I saw the other day that Criticwire had a post about "cinematic blind spots," which seemed kind of interesting as a concept. I took "blind spot" to mean something a given critic didn't actually get, couldn't find a viable access to, or something. I wondered if what I experience in relation to Moretti is a blind spot. His films are recieved by many critics with a great deal of enthusiasm, and of the three films by him I've seen, The Son's Room, The Caiman, and now, We Have A Pope, I think each subsequent one is even worse than the other, and I didn't think The Son's Room was that great to begin with. But this isn't a blind spot in terms of being unable to access Moretti's film's; I think I "get" them just fine. I just don't think they're any GOOD, and when I read other accounts of them that do advocate in their favor, I'm mystified, because whatever the other critic is praising, I've never actually seen it on screen. I remember The Caiman in particular seeming kind of promising—hard to screw up with something like Berlusconi as your subject—and then evanescing into a mist of bland postmodernism and pro forma filmmaker self-involvement. So why this stuff gets praised, let alone even minimally imported to the States...that's my blind spot.
As it happened, though, what the Criticwire post meant by "blind spots," were films the surveyed critics hadn't actually seen, and were ashamed of having not seen, and stuff. Which is, as far as I'm concerned, a less interesting topic, because, really, do you honestly believe that if,say, Christy Lemire finally sits in front of The Searchers, it's gonna rock her world to the extent that it'll actually change her way of seeing and writing? No.