The reason it irks me is because it has nothing to do with the quality of the film, which this list is ostensibly based on. What if the suggestion was, "There aren't enough movies that start with the letter F, Spike you should add some so as not seem letterist."
Taking the sex of the director, or writer, or lighting tech, into account weakens the list because you're introducing noise into your criteria.
>quality of the film, which this list is ostensibly based on.
No, the list is of "must watch" films for aspiring artists. Certainly quality will be a factor, but artistic diversity is far more important. A crappy film that demonstrates a unique style of direction is far more important than more high quality examples of common styles.
And when seeking artistic diversity, it's not unreasonable to suggest that lack of diversity of artists might indicate oversights.
Most commenters seem to be assuming that he took his original criteria seriously and the result happened to be one that some people found offensive. I think that's assuming the best. Meanwhile, those offended seem to be assuming the worst - some sort of bias.
>Most commenters seem to be assuming that he took his original criteria seriously ... Meanwhile, those offended seem to be assuming the worst - some sort of bias.
Firstly, I'm not offended by the original list, and I don't think many people were. Most people arguing here are offended by the reaction to the additions.
But more importantly, I don't think someone has to be biased to simply not think of particular films when compiling his list, nor do I think one has to be "not taking it seriously" in order to do so.
Taking the sex of the director, or writer, or lighting tech, into account weakens the list because you're introducing noise into your criteria.