'Cult Films': what the hell?!

[Bartwald]

No, really: what ARE cult films? I want to know your points of view on them. How old does a movie have to be to achieve the status? Is, say, Kill Bill a cult movie already? Does it always have to be a very good movie or can it be a pleasant crap we can't keep coming back to? And so on.

I want your opinions, guys, 'cause as you well know this section was born thanks to the Cult Directors Controversy (is Ridley Scott a cult director or not?) - we now have the Favourite Directors section and Cult Films section; which is pretty cool, but I guess no one wants this new one to be split into two again in a week or two.

Waiting for your opinions and probably some examples of what should go here and what not.

[Leatherhead]

Cult films. I've always looked at that definition as a film that has a loyal following. No matter how old or young the film is, no matter how good or bad it is, every film has fans. But those movies that have, for whatever reason, inspired a loyal following of fans, bordering on religious fanaticism, is what we reer to as Cult films. The Rocky Horror Picture Show, for example, is a Cult Film. The Evil Dead Movies are Cult Films. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a Cult Film.
Dances With Wolves is NOT a Cult Film. X-Men is NOT a Cult Film.
The same goes with directors. Edward D. Wood Jr. directed some of the worst movies ever made (I know I love them ;D), yet he has a real Cult following. As does Martin Scorcese, as does Lucio Fulci. Steven Spielberg does not, for example.
So that's it. It's Cult if it has a following.

[LivingDeadGirl]

So you would consider Quentin Tarantino flicks cult movies or him a cult director? Trust me those QT fans (myself included) can get pretty rabid sometimes! ;D And he & his movies have pretty loyal followings.

[Leatherhead]

Absolutely.

[LivingDeadGirl]

I would include Kevin Smith in that group too.

[Heineken Skywalker]

Sometimes there's a fine line between what's considered "cult" and what's "mainstream".

I would say RESERVOIR DOGS by Tarantino is a cult film, but not so much his later movies. He definitely has a rabid "cult following" of fans though.

Kevin Smith is probably more of a "cult director" IMHO as he has yet to have a really huge box office hit, but his hardcore following of fans always look forward to, and discuss his movies endlessly. Also, he's not nearly the "household" name that Q.T. is. Most people probably recognize him more as Silent Bob than they do as the director of all those movies.

I would agree with Leatherhead's examples of "cult" films and would also add BLADE RUNNER & LEGEND (Both by Ridley Scott, who is not considered a cult director, ) Neither was a hit when initially released, but they both have huge followings of fans.
More "cult" films: FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, DINER, HEAVY METAL, HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE, DONNIE DARKO and THIS IS SPINAL TAP.

[LivingDeadGirl]

Yeah, I think Smith fans are about as rabid as QT fans sometimes. But I don't sense as much hatred for Kevin from non-fans as I do for anti-Tarantino people. Those people are just downright hateful sometimes. I think some of them consider QT the anti-christ. ;D

[Bartwald]

That's what 42nd Street Freak said on the subject of films being or not being 'cult' on HorrorSpeak. Interesting thoughts there:

A 'Cult' film is perhaps the hardest definition to to pin down. far more so even than 'Exploitataion'..which is hard enough at times.

A true cult film??? I think it's a film (and yes I say film...more so than a Director..I shall return to that) that was made from a very personal, uncompromised stand point.
A film that would NEVER get a mainstream/huge following and would not get popular/mainstream acceptance. But the makers KNEW this.

Something like "Army of Darkness" is NOT a cult film at all. That is in fact a classic example of what I said above.
"Army" was a film made to get a mainstream, financially successful, wide release. Just because it failed to do that and as such only gained what you could, on a basic level, call a 'cult following' is not valid. And that is NOT a cult film. All that is is an unsuccessful mainstream film.

Larger studio films can be Cult film of course...but only when, despite the mainstream environment of their inception..the Directot went against the grain and made that personal and uncompromied work. It may have been MADE in the mainstream arena...But was never going to succumb to those
conventions. It twisted the normal environment to create something that was far more warped.
IF they got a wider aceptence it was luck, not design.
Classic examples of this imho are "Dr Stangelove" and "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane".

Cult films can also be BAD films...BUT that badness MUST be huge and it must be a badness made up of bizarre, twisted wrongs. Shit like "Urban Legend" is just that....shit. It's bad points are not bizarre and twisted bad points..they are just moronic, souless bad movie making.
Two classic examples of real BAD films that thus became 'Cult' films would be the grotesque old age pensioner Mae West vehicle "Sextette"...or the Burton/Taylor movie "BOOM".

Which brings us to the REAL hard stuff to pin down. The horror film. Is "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" a CULT film??? It's certainly a classic horror film, a classic exploitation film, a classic Grindhouse/Drive-In film....But is it a 'Cult' film, given it's huge success and mainstream profile over the years? I think (like that other troublesome title "The Evil Dead") it most certainly WAS a 'Cult' film....but is not any more.

To me, a text book example of a real 'Cult' film has to be "Thundercrack" ( www.beardyfreak.com/rvthunder.htm ).
A hard core porn film made with the same bizarre, warped, very personal sensibilties that will be familiar to fans of early John Water's (and it may have quite a lot of porn content...but the full cut runs a huge 152 minutes!!! Normal porn this is most certainly NOT).
It has never had an official home video release...it only ever played Grindhouse/flea pits and late night circuits...it had a true 'CULT' following where fans would go endlessly and know every scene and line (it played non-stop for 10 years, every month, at "The Scala Cinema" in London for example)...it was a true 'word of mouth' movie...and it NEVER crossed over into any kind of mainstream. It is THE definition of a 'Cult' film.

To finish on 'Directors' we must return to John Water's. He is indeed one of THE great examples of a 'Cult' director. His early films were some of the greatest 'Cult' items ever made. EVENTUALLY they obtained (or actually..to be fair..perhaps WATERS HIMSELF obtained) some kind of mainstream crossover to various degrees.
BUT, his early works are still films that are in NO WAY acceptable to mainstream needs. NOTHING in them goes down that route.
BUT...Waters later made (mostly with failure) mainstream aimed films with almost none of the 'Cult' elements, or the PURE 'Trash'/'Cult' ingredients of his early creations.
And he did it more than once and has stayed in tha arena. There is nothing 'Cult' about his later films (again, "Cry Baby" for example was a failed mainstream aimed film).
Thus showing that if they so desire any Director (with varying levels of success or not) can make something far from 'Cult'...Ultimately it is THE FILMS that are 'Cult' not a specific Director automatically making a film...NOT all John waters films, Cronenberg films, Jackson films are 'Cult'.

Directors that stay in the 'Cult' arena (like for example the Director of "Thundercrack" Curt McDowell) simply did that...they stayed there. And perhaps many had no choice but to. But that does not mean they would not have tried (with success or not) to make a mainstream film.
So you can have total 'Cult' directors...but is the films that make them that imho.

But it's a very hard thing to quantify...and will be open to many interpretations. Lets just say that YES there are 'Cult' directors, but that does not automatically mean every film is a 'Cult' film just because they made it.

Hmmm?

By the way: thanks for asking the question there, Burgy!

[Deadmanisalive]

;D my pleasure, 42nd is the man. He knows alot of stuff on the whole cult/exploitation thing, so if I have a question about that gendra, I ask him.

[clifford43]

definition-making is so fiddly!

Do you consider Rocky Horror and Toxic Avenger cult films? I think they fit your definition, but b.c they're the ultimate cult films it would be a test of your definition if they did not.

A cult film has to be a film that has a small, but fanatical following - so they have to be slightly obscure, or else everyone would know about them, but their fans are hugely enthusastic.

Why do we need to involve the filmmaker's intent in the "cult" label? For instance, it doesn't matter what Kubrick's intention may have been, b.c Dr Strangelove is too widely known to be a cult film - its on many people's best films of all time lists, and everyone knows about it! How can your definition work, then?

[Bartwald]

clifford43 said:

How can your definition work, then?

This 'your' meaning 42nd's right? Cause there were two other interesting definitions before that - with me chickening out to make one, of course.

Anyway, you're right that forming definitions is a tough thing to do. And almost always you can find some holes in them. We're just kind of thinking aloud here to decide what movies should end up in this section - and I guess that all the definitions so far were pretty good, even if sometimes contradictory.

[Gabriel]

Cult films to me are films that, as said above go against the grain, but not only that, are aimed at a very specific audience. (Or maybe even challenge a taboo)

As if it is somewhat accepted before release that it will not do well at the box office due to its audience.

There are exceptions, I would disagree that Kill Bill is a cult movie (This is purely my opinion as many people would disagree there!) because of how widespread the release, the advertisements etc etc etc were. However I would agree that Tarantino is a cult director in that he has such a following that if his next 2 movies were bad, we (as big QT fans) would still defend them, still claim to love them (and in some perverse way we would) and still eagerly await the next film.

THe same could be said about Robert Rodriguez.

While these directors make huge films, they somehow stay true to the fans, not always (Spy Kids?) but usually.

Plus I would say a cult film is one you hear through the grape vine, for instance Donnie Darko. Not a huge box office smash, not a lot of advertisement, especially here in the UK, but has alot of fans and just through people talking...

You seen that Donnie Darko yet? Its so weird but really cool... and blah blah blah.

Makes us wanna give it a go. Curiousity does more than advertisement ever can I guess.

[FromDuskTillShaun]

I would have to say that a cult film, is one that has a loyal, non-mainstream audience. Star Wars has a rabid following, but I would have to say that is mostly a mainstream deal. So that would be a 'classic'. So some examples of cult films would be...The Evil Dead, Clockwork Orange, Darkman, ect... Now, I would have to say that it should take at least 10 years for a movie to have achieved definitive 'cult status'. Don't get me wrong, I love Donnie Darko as much as the next person, but I feel it needs to pay it's dues. I feel that movies like The Toxic Avenger are 'guilty pleasures', rather than full blown 'cult'. I love the movie Hudson Hawk. I used to watch it all the time on TBS, and have just recently acquired the DVD. Even though a lot of people I talk to love the movie, I would deem that a 'guilty pleasure'. So we have....

1.) Classic Movies: Popular movies beloved by the mainstream public (eg..Star Wars).

2.) Cult Movies: Movies that were ignored on arrival, but found an audience after it hit video (eg..Darkman).

3.) Guilty Pleasures: Movies not popular enough to fit in either category. Loved more on an individual basis, rather than by a specific group (eg...Hudson Hawk).

I hope my take on cult movies, helps you out somewhat Bartwald.

[Bartwald]

Sure, an interesting take, FromDuskTillShaun. Hudson Hawk definitely is more of a guilty pleasure than a cult classic.

[Quorthon]

I think Cult Films, B-Movies, and Independent Films are all different entities.


Cult Films: Films that earn a strong, loyal, though maybe not huge following of fans. Just about any movie can become a cult film, though, generally, they aren't well recieved in the Mainstream for whatever reason (budget, timing, actors, story, whathaveyou) (Evil Dead, Ed Wood, Much John Waters stuff, Donnie Darko--I believe it is)

B-Movies: Lower quality films, never or almost never to be taken seriously. Quickly made films for a quick buck. Often poor acting, effects, cheap music. (Eight Legged Freaks, some John Waters stuff, the original Star Wars was intended as such)

Independent Films: May or may not be overly popular, generally lower budget, but filmed with a quality on-par with Hollywood's "A" films. Not released by the giant Hollywood studios (Paramount, WB, Dreamworks, etc.). (Bubba Ho-Tep, The Machinist)


The latter two often don't find their way to most theaters, if at all, they end up touring--almost like a musical act--around to smaller venues. At least, this is how I interpret the definitions.