Yes! The whole post is quotable; I entirely agree. I think Asian cinema is still telling good stories, but Hollywood seems out of touch. (Compare the Chinese TV adaptation of The Three-Body Problem with the Netflix version.) You mentioned "Everything, Everywhere,...". Another good example.
Modern western storytelling seems to me to have devolved to a narcissistic need for self-reflection. The need people have to "see themselves" in stories. Because modern culture is so traumatic (just scroll through Notes here), this leads to stories centered on our trauma.
Re characters drowning in their own trauma, private detective stories started doing that decades ago (to the point it was parodied). Lee Child's Jack Reacher stories feature a deliberate anti-anti-hero, a good old fashioned Lone Ranger type. We readers and viewers do indeed crave joy as well as sorrow. I'm reminded of the Lucinda Williams song. "I don't want you anymore 'cause you took my joy..."
I think the source of this problem is that filmmakers are scared to make movies about regular people. The more interconnected our society has become, the less we know about whatever amalgamation exists of the average person. This was easier for filmmakers in the seventies, for example, because you had angry white guys making movies about angry white guys. Now, we all have our news, our social media feeds, showing us an overwhelmingly large world. If you're a storyteller trying to tell a personal story, it can be intimidating to be inclusive. For example -- I have no gay friends -- what happens if I write something that reflects that? Etc.
Of course, another part of that is the auteur system where the director thinks he's (pretty much always he) the star. There are a lot of reasons why we don't have movie stars anymore but one of the biggest one is that filmmakers don't like actors. So they don't want to show actors emoting, actors crying, actors eating, actors thinking. We are all naturally inclined to like people, and it feels like contemporary movies contradict this.
Such a thoughtful comment, thank you for this! 100% agreed. From my conversations with filmmakers, it seems that this fear is most certainly there. The other thing is that unfortunately film festivals/prestigious awards do seem to confuse self-important with actually great cinema, which results in more and more films in that vein being produced (see: endless stream of unnecessary biopics 😒)
Frankly, I'd love to see more movies about people who have meals, who use the bathroom, who have sex, who get sick. It feels like we've sucked every variable of a human life out of contemporary movies. You can be, say, a burnt out renegade cop who also has IBS, likes dirty jokes and has talk-radio-specific thoughts on their favorite football team.
Well, I see a lot of films that are pretty small but have these attributes. I think the recent indie, "Didi", touched on this, in that It was about a young American teenager who was genuinely awkward, and not, like, "cinematically quirky". He seemed like a character for whom, if he got his shirt dirty, it would be a plot point. "Didi", with a few tweaks, could have been a studio movie thirty years ago, instead of seeming like this tiny niche product that only a handful of people actually saw.
Your description of Anora's reminded me of two films that DO find a balance trauma and levity: Parasite and Zola.
Based on your description of Anora (I haven't seen it; it's not out in Australia yet) it sounds like it has the exact same screwball/serious split as Parasite (people often forget how funny the first half of that movie is!). It makes me wonder if we're gonna see more genre-hopping movies in the awards circuit soon as it seems to be a model viewers respond to? (One could argue that Barbie also fits this model.)
As for Zola—this line "constant exposure to trauma-heavy narratives actually numbs viewers rather than deepening their engagement" made me think of that film. In terms of content it sounds like Anora and Zola are cinematic cousins, and what's so striking about that film is because it's an adaptation of a Twitter thread, it's got that numbness baked in—characters chasing extremes only to realise they've fallen in too deep.
What's curious to me is that Parasite hit it big with awards while Zola sort of vanished. Yes, there's the pandemic in there, but that's only a partial factor. I think the difference is that Parasite ends on a grim note, while Zola is more ambivalent, maybe even a little optimistic in a sick kind of way. Do you think there's a way to create a "serious movie" that uses comedy where levity is the goal rather than a tool? Because until we get to that point it feels as if we're not really subverting the trauma plot exactly, just adding a few more spices onto the same old stew.
Love this comparison - you're so right about people forgetting how funny Parasite's first half is! That under-the-table scene is pure screwball comedy... until it absolutely isn't.
Your Parasite/Zola parallel is fascinating and hits on something I've been mulling since writing this piece. Both films weaponize humor brilliantly, showing how absurdity and horror are often conjoined twins. But I think you've nailed why one became a phenomenon while the other (criminally) faded: it's about the landing. Parasite's ending feels "serious" in a way that satisfies our cultural bias toward gravitas, while Zola's more ambiguous tone (which I'd argue is actually more honest) leaves us uncertain how to categorize it.
Your question about creating "serious" comedy where levity is the actual point rather than just a tool is keeping me up at night. Maybe what we need isn't more films that use comedy to tackle trauma, but films that treat joy and humor as equally worthy subjects of serious artistic consideration?
(And yes - Barbie fits this model to the extent, though I don't think it said anything revolutionary from an emotional/cultural insight POV. It was good fun though!)
Yes, this repetitious revelation of some trauma in cinema today. It's an obsession that brings sex and violence in as well, ruining everything when it's done poorly. There are GREAT films about mental illness but we're getting very ponderous with it and I'm not sure how I feel about it being normalised as mainstream product. I miss movies like "Y Yu Mama Tambien" - fun sex movies - even "The Comfort of Strangers," as a recent watch for me . . . It exceeded my expectation as that FUN kind of 50s-90s thriller.
I love your passion but I believe this is a debatable view. If I close my left eye, and focus on the overly self-serious, grim, and trauma-heavy movies, then yes, you're right. But if I close my right eye, I can also see all the satires, the over-the-top examinations of life and its absurdities that build on fun while also capturing something painful, solemn, or movingly tragic aspect. It's all about balance.
You bring up Sean Baker and Anora, but you could cite any of his movies as an example of keeping a balance between fun and drama That's his specialty, always aiming to hit the sweet spot, which is what gives his films a trademark style and approach to any topic.
I'm also getting tired of "trauma" in horrors but even that trend is shifting. See: The Substance, the Terrifier franchise, or It's What's Inside, very recent features putting an emphasis on pure fun instead of overwhelming misery. Filmmakers create their own visions about the things they're passionate about. Sure, they can follow trends if they want to, but I don't think anybody forces their hands to do something specific. "Prestigious" can mean different things to each person.
And today there are so many options to find fun movies not just the current "big" releases in cinema. There are fantastic indie films that don't make it to theaters but become available elsewhere. There's streaming. Both types of films can coexist and it's up to you to find what you want to see, what you need, what you prefer. Nobody is making you watch all the dreadful "prestigious" dramas that look and feel miserable. You have a choice -- and the same goes for filmmakers. We have an overwhelming amount of features to choose from, we just need to explore and widen our exposure to what's available.
That said, I appreciate that you dug deep with this, covering many angles, and it was a truly thought-provoking read. Keep it up. You have a great writing voice.
First off - thank you for this incredibly thoughtful response and compliment. You're absolutely right that we need to acknowledge the brilliant work happening in the margins.
Yes, I believe films like The Substance prove the essay's point to an extent (though I haven’t and cannot see it due to the excessive body horror). I hope this piece didn’t come across as ‘everything needs to be laugh-out-loud funny!’ but more making an argument in favor of how contrast and tonal variety can make even the heaviest themes land harder. That's exactly the kind of storytelling intelligence I'm hoping we start celebrating more.
You also make an excellent point about Sean Baker - he's the perfect example of what I believe the industry should be on the lookout for (just like Daniels, Panahi, Joon-ho, Almodovar etc also mentioned in the essay). And while you're right that both serious and lighter films exist (some of these mentioned in the essay too), I'm particularly interested in how industry gatekeepers (festivals, awards, major studios) tend to favor one approach over the other when it comes to 'important' stories. Even with viewer choice and streaming options (which you rightly point out), these institutional biases shape what gets funded and which stories reach wider audiences. Sure, filmmakers have creative freedom - in theory. But when the path to prestige and funding is paved with self-serious Oscar bait that mistakes relentless misery for depth...well, that's how we end up with the 47th biopic where an actor transforms themselves to prove they're Serious Artists™.
That said, your point about the wealth of options available rings true - and exactly why newsletters like this exist: to champion films that understand the power of emotional orchestration over //performative gravitas//. Really appreciate you expanding this conversation with such nuance ❤️
Yes! The whole post is quotable; I entirely agree. I think Asian cinema is still telling good stories, but Hollywood seems out of touch. (Compare the Chinese TV adaptation of The Three-Body Problem with the Netflix version.) You mentioned "Everything, Everywhere,...". Another good example.
Modern western storytelling seems to me to have devolved to a narcissistic need for self-reflection. The need people have to "see themselves" in stories. Because modern culture is so traumatic (just scroll through Notes here), this leads to stories centered on our trauma.
Re characters drowning in their own trauma, private detective stories started doing that decades ago (to the point it was parodied). Lee Child's Jack Reacher stories feature a deliberate anti-anti-hero, a good old fashioned Lone Ranger type. We readers and viewers do indeed crave joy as well as sorrow. I'm reminded of the Lucinda Williams song. "I don't want you anymore 'cause you took my joy..."
Couldn't agree with you more!
Gonna see anora this weekend finally then I’ll come back to this!
yay, looking forward to your reaction!
I think the source of this problem is that filmmakers are scared to make movies about regular people. The more interconnected our society has become, the less we know about whatever amalgamation exists of the average person. This was easier for filmmakers in the seventies, for example, because you had angry white guys making movies about angry white guys. Now, we all have our news, our social media feeds, showing us an overwhelmingly large world. If you're a storyteller trying to tell a personal story, it can be intimidating to be inclusive. For example -- I have no gay friends -- what happens if I write something that reflects that? Etc.
Of course, another part of that is the auteur system where the director thinks he's (pretty much always he) the star. There are a lot of reasons why we don't have movie stars anymore but one of the biggest one is that filmmakers don't like actors. So they don't want to show actors emoting, actors crying, actors eating, actors thinking. We are all naturally inclined to like people, and it feels like contemporary movies contradict this.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Such a thoughtful comment, thank you for this! 100% agreed. From my conversations with filmmakers, it seems that this fear is most certainly there. The other thing is that unfortunately film festivals/prestigious awards do seem to confuse self-important with actually great cinema, which results in more and more films in that vein being produced (see: endless stream of unnecessary biopics 😒)
Frankly, I'd love to see more movies about people who have meals, who use the bathroom, who have sex, who get sick. It feels like we've sucked every variable of a human life out of contemporary movies. You can be, say, a burnt out renegade cop who also has IBS, likes dirty jokes and has talk-radio-specific thoughts on their favorite football team.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
What's the last film you saw that was a bit like that?
Well, I see a lot of films that are pretty small but have these attributes. I think the recent indie, "Didi", touched on this, in that It was about a young American teenager who was genuinely awkward, and not, like, "cinematically quirky". He seemed like a character for whom, if he got his shirt dirty, it would be a plot point. "Didi", with a few tweaks, could have been a studio movie thirty years ago, instead of seeming like this tiny niche product that only a handful of people actually saw.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Your description of Anora's reminded me of two films that DO find a balance trauma and levity: Parasite and Zola.
Based on your description of Anora (I haven't seen it; it's not out in Australia yet) it sounds like it has the exact same screwball/serious split as Parasite (people often forget how funny the first half of that movie is!). It makes me wonder if we're gonna see more genre-hopping movies in the awards circuit soon as it seems to be a model viewers respond to? (One could argue that Barbie also fits this model.)
As for Zola—this line "constant exposure to trauma-heavy narratives actually numbs viewers rather than deepening their engagement" made me think of that film. In terms of content it sounds like Anora and Zola are cinematic cousins, and what's so striking about that film is because it's an adaptation of a Twitter thread, it's got that numbness baked in—characters chasing extremes only to realise they've fallen in too deep.
What's curious to me is that Parasite hit it big with awards while Zola sort of vanished. Yes, there's the pandemic in there, but that's only a partial factor. I think the difference is that Parasite ends on a grim note, while Zola is more ambivalent, maybe even a little optimistic in a sick kind of way. Do you think there's a way to create a "serious movie" that uses comedy where levity is the goal rather than a tool? Because until we get to that point it feels as if we're not really subverting the trauma plot exactly, just adding a few more spices onto the same old stew.
Love this comparison - you're so right about people forgetting how funny Parasite's first half is! That under-the-table scene is pure screwball comedy... until it absolutely isn't.
Your Parasite/Zola parallel is fascinating and hits on something I've been mulling since writing this piece. Both films weaponize humor brilliantly, showing how absurdity and horror are often conjoined twins. But I think you've nailed why one became a phenomenon while the other (criminally) faded: it's about the landing. Parasite's ending feels "serious" in a way that satisfies our cultural bias toward gravitas, while Zola's more ambiguous tone (which I'd argue is actually more honest) leaves us uncertain how to categorize it.
Your question about creating "serious" comedy where levity is the actual point rather than just a tool is keeping me up at night. Maybe what we need isn't more films that use comedy to tackle trauma, but films that treat joy and humor as equally worthy subjects of serious artistic consideration?
(And yes - Barbie fits this model to the extent, though I don't think it said anything revolutionary from an emotional/cultural insight POV. It was good fun though!)
Yes, this repetitious revelation of some trauma in cinema today. It's an obsession that brings sex and violence in as well, ruining everything when it's done poorly. There are GREAT films about mental illness but we're getting very ponderous with it and I'm not sure how I feel about it being normalised as mainstream product. I miss movies like "Y Yu Mama Tambien" - fun sex movies - even "The Comfort of Strangers," as a recent watch for me . . . It exceeded my expectation as that FUN kind of 50s-90s thriller.
I love your passion but I believe this is a debatable view. If I close my left eye, and focus on the overly self-serious, grim, and trauma-heavy movies, then yes, you're right. But if I close my right eye, I can also see all the satires, the over-the-top examinations of life and its absurdities that build on fun while also capturing something painful, solemn, or movingly tragic aspect. It's all about balance.
You bring up Sean Baker and Anora, but you could cite any of his movies as an example of keeping a balance between fun and drama That's his specialty, always aiming to hit the sweet spot, which is what gives his films a trademark style and approach to any topic.
I'm also getting tired of "trauma" in horrors but even that trend is shifting. See: The Substance, the Terrifier franchise, or It's What's Inside, very recent features putting an emphasis on pure fun instead of overwhelming misery. Filmmakers create their own visions about the things they're passionate about. Sure, they can follow trends if they want to, but I don't think anybody forces their hands to do something specific. "Prestigious" can mean different things to each person.
And today there are so many options to find fun movies not just the current "big" releases in cinema. There are fantastic indie films that don't make it to theaters but become available elsewhere. There's streaming. Both types of films can coexist and it's up to you to find what you want to see, what you need, what you prefer. Nobody is making you watch all the dreadful "prestigious" dramas that look and feel miserable. You have a choice -- and the same goes for filmmakers. We have an overwhelming amount of features to choose from, we just need to explore and widen our exposure to what's available.
That said, I appreciate that you dug deep with this, covering many angles, and it was a truly thought-provoking read. Keep it up. You have a great writing voice.
First off - thank you for this incredibly thoughtful response and compliment. You're absolutely right that we need to acknowledge the brilliant work happening in the margins.
Yes, I believe films like The Substance prove the essay's point to an extent (though I haven’t and cannot see it due to the excessive body horror). I hope this piece didn’t come across as ‘everything needs to be laugh-out-loud funny!’ but more making an argument in favor of how contrast and tonal variety can make even the heaviest themes land harder. That's exactly the kind of storytelling intelligence I'm hoping we start celebrating more.
You also make an excellent point about Sean Baker - he's the perfect example of what I believe the industry should be on the lookout for (just like Daniels, Panahi, Joon-ho, Almodovar etc also mentioned in the essay). And while you're right that both serious and lighter films exist (some of these mentioned in the essay too), I'm particularly interested in how industry gatekeepers (festivals, awards, major studios) tend to favor one approach over the other when it comes to 'important' stories. Even with viewer choice and streaming options (which you rightly point out), these institutional biases shape what gets funded and which stories reach wider audiences. Sure, filmmakers have creative freedom - in theory. But when the path to prestige and funding is paved with self-serious Oscar bait that mistakes relentless misery for depth...well, that's how we end up with the 47th biopic where an actor transforms themselves to prove they're Serious Artists™.
That said, your point about the wealth of options available rings true - and exactly why newsletters like this exist: to champion films that understand the power of emotional orchestration over //performative gravitas//. Really appreciate you expanding this conversation with such nuance ❤️