I’d say that a critic who praises Torque to the skies (or Wes Anderson) is definitely affected by “the quirk brought on by the new.” Not that I have a disdain for that kind of movie–I quite enjoyed it. But let’s agree to disagree here, John. I don’t want to repeat myself. Thanks for taking the time to comment!

But the argument remains that White isn’t really idiosyncratic. In fact, he follows very rigid aesthetic definitions based on his cinematic histriography, using the “greats” such as Welles and Griffith to define the limits of what he considers “good”. I don’t believe he has ever actually been as flexible as to be affected by the quirk brought on by the new (a rigidity I sometimes feel very constraining), only by the quirk of the new that’s really old.

I have read carefully, and I still get the same reading. Hipsters for me have never been anti-mass culture, but rather more ruthless and conscious consumers of it. But if this is not the case, I would appreciate a clarification of who “they” is.

But one never actually create “new” power structures until the old one dies. Being in opposition inhernetly means one is still operating within the same old systems, and those same old systems are still alive. I don’t think he is creating new power structures as much as he is opposing the dominant critical trend. He can’t–and shouldn’t–really make people care. Rather, he is–and must–make people care to care about movies, the difference being that you don’t use him to validate dominant opinions (or even validate opposing ones) but rather to open avenues from which such positions or oppositions can start. When a critic makes you “care”, you only then become concerned with one movie or one trend. It never extends beyond that. But if a critic makes you care about if you care about movies or not, it then becomes not only a concern of a movie or a trend, but of movies and of cinema. I think that’s when real passion begin.

I’m aware of the difference between “idiosyncracy” and “cool,” but the funny thing is that nowadays, it’s cool to be idiosyncratic. Then again, why would a truly idiosyncratic mind be so obsessed about what so-called hipsters think or do? And read carefully: those who “never really experienced the tyranny of mass society” are specifically not hipsters–that was the whole point of that paragraph.

If it’s really White’s intention to bring back the passion in criticism (nevermind that the blogosphere practically overflows with it) and make people care, I wish he’d chosen a more fruitful path towards that goal. What’s the use of fighting “power structures” by creating new ones?

- I think ther is a very distinct differnece between “idiosyncracy” as we use it to describe White and “cool” as we use it to describe “hipsters”. Idiosyncracy has never been the hallmark of a hipster; as the consumption of mass culture (as a hipster tends to do) suggests, consumption does not necessarily corelate with individuality. A hipster is odious first and foremost because s/he does not understand the historical context of what s/he consumes. As you have quoted, “Having never really experienced the tyranny of mass society, they [hipsters] don’t feel any great urge to stand against it”. Hipster culture is “dominated by unpredictable and idiosyncratic mash-ups of cultural elements that bear no meaningful relationship to one another”. But if you really follow White’s commentary, you know exactly that this is not the case. He favored Sahara and Transporter 2 over Syriana not because it somehow conforms to this culture of quirk, but because placed within specific cultural, social, and political contexts, those movies are just better. Borat wasn’t funny to him not because of its market-hype, but because placed within the context of contemporary pseudo-leftist political commentary, its pretty banal. If you read White enough, you’ll realize that he isn’t ruled by the notion of “random”, but in fact the total opposite: he is ruled by the historicization of cinematic trends and contextualization of “genius” or talent”. He didn’t oppose PT Anderson because it was the contrarian thing to do, but because compared to what PT Anderson is aspiring to be (i.e. Altman), he really isn’t all that great. He didn’t derride Before Sunrise/set simply because it was popular, but because contextualized within film history and compared with what came before it (i.e. Rohmer), its popularity wasn’t all that deserved. When he displays preference for Walter Hill over Michael Mann, it isn’t simply because Hill really was better than Mann (because a lot of times, I could do with neither of them), but because Mann was being canonized regardless of the context that canon is supposed to be serving. Similarly, it’s disappointing when Tarantino becomes canonized while earlier and to a very large extent more talented and more socially conscious filmmakers such as Seijun Suzuki find it comparatively harder to enter the same canon. It isn’t mere opposition to mass culture becuase just like his French New Wave inspirations, mass culture for White is just yet another opportunity to understand how humans express themselves through the arts, specifically through movies. Rather, his opposition is to the hipster’s claim to this mass culture without ever actually making themselves responsible for understanding this mass culture.

- Yes, White does tend to be very focused on his attacks on groups he deem poison to film criticism. But how else would one oppose a hegemony? Again, once placed within a cultural context, “taste” becomes more than that. “Taste” becomes indicator of social/cultural/political power. Once you have political/social/cultural dominance being asserted through something as simple as aesthetic “taste”, why would you not be oppositional? You compare Zoller-Seitz to White, but, as much as I like Zoller-Seitz, he doesn’t have to be as “angry” as White because his criticisms aren’t exactly very political. His criticism doesn’t acknowledge the power structures White constantly addresses that forces White to be confrontational. I’m not saying that there is something wrong with Zoller-Seitz’s response, but only that both responses are equally valid; only, one is more offensive because it takes issue specifically with “established tastes”.

- In terms of criticism becoming personal, to some extent you actually have to understand White’s efforts in making it personal. According to him, film criticism has become a job; it isn’t something people are passionate anymore, but a vehicle for people–and publications–to get more money and ad revenue. It isn’t to express views anymore, but on who can get that blurb in first or on who can captivate more through world plays and such. Mind you, power is still being manifested through these unconsciously reproduced thoughts, but unlike people like Agee or Kael, critics have become very blase about what they write. Simply, they don’t care anymore. Film criticism is just something they do (god forbid, this lack of effort may not be present in anything Rosenbaum writes, but it is very apparent in say AO Scott’s literary-style criticism or Ebert’s god-knows-what style of writing). By making his attacks personal, White confronts this critical laziness and takes people to task for what they say. True, mostly people just get incensed and sometimes bite back. But at the very least, they aren’t complacent about their opinions. Yes, critics are allowed their opinions, as everybody else is, but that doesn’t mean no one can force you to back those opinions up.

I’d be honored to be quoted in your Critical Fallacy series (that’s where these notes belong after all), so go right ahead. Let me know when you do!
For the record: It was not my intention to steal your thunder in terms of the title, but I just couldn’t accept a substitute. To me, this is the most painful critical fallacy out there, and the least criticized.