Food Critics

A little more food-blogging, yes? There’s an excellent story in the New Yorker this week about the (France-based) Michelin guide’s foray into rating the fine-dining of New York City. While reading it over two McDoubles and a Diet Coke in the basement of the Mazza Gallerie* I was kind of struck by their theory of criticism:

A degree in hospitality, hotel management, or cooking is mandatory for Michelin inspectors. Every job that Maxime held, from high school on, had been in the domestic food, wine, or restaurant industry. She got a master’s from N.Y.U. in food studies, and obtained a sommelier’s certification. … “It’s just technical. I mean, cooking is a science, and either it’s right or it’s wrong. And that’s something that’s very objective. Either a sauce is prepared accurately—or it’s not. A fish is cooked accurately—or it’s not.

Now, to a certain extent this is true, and it’s true in a way that my gig as a movie critic isn’t: I suppose there’s an objectively “correct” way to cook a fish, but I find it hard to say what an objectively “correct” gangster film (or ghost story or action-thriller or costume-drama) would look like.**

But I’m mildly put off by the idea that only people with a certain expertise can be trusted as a critic. Again, I understand the reasoning — if something is objectively correct or wrong then an expert needs to judge the accuracy/inaccuracy of it — but I reject the notion that we can break a dining experience down like a calculus problem. I also wonder how useful it really is for readers of the guide; after all, the average consumer isn’t an expert and doesn’t consume food the way these judges do. It all seems quite fussy and, well, French.

I feel the same way about movie criticism. I think it’s useful to have a basic understanding of film theory — indeed, I think any critic who hasn’t done at least a little research into the history of cinema and its evolution as a medium is doing himself and his readers a disservice — but I also think it would be asinine to say that only film school grads should be critics. They’re looking at things that the average audience member doesn’t care about and doesn’t even really see. Sometimes too much expertise is as much of a blinder as too much ignorance, especially when you’re trying to relate something to a general audience.

*The irony was not lost on me.

**I mean, I could pick standouts in each genre, but what exactly would it mean to say that “Goodfellas” is a “correct” gangster film?