Why go after Ebert?

I only read a couple of film critics so I wasn't quite sure who Armond White was when I read his bizarre screed against movie critics. I found the link off if IMDb and I'm still scratching my head.

He really really doesn't like movie critics. He talks about their "fatted ranks" and how they have "diminished cultural discourse," etc.

He then goes on to attack my man Roger Ebert: "Ebert’s way of talking about movies as disconnected from social and moral issues, simply as entertainment, seemed to normalize film discourse—you didn’t have to strive toward it, any Average Joe American could do it. But criticism actually dumbed down. Ebert also made his method a road to celebrity—which destroyed any possibility for a heroic era of film criticism."

SayWA? Ebert is a pretty dang intelligent film critic. He's often made fun of for liking too many movies, but I would definitely not say he writes about movies in a way that is disconnected from social and moral issues. Far from it. Ebert has written off many movies because he doesn't like their morals.

Interestingly, White goes on to argue, "The most powerful, politically and morally engaged recent films (The Darjeeling Limited, Private Fears in Public Places, World Trade Center, The Promise, Shortbus, Ask the Dust, Akeelah and the Bee, Bobby, Running Scared, Munich, War of the Worlds, Vera Drake) were all ignored by journalists whose jobs are to bring the (cultural) news to the public."

Funny that, but a quick search of Ebert's website will show you positive reviews for 9 of those films, 2 negative reviews, and no reviews for two of them (due to Ebert's convalescence). In fact, at least two of them are high on Ebert's Top 10 films the year they came out.

So why White should go after Roger so badly is just odd.

I'd also like to add that Munich and War of the Worlds are bad films. Ebert loved Munich and didn't like War of the Worlds. War of the Worlds was poorly made and plotted, and I thought Munich had some really severe moral problems, right down to its closing shot.

There's another contradiction in White's argument. Precept 1) Ebert and film critics have ushered in an era of viewing movies simply as entertainment. But that contradicts his Precept 2) that Ebert and film critics have tried (and failed) to promote Indie movies that are "that are mendacious, pseudo-serious, sometimes immoral or socially retrograde and irresponsible" such as "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Army of Shadows, United 93, Marie Antoinette, Zodiac, Last Days, There Will Be Blood, American Gangster, Gone Baby Gone, Letters From Iwo Jima, A History of Violence, Tarnation, Elephant."

If you believe movies are more than just about entertainment, then you shouldn't like all of these films, but White tries to get both charges to stick.

Also, I've seen a couple of these films ... I'd be very interested to hear how Zodiac is immoral, socially retrograde, etc. The Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days uses a horrific storyline to argue very emphatically that legalized abortion is a moral good. Agree with its message or not, it's a direct engagement with morals and can help inform the cultural discourse.

The whole essay just seems flat wrong.