You know, once in a blue moon, I try to moonlight as a film critic. You’d think it would be a glamorous life filled with fast women, easy money and me shooting dice around the back alleys of Brooklyn as I try to make money. Well, you’d be wrong–except for the dice shooting part, but I digress.

Film critics are some of the most annoying people on the face of the planet. They’re smarmy, stuck-up, opinionated, annoying, bitchy, overly emotional and downright sickening creatures that plague the world we know. They also happen to be one of the few professions that have to overtly analyze and comprehend what is happening around our culture, our time and understand how this shapes a community’s identity.

So taking that Janus nature into account, it’s pleasing to me that Armond White is the 2009 chair for the New York Film Critics Circle. The group is comprised of New York critics who come together every year and vote on what’s been the best so far. Rounding out this year as Chairwoman is Entertainment Weekly’s Lisa Schwarzbaum, who’ll preside over the vote on December 12.

The Reporter describes White as “well respected in the New York film community for his thoughtful, passionate writing and criticized for what some have described as reflexively contrarian reviews, often citing other critics while defending unpopular films.” Which is very true, he is an original voice–and also has some unique opinions, as shown during a sit-down with THND contributor Steven Boone at Big Media Vandalism in three parts: 1, 2, 3.

They just forget to mention he’s the epitome of a firebrand. White is an extremely gifted writer and fascinating to read. Unfortunately, he can’t write a review without trashing another film in comparison, exemplified in his 2006 “Better Than List.”

He’s also highly critical of online writing about film, such as in the article that epitomizes his style: “What We Talk About When We Don’t Talk About Movies.” His lede graf is the most damning of all, “In print and online, it’s never been worse—especially on the Internet where film buffs emulating the Vachel Lindsay-Manny Farber tradition are no longer isolated nerds but an opinionated throng, united in their sarcasm and intense pretense at intellectualizing what is basically a hobby.”

White was routinely bashed by Glenn Kenny (then of Premiere, now of self-blog Some Came Running): “That’s a great start, given that only a person who has read either Farber, or Lindsay, but by no means both, could possibly conceive of yoking the two together in this way.” Even Cineaste asks, what is film criticism becoming without managing to come across as a smug know-it-all.

The frightening thing can be found in how White is correct in a way. His criticism of “critics” comes when the Internet is filled with people and groups who don’t have a “proper background,” which means–well, I’ve got no fucking idea, to be honest. Any decent pseudo-critic makes an effort to watch all film, regardless of personal taste. You don’t need to be a “Paulette” to review a movie, although it certainly helps getting paid by print publications, which are now running low on the very budgets that were once used to give new writers a chance rather than keep aging dinosaurs.

There’s even an anonymous blog–since discontinued since it’s rumored White found out who ran it and wasn’t pleased–called Armond Dangerous devoted to picking apart White’s tone and style. An excerpt from Zodiac:

It’s probably fair to say that once you’ve landed on Armond White’s shitlist, it’s going to take a solid effort on your part to be removed. This has happened in the past — Oliver Stone and Todd Solondz come to mind — but on too many occasions Armond just can’t get over the past indiscretions of certain auteurs. David Fincher’s Zodiac provides a perfect case, not because it’s a sudden masterpiece by an overrated director (AW says he’s been wrongly “lionized” even though The Game and Panic Room were deservingly rejected by audiences and critics alike), but because Fincher’s doing something different in his latest film and Armond just can’t see it. Is the something new successful? Hell, no.

Then again, White can sometimes be a bit of a prick–such as during the NYFCC’s debate about screeners in 2000, where he loudly and rather succinctly called Lisa Schwarzbaum a “cunt.” Then again, the same guy once said:

One of the interesting things in writing about the movies is that it’s a popular art form. You always have to contend with the popular response, the immediate response, and not necessarily a thoughtful response! That’s exciting, though. There’s a lot of energy and spontaneity in that. The downside is that sometimes there is no thought in that response. That’s what a critic can be good for: making the difference simply by having the propensity to reflect rather than simply respond.

Thankfully, I’m just one of those crazy “Internet” writers who can’t tell a Pauline Kael from a Jonathan Rosenbaum. Regardless, and despite so many people calling for White’s head, I wish him the best and am mildly interested in seeing how he handles the 2009 calendar.