I mentioned this several months ago, following…I think , but here is another reminder from the Guardian. The films that get the most coverage by critics are the big Hollywood blockbusters, which would get coverage ANYWAY because of the studio publicity machines. I mean, nobody really needs critics to tell them that Spider-Man 3 is coming out this summer, right? And is a review really going to influence your decision to see it, whether the review is positive or negative? For some fence-sitters, yeah, maybe, but most everyone already knows whether or not they’re the sort of person that’s going to like the third installment of a superhero franchise. Critics would be put to better use highlighting smaller films that might otherwise be missed in the mainstream rush. Not that I’m saying this would make an overnight difference in the audience split between mainstream and indie/foreign film, but even increasing awareness for alternative films would be a help. Plus, wouldn’t it make the critics a lot happier to get to lead with films they actually like and want to see do well than yet another big Hollywood blockbuster? (I’m not against Hollywood blockbusters, but I do get bored with their ubiquity.)

One of the commenters on the Guardian piece does bring up an interesting point, though, that critics get SO excited about the little films sometimes (because they’re different or innovative in a way that Hollywood usually isn’t) that they overhype them too much and thus audiences who do seek out these films are disappointed. I’ve been there, too. It’s a balancing act.