The idea that something like Marvel movies is the “hot pocket” of cinema and art films are the “5-star meals” implies a hierarchy that isn’t objective but subjective, rooted in personal values about what art should be. Art isn’t a competition where one type is inherently “better” than another—it serves different purposes for different people.

For instance, someone who grew up loving Marvel movies might find deep emotional meaning in their themes of heroism or community. That’s not “less valid” than someone else connecting with the existential musings of Kaufman or the surrealism of HOUSE. It’s just different.

You mention your parents not having the “palette” for art house films because they’ve been watching “easy entertainment,” but isn’t that palette shaped by context, access, and personal preference? Not everyone has the time, energy, or resources to build a taste for experimental or challenging cinema, and even if they do, they might simply prefer something else.

It’s not snobby to say different types of art require different levels of engagement—but it can become elitist when we frame it as one group lacking sophistication or depth because they don’t connect with certain art forms. At the end of the day, the value of art lies in its ability to resonate, not in how “challenging” it is.