Rob, coincidentally, I'm in the middle of Rosenbaum's book Movie Wars (2000). Here's an interesting excerpt:

"The whole notion of expertise in film criticism is cripplingly tautological: according to current practice in the United States, a "film expert" is someone who writes or braodcasts about film, full stop, yet most "film epxerts" are hired not on the basis of their knowledge about film but because of their capacity to reflect the existing tastes of the public. The late Serge Daney understood this phenomenon perfectly--and made it clear that it was far from exclusively American--when he remarked that the media "ask those who know nothing to represent the ignorance of the public and, in doing so, to legitimize it.""

That's it right there.

Strangely enough, I think a fear of ignorance often drives film criticism.

I never mind ignorance from someone who is itchin' to correct it or willing to defer to someone more informed. Having acquired my film knowledge in hiccups, with huge holes in my experience, I'm woefully ignorant of film in general. But what I hate hate hate is seeing a critic bury that, sweep it under the rug, because great films and filmmakers are swept up with those crumbs. Stifling curiosity just to be right seems like a lousy way to filter the information glut.

I guess that's the circle Daney is talking about. The world — coverage of the world — is easier if we can all agree that some of it doesn't exist. This allows a critic to take a shortcut from ignorance to knowledge, snap, like that.

But knowledge and ignorance are neutral. Curiosity is attractive.

"Many a taste maker will pat his or her belly and say too full..."

Rob, I've been finding lately that the critics I like to read the most are often the ones that are "bulimically inclined," (per Quintin) with a great, varied and insatiable appetite. Not coincidentally, they often seem like some of the most open-minded and curious critics around. e.g. Adrian Martin; Olaf Möller; the late Raymond Durgnat; and Rosenbaum, of course. They are inspirational; they show me how limitless the planet of cinema really is. And I find myself heading over to Netflix to add a bunch of films to my queue every time I read them!

Thanks for the plug Rob. I was reading your post, and said to myself "Yay, here's another post I could use for my series", and then I saw the link at the end. :)

I'm not sure yet if it will fit in Insularity (#13), or in Equivalency (#23), because what you point out is both the self-limitation of a critic's choice and the disregard for disparity.
Thanks for the citation Girish, I can use this too (Credentials #21)

The only disturbing thing in this is the "white lie" of conveniently ignoring the alternative culture we don't grasp in order to get a more respectable face in public. Nobody can see all (that's why there is only true criticism collegially), so it's better to define the scope of comparison when using all-encompassing / hyperbolic adjectives. But critics don't like to draw attention to what they don't know. It's funny to listen to a panel of critics, when they disagree they always try to bring up a film reference the other cannot argue.

Harry, you've worked your series out at least to #23? You are organized.

Way to be positive, Girish. And bookmarkable. Quintin has an interesting way to slice the community, although I think in this particular instance I'm more irked by people who silently ignore what they haven't seen even while using "all-encompassing / hyberbolic adjectives". I don't mind that a critic has seen only 40 of 200 movies at Toronto, because who can process many more than that? I just object to the dismissal of the unseen 160 with phrases like "by far the best film" dot dot dot. (Easy to Google.)

Anyway, I'm not meaning to be too cranky. I just found Rosenbaum's attitude refreshing but sadly rare in this sort of coverage.

Well I couldn't write the first post of the series until I had a coherent list, and it took me 1 year to get a list that long... Thanks for the help Rob, you're welcome to contribute to the series if you like.

You're right, the critics don't voice out this absurdity enough, but I guess th problem is with the editorial line of the press. News outlets want definite judgements, ratings, they don't have space for digressions and context... And critics are often content not to have to ponder over this. So it's a vicious circle.

At Reverse Shot, the conclude their (collective!) coverage of NYFF with 18 reviews (allegly half of the offering) by saying it's the most extensive around... And I count about 50 films, plus all the Avant Garde program and the Janus retrospective!
Acquarello covered 24 reviews by himself.

This is especially true in festivals, where readers expect to get an idea of "color"/"standard" of the whole package, as a gauge of cinema health that year. But we see this type of oblivious blind spots in weekly reviews too (and online of course).

Girish responds with Five Hungry Men.

Harry, you mentioned Reverse Shot and only a few days later they post this: Too...Many...Movies.

I actually like Reverse Shot quite a bit, largely because their tastes often align with mine. This is an interesting case because at first glance — following your link above — I would give them high marks for clarifying how many films they covered. That's all I ask. I'm not seeking more coverage but more transparency about the incompleteness of all coverage.

But you're right, by gum, 18 films is "just over half" only by some already reductive mathematics.

As always, Acquarello's one-critic onslaught is a force to be reckoned with.

Hehe, do you think it is a coincidence?

I didn't mean to pick on them, I like RS too. A fallacy is a one-time mistake. It would get embarassing only if it keeps coming up systematically without check.

I agree with you, a full coverage is less important than a trustworthy coverage. But transparency and self-criticism (of one's own review) are what give a review its full (relative) authority.

Speaking of Rosenbaum, he shattered an illusion I had about critics and helped me feel less inhibited by the size of my need-to-see list. About his Canonical top1000 he admited one of his most blatent blind spot was Fanny And Alexander. It suddenly changed my perception of "venerable erudit critics" because I thought they had seen all "must-see films". Today there are too many existing films to "have seen" everything that needs to be seen, thus it is possible to be meaningful without a complete culture.
This is what makes Rosenbaum a great critic. His ability to self-awareness and relativisation. He doesn't need cheap tricks to boost his credibility though. ;)

On topic here, I just received the new issue of Film Comment. To take an example, Mark Olsen's article on TIFF 06 has the glum headline "Low Voltage: A lackluster year still managed to turn up one film that exceeded expectations."

Doesn't sound like the TIFF I attended, that's for sure!

(btw, the film in question in the headline is Shane Meadows' This is England.)

Heh, interesting that it sort of illustrates the point in two ways. Many of us commented on how many great films we saw at TIFF this year and wondered if TIFF '06 was -- to paraphrase Stephen Colbert -- a great festival or the greatest festival.

And yet, I don't remember talking to anyone about This is England or even hearing about it! Yet another potentially excellent film out there that fell through the cracks.