So basically I’m reviewing myself, right?  Not exactly.   I’m reviewing the destruction, not the creation.

My roommate was writing a paper on the topic of Plato.  I chose to “assist him” and by assist him, I surely mean to humor him and continue his paper as if it were a rant of non sequiturs based on thoughts and books of philosophers and scholars of that time.

I began to dig deeper into the ways that possible collections of thoughts by Plato and others of the time could have affected the people as much as editorials and other such reviews affect the people of our time.  For example, did the sundial have a positive or negative impact on their culture as the digital clocks has had on ours?   Is it always for the better?  What about transportation, did they envision new systems as we do today only much less refined?  Who knows.  It’s not the point of the issue.

The issue at hand is that upon returning to his computer, my roommate immediately dismissed this random spark of genius I had began to write  and deleted it.

Did not read it.

Did not find humor in it.

Did not enjoy the effort I had put forth into it.

He simply, deleted it.

Now, it’s time for you to review.  You be the judge.  What is the right side of this argument?   Is it that he had the rights to my work since it was produced on his computer or should I have been given the opportunity to collect my information from his computer to further my own endeavors on the topic?

Surely, one owns the rights to his or her typewriter, but does he or she own the people who type on it as well?

If it had all been sunshine and clockwork, with a tidy profit on the morning after, no one would have said another word. Instead, the Woodstock Music & Art Fair, held August 15th to 17th, 1969, near Bethel, New York — a refugee-camp experience officially declared a state disaster area on the second day — became an anniversary industry.

And business is booming.

Personally I’m not a huge fan of RollingStone when it comes to movies, books, politics, or well, a magazine to enjoy, but they’re still a viable source when it comes to music. Kind of says something to “stick to what you know”. In any event, the above quote is from a recent music review by David Fricke of RollingStone which depicts a very broad view of the potential for commercialism of the Woodstock Music & Art Fair, which ultimately resulted in instantaneous failure (from a profit standpoint), but continues to prosper, almost ironically.

I was born almost two decades after this “historic” event. Yet, I know more and more about it each year. Richard Nixon was President at the time. I couldn’t tell you who was his vice president or his secretary of state for his entire term (though cut short), but I could ramble off the names of musicians who performed on 1 or more of just 3 days on a farm in New York.

They don’t teach Woodstock in school. If they’re not discussing it in marketing and finance courses, they should consider doing so. While the event itself was more of a burden on the community, the infrastructure, and the Yasgur farm, it seemed to resonate over the years as a success.

So as we are within the 40th Anniversary of this event, I turn to Fricke’s review to figure out why this “new” compilation, “Woodstock – 40 Years On: Back to Yasgur’s Farm“, is still relevant and any different from anniversary releases and productions which have been released since 1970 on its first anniversary.

Fricke details the box set making a few notable references to famous sets such as The Who and Jimmy Hendrix’s “Star Spangled Banner” finale. Images that flash through your head when you think of Woodstock adorn the cover of the box set as well as the CD collections within. He makes mention that in the two years following Woodstock, there were releases such as “Woodstock” and “Woodstock Two” which are now included within the 6-CD box set. What keeps improving is technology.

While we’re able to remaster the quality of the recordings from the event, they become more marketable, and therefore more likely to be put on a compilation. Aside from that, people love anniversaries. They have taken all of the releases so far and merged them into one succinct “super-compilation”. Fricke, who attended Woodstock, believes this is the most accurate account of Woodstock so far, with a few “rewrites”.

Fricke points out the problems that Woodstock suffered that would take away from it’s ability to just be the greatest event in the history of music. There were technical problems which ruined some “legendary” sets, like the Grateful Dead. He tries to put to rest that people will remember them as being great, but only because the digital remastering has been able to “rewrite history” and give them a better Woodstock reputation for those who weren’t there to witness it first hand. And that’s another point to think about. Nearly 500,000 people attended Woodstock in 1969. To this day, I could guarantee, internationally, there are more than 500,000 fans of the performers from Woodstock. It goes to show that, until a time machine is invented to bring us back in time to spend three days in rain and mud in the middle of nowhere New York, “for the music”, it will remain one of the single-most “had to be there” events in history.

The last great point that Fricke makes in his review, which goes to show the importance of these constant revivals of Woodstock is that it was Peace, Love, and Music the first 2 days, then the 3rd was over-run by protesters of the war and took away from the true theme of Woodstock, which as the farm owner, Max Yasgur put it:

“Half a million young people can get together and have three days of fun and music — and have nothing but fun and music!”

It was because of these protests that most of the Woodstock attendees never actually saw the famous “Star Spangled Banner“. Thanks to the efforts made over the past 40 years, gems such as that and unseen/unheard sets are being added. While you may have your opinions on Woodstock and classic rock, it’s undeniable that it has meant something special to generations, regardless if they were there, simply because it’s the most widely talked about musical event of the past century, nay, millennium.

While Fricke saw all of the artists listed in the Woodstock lineup, in my lifetime, I’ve only seen one, Joe Cocker. And I’m much more thankful that I saw him under a roof, in a seat, without any naked hippies. Which is an ultimate plus for this box set, which although it comes with a book filled with images and liner notes, you don’t get the smell, the people, and the potential for disease. Maybe that’s a sign of the times, but whatever it is, it’s keeping us waiting another 10 years to see what more they can pull out of old Volkswagen vans, replicate, and sell.

Fricke does a great job explaining the good points of this box set as well as some of the fallacies of the Woodstock recordings. Overall, he seems like he knows what he’s talking about and sells it well here. So, Mr. Fricke, on this review I award you 4.5 Joe Cockers out of 10 Janis Joplins (conversion is 2 Janis Joplins per 1 Joe Cocker).

“This guy is a joke.”

“The way he describes movies is childish.”

“He’s no longer a critic of films, but of public opinion, and therefore I feel his views shouldn’t be expressed on a movie review website.”

This is just a sampling of some comments of Armond White’s review of the recently released “District 9″. I’ve taken them straight from the film review site rottentomatoes.com. Here Mr. White has posted his review unto the world. Doing a service by previewing a film to help readers decide if this is what they are willing to spend their money on. With ticket prices for theaters going up and up each year, reading reviews helps weed out the garbage.

Armond White is now being considered a “controversial critic” and there are blogs that have existed in protest of his reviews of movies for years now.

But is “District 9″ garbage? Is White getting a bad wrap? Is White the viable anti-Christ of film review? Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, however there is a lot to cover.

This past Wednesday, August 12th, Armond White, a film reviewer for the NY Press posted a negative review (titled: “From Mothership to Bullship”) of the highly anticipated film “District 9″, much to the chagrin of its loyal, and clearly nerdy, pre-release fan base.

It’s a good thing to get excited about a film, but for many, if not all, of the people criticizing the critic, it’s unfair to say that his opinion of the film is wrong. It’s perfectly o.k. to disagree with him and believe that he is just a lunatic who gives bad reviews to good films just to get attention, but by expressing yourself in this manner, you’re giving him exactly what he wants.

Upon further investigation, it seems that Mr. White predominantly goes against the grain not to be swayed by public opinion but to enforce his opinion on the public. This, of course, still not a reason to jeer this man. While, I do believe in the truth that when a majority of movie reviewers, of differing backgrounds, come to a consensus about a film with only a few outliers, it should not be taken lightly.

The overwhelming majority of the returns from this film seem to be positive. Many applaud the rookie director Neil Bloomkamp for his ability to realize this vision under the production of world-renowned visionary Peter Jackson, who is most notable for bringing the Lord of the Rings Trilogy to the screen (as well as an overly lengthly remake of King Kong). So what is Armond’s problem? This might be simple if there was a sole issue with this film, but rather he names many problems. Among them he refers to Jackson as “intellectually juvenile” and the film in general as the “slopiest and dopiest pop cinema” coming from a “second-rate film culture”. So what would he prefer? Well, he references the French film “District B13″, which, until yesterday, if you tried searching IMDB for “District 9″, you would have been given that film instead. (Which may be how he stumbled upon it.)

So they must have something in common since he’s so adamant about destroying “District 9″, right? Well, not quite.

In fact, White goes on to compare the French flick (which is based on a sealed off Parisian ghetto which must be infiltrated to defuse a neutron bomb… more so the plot of the film “Doomsday” where a walled parameter is the only thing standing between “normal people” and “infected people”, but due to a threat posed within it must be infiltrated… but I digress) and the HBO series “True Blood” to this Sci-Fi/thriller. There are clear indications that this film is meant to mean much more than aliens being oppressed by humans in South Africa.

This rolls right into the A word. Acting? No, he does not waste time in his review to discuss the acting, instead he discusses the potential racial parallels as well as those connected to apartheid. Even going so far as to compare the aliens to apartheid victims or Katrina refugees (wrong country?). So as not to make himself completely free of partisan, his picture is available on multiple reviewing sites, to which he posts reviews. Aside from the very few potential exceptions, I believe Mr. White, is in fact, Black, an African-American.

Born in the exotic location of Detroit, Michigan, Armond White is not exactly your typical African at all, since, well, he wasn’t born in Africa. He still seems to find many problems with the portrayal of the region, it’s dialect (Afrikaan), and the way the aliens are seemingly exaggerated stereotypes of the natives and victims of apartheid. White bashes the whole scenario about which this “SCIENCE FICTION” story is set. He does begin to discuss the interesting theory that the main character, who is British seems to provide an anti-imperialistic approach to interacting with the aliens as opposed to the imperialist ways in which South Africa was colonized, but he’s easily side-tracked discussing the mode of cinematography taken and bashing it as being something in the same vein of “The Blair Witch Projects”.

Our new friend, Armond, also discusses that its CGI is poor and fails to convince you that there is actually a spaceship hovering over Johannesburg. On behalf of Peter Jackson, I’m sorry you didn’t get the update that this is actually just a movie, but I am overwhelmed with pride that you, a movie critic, was able to discern a fake alien aircraft from that of a real alien aircraft.

He seems to think that even after all this if you can ignore the “comic book logic” and “mangled anthropology” that you may enjoy it. You also need to be able to withstand all of the racial stereotypes or else it “stops making sense and becomes careless agitation using social fears and filmmaking tropes Blomkamp and Jackson are ill-equipped to control.”

Fools will accept District 9 for fantasy, yet its use of parable and symbolism also evoke the almost total misunderstanding that surrounds the circumstance of racial confusion and frustration recently seen when Harvard University tycoon Henry Louis Gates Jr. played the race card against a white Cambridge cop. Opening so soon after that event—and adding to its unending media distortion—District 9 confirms that few media makers know how to perceive history, race and class relations.

Clearly few media reviewers know how to perceive history, race and class relations as accurately as you. You further prove your unbiased and off-the-wall consistency when you wrote this gem in a review of “Dance Flick”:

Dance Flick’s raucous satire rescues us from the insult of movies like High School Musical 3, Step Up, Crunk and Save the Last Dance.Yes, Dance Flick’s white girl (Shoshana Bush) falls for black boy (Damon Wayans, Jr.) plot is just a pretext for comic vignettes—like an extended episode of the old In Living Color TV series—but it’s more invigorating than Chicago, Dreamgirls or Hairspray.These post–Hollywood Shuffle years have given way to the Obama years’ post-racial potential, thus,Wayans comedy ignores most pieties. There’s a lesson to be learned from this.

Mr. White, while I will forever defend your right to say what you will about movies (however ad hoc it may be) I can only award you 2 Bill Pullmans out of 5 Jeff Goldblums (conversion is roughly 1 Bill Pullman per 2 Jeff Goldblums). Next time you review a film, do so with an open mind, it’s overly obvious that you went into this film expecting to hate it, and that’s just not fair.