Classics and classism: (It’s okay to like the donkey movie)
In December of the previous year, Letterboxd interviewed the cast of “Poor Things” on a red carpet. The premise was simple: list four of your favorite movies. Now if you were told that the video was in any way controversial, you’d probably bet that it had to be because of one of the films mentioned. That bet, however, would cause a hit to your wallet. It’s clear that social media savvy audiences are a lot more vigilant about the power of promotion, and how certain things just shouldn’t be introduced to the larger consciousness no matter how historical or artful they may be.
Things started off benign enough. Just jokes about how no one has seen any of them. But that jovial nature quickly turned into annoyance. Then faster than you can say Yorgos, the cast is being accused of pretentiousness and classism. As well as choosing films for cool points, rather than genuine interest. Going back to the social media savvy comment, if this describes you, then this derailing shouldn’t be that surprising. For one the, the public has been trying to champion “low brow” cinema for awhile now. And secondly, classist seems to be taking fascist places as the go to buzz insult. Both of which are flawed in the case of the TikTok, in a way that is separate but kind of the same.
Pretentiousness
Starting with the pretentiousness, what even is highbrow and lowbrow cinema? Well, we first see the term highbrow as a theory of science in the late 1800s. The idea was that people of sophistication would have a higher brow line than the average Joe. A lot of scientists in the 1800s were obsessed with physical traits that made you better than other people, and just like many other phrases and ideas that have evolved since then, this is bonk and makes no sense. But you can see how it led to a metaphorical meaning in art.
There are certain films that make you highbrow and there are certain films that make you lowbrow. And the takeaway today definitely should not be that interrogating which goes where is a fruitless endeavor. Most films have artistry and ignoring that because of where the movie came from is also bonk. With that being said, movies that are unpopular and generally inaccessible can also be good. It’s happened before.
Classism
I’d even add onto that in some cases, there’s a reason why a film is held to the standard which it is. For an example, let’s use Yorgos Lanthimos’ pick, “Au Hasard Balthzar.” It was directed Robert Bresson, a French director, notorious for his very rigid ideals about filmmaking. To him, the camera should be able to convey everything about your story. Any deepest of your characters, any gripping suspense of your story; all of it right there in the camera. His movies have very little dialogue and never deviate from something non-diegetic within the frame.
So, for example, if he wants you to see a tree, he would only do so if a character was facing that tree or walking toward that tree. He would never use an insert of a tree. Bresson’s allure isn’t that he is foreign and gets you brownie points. It’s that he has given himself very strict rules for filmmaking, and if you respect the craft, it’s fun to watch him work through those rules to still make engaging and unique stories.
Like the donkey movie…
Again, it’s 100% fine to critique the fact that filmmakers, like Bresson, usually require someone being upper middle class to get to see his filmography. But that doesn’t mean that someone who likes him is lying or that they only like him because they want you to think their super indie. Some people do just like movies. And the same way that you’d like to celebrate the films that you enjoy removed from how culturally relevant they are, can we not afford the same luxury to those making films? No? Okay.
