Teetering With Trumbo
I have no desire to board the “I Hate Armond White” bandwagon. Most of the time, I find his contrarian perversity refreshing. But he does tend to get carried away with an argument, and an editor really should have challenged the assertion White makes in his review of Trumbo (“Blacklist Blame,” June 25-July1), the new documentary about screenwriter Dalton Trumbo. In the lead sentence of his review, White says that Trumbo “never wrote a great film.” Does Armond White really think that Spartacus—which he never mentions—isn’t a great film? I’m not going to sit around debating the relative merits of Roman Holiday, A Guy Named Joe and Gun Crazy; but any definition of “great film” that doesn’t include Spartacus is a definition I don’t recognize.
—Jack Lechner
On My Blacklist
Armond White is a loudmouth ignoramus. That is, he has an ideological agenda to push, which he doesn’t bother to support with facts. If he wants to say the Dalton Trumbo never made a great movie and he doesn’t consider say Spartacus or Lonely Are the Brave to be great movies, well fine. Today everybody can look up Trumbo’s filmography on the IMDb and decide whether or not White is a jerk or Trumbo a great screenwriter. What is so galling is the non-specificity of White’s limp but vitriolic review. Gee, a successful, Academy Award-winning screenwriter might have a big ego! And White never deals with one simple fact: Is it right to deny someone the right to work because of their political (and by extension their religious or moral) beliefs?
Not only writers were blacklisted. Actors and musicians were blacklisted, too. How does an actor act communistically? What is communist music? Further on White mentions the ‘infamous” Mission To Moscow, which, by the way, was not written by Trumbo. This was taken from a book written by the American ambassador to the Soviet Union and President Roosevelt personally requested that Jack Warner (Roosevelt’s first guest in the Lincoln bedroom) make the film. He assigned Howard Koch to write it as Koch was contractually obligated to do. It was a propaganda film whose purpose, like all propaganda films, was to help win the war. The United States needed the Soviet Union, and this wasn’t the time to hold our allies—either Stalin or the Soviet Union or even communism—up to criticism. Victory, in those days, was everything. Years after the war, Howard Koch was blacklisted for writing the film he was forced to write.
—Max Von Meyerling
ARMOND WHITE’s RESPONSE:
Granted, Trumbo did not write Mission to Moscow, but my point was that that film (like Trumbo’s Tender Comrades) did indeed contain Leftist propaganda that scholar Hanson claims did not exist. Mr. Von Mayerling, in his eagerness to call me names, misses Trumbo’s strongest point that the fabled Blacklist was, in fact, a film industry practice. It was studio execs who deprived artists of opportunity, not the government. Anyone named Von Mayerling should welcome revelations about an industry that virtually blacklisted the director of Mayerling to Sarajevo, Max Ophuls, as part of its financial bottom-line. Blacklisting is standard operating procedure in Hollywood, but it’s often covert.
No Apologies
Armond White’s work needs no apologies. He’s the most insightful commentator writing today about the movies. The fact that he often voices a minority opinion only re-enforces the sad state of American moviemaking and its unenlightened goofy audience.
—Tony Zaza, NY
Duty Bound
Wow. I sure hope the editors pay no attention to the Armond White hate letters that pour in every week. Mr. White often writes about the declining nature of film culture and comprehension, and to read the recent reader letters is further proof of that.
For example: Take “Adlai” from Gainsville, FL (“Cancerous Critic,” June 25-July 1). She’s the typical “entertain me” filmgoer that simply craves an innocuous up or down summary review of a film. These people are ruining film culture by rejecting the notion that films can offer anything below the surface. Not only does Adlai authoritatively tell NYPress that it is your “duty” (and Mr. White’s) to provide boring reviews, she even calls for the end of Mr. White’s career: “If four doctors say ‘cancer’ and one doctor says ‘not cancer’ over and over again, that fifth one shouldn’t be allowed to practice, since his consistently dissident advice could lead people who don’t bother checking other sources to false conclusions.”
Unbelievable. I know Mr. White isn’t phased by this type of moronic thinking, but I hope the NYPress editors would never truly give it credence. I’ve written in many times to defend Mr. White because he’s the greatest film and culture critic we have. I will continue to fight for him: It would be a major loss to the world of criticism if he was let go.
—Mark Osborn, Austin, TX
I have no desire to board the “I Hate Armond White” bandwagon. Most of the time, I find his contrarian perversity refreshing. But he does tend to get carried away with an argument, and an editor really should have challenged the assertion White makes in his review of Trumbo (“Blacklist Blame,” June 25-July1), the new documentary about screenwriter Dalton Trumbo. In the lead sentence of his review, White says that Trumbo “never wrote a great film.” Does Armond White really think that Spartacus—which he never mentions—isn’t a great film? I’m not going to sit around debating the relative merits of Roman Holiday, A Guy Named Joe and Gun Crazy; but any definition of “great film” that doesn’t include Spartacus is a definition I don’t recognize.
—Jack Lechner
On My Blacklist
Armond White is a loudmouth ignoramus. That is, he has an ideological agenda to push, which he doesn’t bother to support with facts. If he wants to say the Dalton Trumbo never made a great movie and he doesn’t consider say Spartacus or Lonely Are the Brave to be great movies, well fine. Today everybody can look up Trumbo’s filmography on the IMDb and decide whether or not White is a jerk or Trumbo a great screenwriter. What is so galling is the non-specificity of White’s limp but vitriolic review. Gee, a successful, Academy Award-winning screenwriter might have a big ego! And White never deals with one simple fact: Is it right to deny someone the right to work because of their political (and by extension their religious or moral) beliefs?
Not only writers were blacklisted. Actors and musicians were blacklisted, too. How does an actor act communistically? What is communist music? Further on White mentions the ‘infamous” Mission To Moscow, which, by the way, was not written by Trumbo. This was taken from a book written by the American ambassador to the Soviet Union and President Roosevelt personally requested that Jack Warner (Roosevelt’s first guest in the Lincoln bedroom) make the film. He assigned Howard Koch to write it as Koch was contractually obligated to do. It was a propaganda film whose purpose, like all propaganda films, was to help win the war. The United States needed the Soviet Union, and this wasn’t the time to hold our allies—either Stalin or the Soviet Union or even communism—up to criticism. Victory, in those days, was everything. Years after the war, Howard Koch was blacklisted for writing the film he was forced to write.
—Max Von Meyerling
ARMOND WHITE’s RESPONSE:
Granted, Trumbo did not write Mission to Moscow, but my point was that that film (like Trumbo’s Tender Comrades) did indeed contain Leftist propaganda that scholar Hanson claims did not exist. Mr. Von Mayerling, in his eagerness to call me names, misses Trumbo’s strongest point that the fabled Blacklist was, in fact, a film industry practice. It was studio execs who deprived artists of opportunity, not the government. Anyone named Von Mayerling should welcome revelations about an industry that virtually blacklisted the director of Mayerling to Sarajevo, Max Ophuls, as part of its financial bottom-line. Blacklisting is standard operating procedure in Hollywood, but it’s often covert.
No Apologies
Armond White’s work needs no apologies. He’s the most insightful commentator writing today about the movies. The fact that he often voices a minority opinion only re-enforces the sad state of American moviemaking and its unenlightened goofy audience.
—Tony Zaza, NY
Duty Bound
Wow. I sure hope the editors pay no attention to the Armond White hate letters that pour in every week. Mr. White often writes about the declining nature of film culture and comprehension, and to read the recent reader letters is further proof of that.
For example: Take “Adlai” from Gainsville, FL (“Cancerous Critic,” June 25-July 1). She’s the typical “entertain me” filmgoer that simply craves an innocuous up or down summary review of a film. These people are ruining film culture by rejecting the notion that films can offer anything below the surface. Not only does Adlai authoritatively tell NYPress that it is your “duty” (and Mr. White’s) to provide boring reviews, she even calls for the end of Mr. White’s career: “If four doctors say ‘cancer’ and one doctor says ‘not cancer’ over and over again, that fifth one shouldn’t be allowed to practice, since his consistently dissident advice could lead people who don’t bother checking other sources to false conclusions.”
Unbelievable. I know Mr. White isn’t phased by this type of moronic thinking, but I hope the NYPress editors would never truly give it credence. I’ve written in many times to defend Mr. White because he’s the greatest film and culture critic we have. I will continue to fight for him: It would be a major loss to the world of criticism if he was let go.
—Mark Osborn, Austin, TX
