Class critics: Lisa R. Pruitt on the film Hillbilly Elegy and popular representations of the white working class

Ever notice when a film’s audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is way off from the critics’ reviews? What’s driving that? Lisa R. Pruitt, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis, digs into the negative critical reviews of the 2020 Netflix film Hillbilly Elegy in this December 3, 2020 essay. Pruitt argues that in the case of Hillbilly Elegy, the answer may lie in the country’s “steadily growing class divide.”

Lisa R. Pruitt, "The Chattering Classes Got the ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ Book Wrong – and They’re Getting the Movie Wrong, Too," The Conversation, 3 December 2020

 

1. Pruitt’s argument responds to the difference between critical reviews of the film Hillbilly Elegy and popular, crowd-sourced audience reviews found on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. What is one reason, according to Pruitt, for this disconnect between the “chattering classes” who write and read film reviews and the “everyday viewers” who rely on popular audience reviews and scores? Check out the reviews for yourself, using the links in paragraphs 2 and 5. How are their purposes and audiences different? Which reviews do you find most relevant? Why?
   
2. What are two things that the film Hillbilly Elegy did well, according to Pruitt? Why do you think these things are important, especially in the context of the studies Pruitt cites, which show that people are less and less likely to mix across socioeconomic classes?
3. Pruitt claims she was “one of few progressive elites to push back” on the underlying argument of J.D. Vance’s bestselling 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy. What was Vance’s central message, according to Pruitt? What does Pruitt argue that Vance overlooks in his “bootstrap manifesto” story, those things that “greased the skids” of his upward class mobility? Why is this omission a problem, according to Pruitt? Use a template from Chapter 7 to compose what Pruitt’s response might be to this “So what?” question.
4. Throughout this essay, Pruitt blends academic and colloquial language, a writing strategy discussed in Chapter 9. Identify a moment where she uses this “everydayspeak.” How does this choice affect her argument? Pruitt argues that she, like Vance, straddles “two worlds”: her working-class background and her professional identity as a professor of law. How does she draw on both of these identities to establish her credibility (ethos) in this argument? Where does she make use of her working-class background? Where does she rely on her scholarship on white working-class communities in rural parts of the US?

Comments

[anonymous]

This Hillibilly(ark( 20syrman(in1977).He was married but affair young gal _? End up have two children?While Hillibilly man was in jail(burglary)and his younggal affair with his buddy had a baby then she end up give baby away to hillibilly's man sister .Throughout life had 4 boys and 4 girls live off Welfare(scamsHandouts&gambling) .Then Younggal 1990s affair another man got Pg claim it was his & but he got Tests DNA it wasnt his but Hillibilly-Gal try to Scam this man to give them money? This HillibillyYoungGal wildly jealous of her Hillibilly man if he so much talk to another gal She whip out her weapon of choice at this innocent lady .Hillibilly Young gal div/remarried Hillbilly man as a hobby lol For public purposes or Gal revenge on Hillibilly lol?Hillibilly man is buried family plot but HillbillyYounggal wed another man as soon Hillibilly is buried then She buried 60MILES AWAY IN ANOTHER CEMETERY?Their Children have record with the _& did they raise kids right ?So the moral of story ?Have heard of these people?

[Jayla Hasan]

The premise of the argument relates to the validity of published reviews from sources of critics and those of popular reviews. Lisa Pruitt substantiates her views through her elite education and an article written detailing that the objective of the story or its perception was all wrong.Pruitt utilizes her socioeconomic class and gender as a determining factor to litigate her claims. Pruitt references her credibility based on education, profession,and work background.

[Melis]

It’s Harder Than It Looks
In the last half-century, the American political scene has become increasingly uncivil, and continues to reach new heights as we enter a new decade. The barricades, which have held partisan ideals from breaking free, have finally been knocked down in a very costly battle of tug-of-war between two historic and very powerful parties. What I mean by this is that the polarization within the political scene has stretched to new lengths with political parties pulling their respective constituents farther and farther away from a mannerly middle ground. How do we, as a nation, ignore the hostility that has affected both sides and transform these negative feelings into ones of mutual understanding and acceptance? The truth is that there is no easy answer to that question. Some may offer ideal solutions such as “building new infrastructure to connect people for the purpose of coming together” across divisions, and building bridges where there were once dams (boyd 228). dahna boyd a researcher at Microsoft Research, poses a more scientific and conclusive approach to the self segregation within the United States. Theories such as boyd’s are astounding examples of the actions necessary to establish diversity within the makeup of our society; however, the difficulty of implementing ideas adds a whole other obstacle in place in order to achieve the acceptance and understanding necessary to function as a society. When people are so convinced of a false dichotomy, how can they be persuaded that a little bit of faith and trust is the key to end that misunderstanding and finally reach the bridge between political ideologies?
When attempting to convince the other side of your argument, or understanding their viewpoints, it is essential to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, and to really think hard about how and why they hold the beliefs that they do. It will be easier to convince a person with an opposing viewpoint of your argument if you are able to understand where they are coming from. By better understanding that person’s views you will be able to reason with them and show them that their ideas may not be as fool-proof as they think. Obama, the 44th president of the United States, in his address to Howard University’s graduating class of 2017, expressed the concept of “moral imaginations” (Obama 304). I completely agree with Obama’s statement that we need to use our imaginations, much like we did, when we were younger, to explore beyond the reality of our thoughts and beliefs into the reasons for the thoughts of others. To put it plainly, to step into another person's shoes. I know it’s a cliche, but taking this step to truly make an effort in understanding opposing ideas, rather than instantly rejecting them, is what will get us to create a new quid pro quo when it comes to approaching discussions and exposing ourselves to the possibility that the other side may have a point.
Another reason why it is crucial to approach disputes by aiming to grasp where the other side is coming from, is that people are more likely to listen to you if you respect their opinions, and do your best to show them your acknowledgement of a partial validity to their argument. The only way you will get into the heads of the opposing side is if they trust you enough to let you in. By showing a thoughtful understanding of their views and ideas you may get through to their logic and reason. It is important to understand that there may come a point where your own morality will not allow you to expand your views past a certain extent; however, that does not mean that you shouldn’t try to understand the people whom you can. “You got to get in his head, too.”(304) says Obama about understanding the position of a middle-aged white man, whom Obama assumes does not have the same values and ideals as his audience. This just goes to show that the first step in convincing anyone anything is understanding where they come from. To better frame a way to approach your argument, examine those exact viewpoints to find space for compromise and civil discussion. Then by showing an opposing person that you respect their right to hold a differing opinion you project that you are willing to meet in the middle.
That is all that there is to the unification of two groups, stated rather simply, both sides need to make concessions and compromises, establishing a sound and healthy relationship along the way. The use of “moral imaginations” (Obama 304) is vital to establishing a common respect between parties. You will only understand what someone is experiencing once you use your “moral imagination” and put yourself in that person’s shoes. The process of “bridging the differences that divide us” is a long and tedious one that can only succeed if all parties make an active effort to compromise with people on the other side. We as a society may only succeed once all people make an effort to rebuild our broken social framework.
Considering the predicament of the United States, I personally feel hopeless when facing the topic of “Bridging the Differences”. The nation has come to a point where people’s immediate reaction to an opposing viewpoint would be to disagree and distance themselves from the humanity of the conflicting person. As it is seen in Lisa Pruitt’s article “The Chattering Classes Got the “Hillbilly Elegy” Book Wrong - and They’re Getting the Movie Wrong, Too” Pruitt’s initial reaction is to disagree with J. D. Vance’s standpoint. Pruitt, a professor of law at the University of California, critiques Vance’s lack of acknowledgement, of the governmental organizations that may have also aided his family though their struggle, and addresses Vance’s underlying message, that it was all hard work and commitment which brought him where he is today. Pruitt expresses:
But he gives no nod to the government structures – K-12 schools, the military and the GI bill, the public university where he earned his B.A – that greased the skids of his sharp ascension into the ruling class. Worse still, Vance expressly blames laziness as the culprit of those left behind, with only cursory attention to the impact of policies that encouraged the offshoring of manufacturing jobs and weakening of the social safety net. The book is not subtle in its message: Working-class grunts are to blame for their own struggles. If they’d just get off their duffs, go to church and stay married, everything would be OK. (Pruitt)
As it is clear to the reader Pruitt expresses her dissatisfaction at Vance’s argument and overall message. This explanation of Pruitt’s personal beliefs provides her audience with a clear and critical understanding of the basis of her argument.
In her presentation of the book and movie Hillbilly Elegy Pruitt develops the argument that the reason critics gave the movie such low ratings was because they could not empathize with the events and situations presented in the movie. And that there was the possibility that the movie had not been made for the elite viewers, but for ordinary people. Pruitt presents evidence that shows “The crummy reviews ultimately evince this profound and persistent disconnect between those who write the reviews and “regular” folks. A week after its release, the film’s critic score on Rotten Tomatoes was 27, while its audience score was 82.” (Pruitt). Clearly identifying the difference between elite critics and ordinary viewers, Pruitt offers her audience an opportunity to recognize the differences between different social classes, and the growing disconnect between them. The result of the poll shows readers that the way the movie is perceived and enjoyed by people changes based on the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics that make up their lives.
Pruitt’s claims of the movie being misinterpreted and mistreated by the press and elite critics is an argument in itself. Pruitt demonstrates a person who is able to disagree with a claim or piece of reasoning, but acknowledge that it is not being treated fairly by others. This goes to show that everyday people have the ability to be civil when approaching opinions or viewpoints that they may disagree with. The ability of Pruitt, to disagree with the message and manner of something, but also be able to accept that it is being wrongfully “bashed” or “beaten up”, indicates that it is possible for ordinary people, like you and me, to do the same. We, as a society, should be able to look at someone and tell them “I disagree with you, but I respect your right to hold an opposing viewpoint”, only when we do this, will we be able to proceed in civil discourse.
It can be argued that the basis of most relationships is respect. The person who you are talking to will not be inclined to trust you, or be convinced of your argument if you do not treat them with respect. Moving forward an effort must be made, by all people, following in the steps of Pruitt, to respect the other side and their right to have an opposing belief. Then we can begin to build a middle ground for courteous discussion and intellectual debate of certain issues.
While idealistic solutions to the problem “How do we bridge the differences that divide us?” exist, current media and existing structures within our society make it even more difficult to bring together a nation torn apart by two prestigious and powerful parties. Due to a lack of truth and ethics when it comes to news reporting, but also fundamental ideologies hammered into people’s brains since youth.
Since World War II news and media are leaning away from truth and towards commentary and provokery. The baseless and misleading claims of news reporters are targeted towards vulnerable audiences providing those people with lies as fact, stretching the bounds of reality and logic. John Raidt presents in his essay “Slanted and Self-Serving Media” that:
Speed has gained premium over accuracy. Commentary and interpretation overshadows facts and information. And, much of the media seek not so much to inform as to provoke, to advocate rather than perform their adversarial duties. As the political center is collapsing, the media center is cratering as well. (Raidt 1)
Unfortunately the trends described and expressed by Raidt are very much a reality in our current world. The innovation in technology has made mainstream media even more accessible and specialized. There are now a multitude of news networks that tailor to specific audiences, and feed their followers with the fabrications that they want to hear. Considering the development of media one must ask the question: if people only hear what they want to hear, and aren’t exposed to other realities, then how can it be expected of them to acknowledge the validity of beliefs they see to be treacherous; even more so, understand the experiences that others face, which lead them to hold the ideas and values that they do?
In addition to misleading media and news reporting, the constant enforcement of ideas and ideologies, by specific societies and groups, adds to the difficulty of getting people with differing views to understand the opposing side. The constant imposition of ideas on people through political socialization also leads to internalized beliefs and views that sometimes would be near impossible to reform. Robert Leonard, in an article published in the New York Times, uses a quote from J. C. Watts, who was a minister and also a Republican congressman, that explains the fundamental ideological variation between conservatives and liberals. Watts says “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good,” (Leonard 280). J.C. Watts’ quote sheds light on the contrast between two major political parties. If the beliefs stated by Watts are imposed on generation after generation then wouldn’t it be difficult to find common beliefs, creating yet another obstacle in the way of establishing unity? The answer is yes, the fact that Republicans and Democrats have opposing principles when it comes to such pivotal understandings is a problem when it comes to seeing eye to eye.
Proving that the process of unification will be more of a challenge than it seems to be, when looking beyond the false illusion of simplicity. As Pruitt shows us it is possible for someone to disagree with an idea, but believe that it is being treated unfairly. Is this ability only reserved for select people? It’s true that if an idea has been woven into your thought process since your youth, and you are constantly exposed to confirmations of that idea, it would certainly be challenging to adapt your thoughts. This is a question we must ask ourselves: can we expect such a drastic change or effort from people? Would it be right to uplift so many lives of people who have been fed half-truths and conspiracy theories? When considering these questions and arguments I urge you to accept the benefit of the doubt and assume that those people are innocent in the fact that it is their lack of exposure which makes them ignorant, not their willingness to harm others.
Considering all of the factors that work against those who wish to unify the nation, such as false media and ingrained ideologies, is it really possible to just simply put the nation back together again? The answer is no, not really, or at least not through idealistic forms that consider the division of parties, groups, and people to be a simple matter; however, there is still a chance. People, once they put their minds to something, can accomplish just about anything, or at least that is my presumption. If diversity was embraced instead of being shunned, people welcomed opportunities to widen their understanding, and actually make efforts to use their “moral imaginations" (Obama 304) then we, as a society, a whole nation, could begin to gradually piece together decades of intentional disruption, and collectively work towards a common unity.

[Casa de Wherever]

Great review Lisa! Empathy is a necessary ingredient to be considered human. I'd like to add a bit of levity...

https://youtu.be/Cqlb9Yk1SQk

[L.M. Fusco]

Lisa Pruitt’s “Hillbilly Elegy” depicts a single mom struggling with a drug addiction, while facing the economical, and financial culture of the poor, south, white-working class. I disagree with aspects of the article considering I lived in this environment for years. It is tragic for anyone attempting to leave a broken system whether that be the projects in the Bronx, or a trailer park in Nashville, Tennessee. The ability to thrive was captured well, considering that the only one who seemed to make it out was the mother’s son who even had a chance because he was raised by his grandmother, and was sheltered to some degree from the entirety of his mother’s full blown drug habit, that cost the family unimaginable headache. I found the movie to be spot on from my experience watching people fall in, and out of their drug, and alcohol habits. People living their whole lives in trailer parks with no prospective of direction, or motivation for a purpose than to drink a Corona with lime, and listen to the girl a few doors down sing with her guitar in the firepit where everyone would go to watch the stars come out, but not long enough to wish on any of them. We knew in those parks that if you did move, you’d relocate to another park with the same kind of people because even if you did move into an apartment, fitting in might be a problem, and being normal was something you were never good at. It might feel worse, than being a hillbilly, being someone different, but no one to connect with, even if the connection is based on a broken system created by the government to fail you, which kept you in the park for so long. It’s better than not having a community at all, that doesn’t understand the struggle to exist is greater than the “better” one that might make you feel like you don’t exist at all.