and false charges (which he never bothers to back up with examples) add up to a film review, or is it merely an angry political screed?

Comments

[Norma B]

In response to Jason above.

I live and work in Tipton, and have met family members of the Tipton Three. Though dedicated to their religion, I feel it is unfair of you to label them as extremists.

In America, there are fundamentalist Christians, far more extreme than Muslims from Tipton, who are playing an influential role in American politics. (Did not Bush himself claim to have been chosen by God for the presidency?) Why is it then that fundamentalists from one religion are accepted, while fundamentalists from another are locked up? Do they pose a real threat to America, or merely the American way of life (at least from the perspective of the lunatics currently in control)?

[Jason]

Norma B

The Midlands has a history of producing Jihadis. A Muslim from Birmingham blew himself up in Kashmir a few years ago. In the late 1990's a group of men from Birmingham were caught driving around Yemen with guns and bombs in the boot of their car (one of them the son of Abu Hamza). The list is endless - the man who lured Daniel Pearl to his slaughter by decapitation was a British Muslim from a wealthy family who went to private scool in London.

The Tipton three were treated abominably, but they were not innocents on a jaunt - they went to the firebrand mosque in Karachi that distributed jihadis throughout Afghanistan and Kashmir. One of the suicide bombers who blew themselves up outside Mikes Bar and Tel Aviv was from Derby. Norma, lets criticise America where it deserves to be criticised, but let us not stick our heads in the sand and deny the existence of a vicious and hateful creed of extremist Islam amongst sections of the British Muslim community that seeks to kill you, me, your family, my family, and as many people as they can. Friday is the anniversary of the London bombings. What threat to the 'American way of life' did those slaughtered pose?

It really is sad that so many people are so deep in denial on this issue. In the face of a murderous and active creed of fascist nihilism, it is amazing that people whitewash and make ad hoc comparisons to smokescreen these facts and perpetuate this denial. Guantanamo is an obscenity, but a trailing effect is that it adds grist to the lunatics (and their benign apologists) who think that the rhetoric of medieval extremists is in any way a progressive cause because they wrap it up in hateful anti-American rhetoric.

This is taking the debate into areas apart from cinema. But the depth of denial of this problem never fails to amaze me.

[Steve]

Jason, I have no desire to apologize for islamic extremists, but you haven't really cited any evidence against the Tipton Three apart from the mosque in Karachi. If there are jihadists from the Midlands, does that mean all Muslims from that section of England are terrorists?

[Matt Cornell AKA Matt Armstrong]

Thanks to Noel Vera for sending along my comments on THE ROAD TO GUANTANAMO and for providing a link to my letter in the NY Press. I found it deeply ironic to see Armond White use the word "torture" in describing Linklater's directorial style this week, since he was so squeamish to apply it when describing US foreign policy in his Winterbottom takedown.

Just two points of clarification.

1) My review was posted in Film & Politics, not A Film By. Film & Politics (of which I am a moderator) does not make its message archives public. If you'd like to join, please shoot me an email. All are invited.

2) In my jihad against lazy film crits, I also sent a letter to Joe Morgenstern, whose review of ROAD TO GUANTANAMO on KCRW left listeners with the impression that no one knows if the methods used in the film are being actually used at the camp.

Well, that's nonsense. Whatever faults the film has, Winterbottom was scrupulous in portraying the interrogation methods in his film. In fact, all of the methods used-- stress positions, prolonged solitary, exposure to extreme temperatures and loud music, sleep adjustment, "ERFing," etc. are acknowledged to be in current use or to have been in use during the Tipton Three's imprisonment. For film critics to suggest that such matters are open to argument is at best uninformed and at worst propagandistic.

As I suggested to Morgenstern, if he needed proof of the film's allegations about the use of these tactics at Gitmo, he need only read the news section of his own paper.

I am still waiting for his response.

[Filmbrain]

Matt --

I heard that Morgenstern review as well, and I was outraged. If you are so inclined, feel free to post the letter you wrote him.

I occasionally see Armond at press screenings, and I'm tempted to question him about the "smug" and "arrogantly defiant" comments. But then again, my last encounter with Armond was a bit of a disaster.

[Matt Cornell]

Here's what I wrote to Joe Morgenstern:

Dear Mr. Morgenstern,

I am fan of your film reviews for KCRW, which I enjoy on my iPod during my commute. I always find your commentary thoughtful, pithy and balanced. I must however, take issue with some of your remarks about Michael Winterbottom's ROAD TO GUANTANAMO.

First let me say that I share some of your reservations about the film. In particular, I am troubled by Winterbottom's mixture of talking head interviews and staged re-creations. I described this style as a cross between MTV's REAL WORLD and PUNISHMENT PARK. My main reason for concern is that Winterbottom chooses to focus on the presumed innocence of his subjects, to the exclusion of a broader critique of US detention and interrogation policies. His film should be arguing the no human being (guilty or innocent) should be treated in this manner. But because the Tipton Three remain maddeningly opaque, it's difficult to accept their story. This undercuts some of the effectiveness of the film.

What's not subject to dispute are the interrogation methods used in the film. Your commentary for KCRW left the impression that we have no independent verification for the claims of poor treatment depicted in the film. In fact, methods such as prolonged solitary confinement, stress positions, sleep adjustment, use of dogs, exposure to temperature extremes, "ERFing" and yes, even the bombardment with loud music and strobe lights are already acknowledged Pentagon policy. They are not mere conjecture or unsubstantiated rumor. And they can be corroborated by numerous sources, including the reporting in your own paper.

Perhaps you realize all of this, and are simply questioning the specific narrative conveyed by the Tipton Three. I share your reservations about this story, but think that you do your readers a disservice by eliding what's already known (and acknowledged) about detention and interrogation practices there. We already have too much official and national denial on this issue. I would appreciate your response.

Best,
Matt Cornell

I sent this on Friday. No response yet. Morgenstern can be bugged at joe.morgenstern@wsj.com

[IChiWawa]

"In America, there are fundamentalist Christians, far more extreme than Muslims from Tipton, who are playing an influential role in American politics."

Until the fundy ministers start preaching hate and members of their flock start traveling to take part in religious tyranny or strapping on bombs and climbing on buses, this line is nonsense.

Both the UK and America are importing the devices of their own destruction. Hopefully we'll wake up in time but it may be too late in GB what with the great facilitators the press and the libs.

[gesundheit]

Sehr wertvolle Informationen! Empfehlen!

[Jberto]

"and his blind, unyielding support of Bush, the administration, and the so-called war on terror has left many scratching their heads in wonder" if you did your proper research you would know that this is not true at all.