Written by Elsa Barbier and Sophie Alcock
Illustrated by Paavas Bansal
In Defense of Democratised Cinema – Sophie Alcock
Cinema is a hub of brutal and vicious debate, but isn’t that true of all art? Some argue cinema is a new realm for cinephiles, critics and academics to demonstrate their cultural dominance over general audiences. Their cultural capital, accumulated through watching renowned classics and reading academic literature, is said to be used against the average film enthusiast, thus gatekeeping cinema and turning it into a class debate. However cinema, like all arts, is subjective and aims to evoke emotion or interest, therefore it will not be equally impressive to everyone, critics included. While great films can make audiences feel the range of emotions the filmmakers intended, the reality is for most films this isn’t as clear cut. Perhaps what we see is a democratisation in the distribution, consumption and criticism in cinema and film theory on a broader scale than other art forms. The more participation there is, the more perspectives represented – and with it, more arguments about those perspectives.
While leaving a screening, hearing an audience member ask ‘what was the point of that?’ is a marker of a bad film. Given the current ubiquity of film and TV, general audiences (on average) should naturally have a better understanding of the art form and its techniques. If an audience member cannot understand its intention in any form, it is wise to question how successful the film is in the first place. It may sound esoteric, but at the end of the day every film is created as an experiment or exploration into a subject or theme, such as a study on humanity and nature or an introspective on grief. This extends to films we perceive to have not so high brow themes, such as Scott Pilgrim vs the World (2010) or any Marvel movie: they can be considered as explorations of genres, namely the exploration of film as an adaptation medium for comic book source material. If a film fails to make these subjects and themes easily understood by the viewer, then it frankly fails at the premise of cinema as art. Even the critic should be struck at an emotional or intellectual level in some way simply by immersing themself into the film. In this way, everyone is a critic; if a film fails to capture your attention or is difficult to interpret, perhaps it is simply a bad film.
Even with vocabulary of film-making and film language, the cinephiles are split about the inherent ‘value’ of a film. While many acclaimed films are heralded by the vast majority of critics, consensus is not usually found so easily. For example, Speed Racer (2008) is seen as a ‘low brow’ film by many but viewed by some as an accomplishment by others due to the technical achievements in editing.The film succeeds insofar as its ability to create the fast-paced and manic feel of racing. Ratings are heavily divided for the film, with a small cult following behind it. The Room (2003) is undoubtedly a fan favourite: it’s popular enough to have monthly screenings at the Prince Charles Cinema. It is also known as one of the worst films ever made, packed with terrible dialogue, melodramatic performances and strange directorial choices. Critics abhor the film, but no one can take their eyes off the trainwreck of the film once it starts. Although you may have the ‘cultural capital’ allowing you to analyse films, cult classics and fan favourites are not necessarily chosen using this capital.
This leaves us to question, who determines rankings or awards for film? Many would argue the Academy Awards is the most prestigious or valuable prize, however it is just one metric of accomplishment based on members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. If you look around, there are cult classics lurking in every corner, emphasising genres like comedy and horror which tend to be neglected by the Academy and are possibly seen as ‘low brow’. Websites which poll general audiences, such as Rotten Tomatoes or Letterboxd, generate different rankings too. Large film studios focus more on the economic side of things, ranking releases which produce the most profit and exploiting the intellectual property by making sequels. Academics could find different aspects of popular films interesting to study, and look into areas such as representation in popular media. However, the experimental and theoretical aspects tend not to be found in popular films. As popular films search for large box office returns, they choose not to alienate the general audience by following standard conventions over the avant-garde, which warrants criticism from those who have refined their taste in cinema by understanding what they like and don’t like. Even for those who don’t consider themselves critically engaged with film, they are still film critics in their own right; like the armchair film critic, they accumulate their own cultural capital through watching films. General audience reactions are also important for what gets produced when studios choose which scripts reach the box office, and are thus a factor in the production of cultural capital on a bigger scale.
At the same time, I can appreciate that film critics may come off as ‘elitist’ and intimidating to the average person. However, the realm of symbolic violence might not stem from elitism, but rather from the arrogance and inflexibility of opinions from a few. There is nothing wrong with a favourite director or film, but the problem stems from believing you, and only you, hold the right opinions. Art is about experimentation and expression. If someone is unwilling to try seriously viewing a film, then are they truly acting in good spirit? This also follows a greater trend of debates online which quickly reach a flurry of personal attacks over civil discussion. For some, certain films speak to certain personal experiences or tastes, which could lead them to see criticism as a personal attack. My biggest gripe is the emphasis on continuity errors or small inconsistencies leading to a film being wholly written off as a ‘bad film’ by some. This may be more important to others as it takes them out of the experience, but to discredit a work, a sum of its parts larger than one error, on this ground is unreasonable. The vicious debate online may owe it to larger factors than an elitist battle against those ‘without’ capital.
At the end of the day, it has never been easier or more accessible to watch films; don’t your Letterboxd reviews hold the same weight as theirs? Don’t let arrogant people spoil enjoyment over your hobby of watching films, for it is your personal enjoyment and the films that resonate the most with you that counts. Cinema, like all art, has been democratised with the advent of the internet, with free or cheap mass access to video essays or other film critiques online as a venue for people to educate themselves on film theory. This fundamentally changes the barriers to entry to cinema as a domain, resulting in more people debating it. There will always be levels of capital in the arts, in the same way we as university students are gaining the capital in our respective subjects. This does not mean, however, that cinema is inherently elitist as a subject.
Intellectual Elitism in Film – Elsa Barbier
‘Watching film’ has taken on a new meaning in our modern society. One cannot just claim they ‘like film’ anymore without backing this up by listing Quentin Tarantino’s entire filmography, having a ‘tasteful’ Letterboxd account and, exclusively watching culte, deep, cinematographic masterpieces that critique society. Labelling yourself as someone who enjoys film carries with it the assumption that you are an intellect who has watched every underground film ever created, of course with the ability to regurgitate the director’s exact intentions and its deeper intellectual meaning.
It would be interesting to trace back to the moment when movies, phenomena invented for the purpose of leisurely storytelling and entertainment (even social commentary), were turned into weapons against the non-intellect. A possible contributing factor to this over-intellectualization of film could be the increased availability of media. CDs, streaming services online, TVs–the fact that film now largely surrounds us opens up the opportunity to engage in critical and rigorous scholarly discussions, and to relish those famed ‘iconic films’. Of course, this is in no way a bad thing; using our time to watch culturally significant films and unearthing their impact or meaning is a great way to gain important knowledge. But the extreme to which this has been taken is the troubling part; individuals now cannot fathom how one who claims to watch film wouldn’t have anything to say about its deeper meaning and doesn’t immediately adopt a critical angle. This vast availability in film allows even elitism to become further entrenched due to individuals’ differential access. Although it may seem film is everywhere–is it really? Unfortunately not. Vast access to highbrow culture is severely limited by one’s social standing and class. Not everyone can afford to attend revival cinemas, or even what seems like a basic Netflix subscription. Thus film elitism subtly evokes class inequalities, shaming those less able to afford notable film exposure and overlooking that gaps in film knowledge are often not deliberate or within one’s control. This expectation of film requiring a certain cultural knowledge encouraged by its vast availability has only been bolstered by the simultaneous rise and interest in film studies and essays, in academia as much as in media platforms. In sum, it seems film as a hobby has become over-intellectualised, and has taken an elitist turn.
This arrogance now embedded in film culture has led film to evolve almost as a niche industry. Being able to call yourself a ‘film person’ has become increasingly challenging with its exclusivity now ossified. I can’t recall a time where I’ve said I studied IB Film and wasn’t expected to flash my Letterboxd account like a cop to their badge. Through this film-rating app, the competition of intellectualism is encouraged, enabling film bros to judge your opinions and evaluate your film expertise. If one doesn’t have it, then they simply can’t be a genuine film person.
I long for a world where I can say ‘I like film’ without facing disapproval for saying I didn’t like Taxi Driver, or haven’t watched The Godfather. Of course I’ll get to them eventually, but I shouldn’t be watching them out of peer pressure, and watching them shouldn’t be the deciding factor of whether or not I’m a film enthusiast. I long for a world where showing interest in film doesn’t become a competition of cultural assets, but one where film is appreciated for its original intent.
