𝗡𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱, m𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲 p𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗼-𝗕𝗼̣́𝗹𝗲̣̀𝗸𝗮́𝗷𝗮̀ c𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀

The “Neo-Bọ́lẹ̀kájà” critics represent a modern version of this tendency, an impatience with intellectual rigor disguised as advocacy for the “ordinary viewer.” Such criticism often frames ambition as arrogance and complexity as exclusion. But the history of global cinema contradicts this mindset. Directors such as Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, and Christopher Nolan have all made films that demand active intellectual engagement. Their works are celebrated precisely because they challenge audiences. No one accuses these filmmakers of disrespecting viewers when they produce intellectually demanding films. Instead, audiences rise to the challenge

By 𝐑𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐭𝐮𝐧

WHAT was the renowned German playwright Bertolt Brecht implying when he declared that he did not want his audience to “hang up their brains with their hats in the cloakroom” before entering the theatre? What was the intention of the foremost Nigerian playwright and Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka when he insisted that it is not the duty of the playwright to descend intellectually in order to please the audience? Soyinka repeatedly argued that audiences should rise to meet the work, rather than demand that the work be simplified to meet them.

This long intellectual tradition provides the context for the recent controversy surrounding filmmaker Kunle Afolayan and his defense of his work on Aníkúlápó: Rise of the Spectre (popularly discussed as Anikulapo Season 2). When Afolayan stated that he makes films for thinkers and not for everyone, the statement triggered debate. Yet the outrage says less about the filmmaker and more about the cultural anxiety surrounding intellectual ambition in contemporary cinema.

𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗛𝗮𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝗜𝘁𝘀 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲

To say “I make films for thinkers, not everyone” is neither arrogant nor unprecedented. It is a declaration of artistic intention. From Brecht to Soyinka, many artists have openly rejected the expectation that art must always be immediately digestible.

Brecht insisted that theatre should provoke reflection rather than passive entertainment. His concept of the Verfremdungseffekt (alienation effect) was designed to prevent audiences from losing themselves emotionally and instead compel them to think critically about social realities. As he famously argued, audiences should not leave their brains behind when they enter the theatre. They should come to see his plays with their thinking caps on their heads. Similarly, Soyinka has long defended complexity in African literature and drama. He has repeatedly criticized what he calls “intellectual laziness,” arguing that art should challenge audiences to think deeply rather than reward superficial consumption. His essays and interviews consistently stress that demanding art is not elitist, it is necessary for cultural growth. Seen in this light, Afolayan’s statement is not an insult to viewers; it is a continuation of a long tradition that insists art can be intellectually ambitious.

𝗣𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗖𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗮 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗦𝘆𝗻𝗼𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

A persistent misunderstanding in the debate is the assumption that popular cinema must appeal equally to everyone. This assumption is flawed. Popular culture refers to works that circulate widely within society, but even within popular culture there are sub-genres, niches, and varying intellectual registers. Not every film is meant to be universally accessible in the same way. A psychological thriller, historical epic, or mythological drama demands different levels of engagement compared to slapstick comedy.

Soyinka once observed that theatre is shaped by its environment and the nature of its audience. By extension, filmmakers have the right, indeed the responsibility, to define their intended audience. A director who chooses to prioritize historical depth, symbolism, mythology, or philosophical themes is not excluding viewers; he is defining the terms of engagement.

The success of Afolayan’s work on Netflix demonstrates that there is indeed a large audience willing to engage with such storytelling. To label such work as inaccessible despite measurable global success is to ignore empirical reality.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗼-𝗕𝗼̣́𝗹𝗲̣̀𝗸𝗮́𝗷𝗮̀ 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀

The controversy also exposes a recurring phenomenon in cultural discourse: the rise of reactionary criticism that rejects complexity as elitism. Soyinka once critiqued a similar tendency in his essay Neo-Tarzanism: The Poetics of Pseudo-Tradition, where he warned against superficial cultural analysis masquerading as populism.

The “Neo-Bọ́lẹ̀kájà” critics represent a modern version of this tendency, an impatience with intellectual rigor disguised as advocacy for the “ordinary viewer.” Such criticism often frames ambition as arrogance and complexity as exclusion. But the history of global cinema contradicts this mindset. Directors such as Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, and Christopher Nolan have all made films that demand active intellectual engagement. Their works are celebrated precisely because they challenge audiences. No one accuses these filmmakers of disrespecting viewers when they produce intellectually demanding films. Instead, audiences rise to the challenge.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲

Artistic freedom includes the freedom to challenge audiences. Brecht went further, insisting: “Don’t expect the theatre to satisfy the habits of its audience, but to change them.” This statement is crucial. Art does not only reflect society, it shapes it. When filmmakers raise the intellectual bar, they contribute to cultural development. If artists continually lower the bar in fear of criticism, the entire industry stagnates. Soyinka’s warning remains relevant: “The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism.” But criticism must itself be thoughtful. Reactionary backlash against intellectual ambition is not criticism, it is resistance to growth.

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

There will always be art that entertains, and there will always be art that challenges. Nollywood, like every mature film industry, must make room for both. The existence of thinking cinema is not a problem—it is a sign of growth. Artistic expressions are shaped by their distinct historical and cultural contexts. We must therefore avoid the fallacy of presentism, the assumption that the past is inherently superior or more prestigious than the present. Kunle Afolayan’s statement should be understood not as arrogance but as artistic clarity. He is asserting his creative philosophy within a lineage that includes Brecht and Soyinka, artists who believed audiences are capable of intellectual engagement. In the end, Brecht’s words offer the most fitting closure:

“In the dark times

Will there also be singing?

Yes, there will also be singing.

About the dark times.”

• Dr. 𝐎𝐭𝐮𝐧, is of University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, US.
• https://web.facebook.com/rasheed.otun.9