What is a cult film? The answer to this question is more nebulous than one might think. Some say that a cult film is a movie that has an obsessive fanbase. Others argue that it is defined as a movie that is in the category of horror, science fiction, or exploitation. For the sake of simplicity, I will say that the ultimate definition of a cult film is a film that was not considered successful when it came out, but has since gained a devoted band of followers. It has something about it that discourages your average moviegoer from watching or liking it, and is often panned by critics.
The reason that the term cult film has become so difficult to define is because there are so many different types. There are musicals, like Rocky Horror Picture Show. There are animated films like Gerald Potterton’s Heavy Metal or Cool World. Some of them are monster/horror films such as the 1954 version of Godzilla or sci-fi movies like Cherry 2000. Some of the cult films are actually meant to be art films like Trash Humpers or (arguably) Freddy Got Fingered. The rest of them tend to fall into two remaining categories: The Ridiculous and the Shocker. The Ridiculous are just preposterous and silly, but harmless and generally appropriate for children such as Plan 9 from Outer Space, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, or Killer Klowns from Outer Space, whereas the Shocker is just as bizarre, but intensely inappropriate because of extremely excessive nudity, language, violence, racism, or other. Some examples of this might be the film Pink Flamingos, Teeth, or Cannibal Holocaust. These categories are not strict, but can be thought of as a giant Venn Diagram. For instance, the movie Fritz the Cat is animated, but has an incredible amount of graphic nudity, language, and adult situations. It was actually one of the first animated films to be rated X.
One problem that cult films are facing today is the “mainstream”-ing of cult films. In the past couple of years, cult films have become fashionable. This may or may not have started with the Rocky Horror episode of the popular TV show Glee or a similar event in the late 1990s. This made the idea of cult films popular, but there was a problem. Cult films are, at their essence, edgy and uncomfortable to watch. They are cult films because they are subversive in nature. This is not the type of movie that the average Glee-watcher is typically comfortable watching. This led to the demand for softer cult films.
Almost all cult films can find their roots in other cult films. The cult film The Room has audience participation that was invented with Rocky Horror Picture Show. The 1977 film Cinderella 2000 is a shameless ripoff of Jane Fonda’s Barbarella. This means that they have a defined formula. As a result of this, cult films are relatively easy to copy and, therefore, easy for movie making companies that desire more money to soften for the newly increasing fanbase.
The early movies that resulted from this were actual cult films, but focused on the quotability of cult films and stayed pretty close to the formula without offending the delicate sensibilities of the more recent additions to the audiences. Some of these are Donnie Darko and Big Lebowski. However, these gradually made room for easier, more lucrative films like Napolean Dynamite, Anchorman, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist, and Scott Pilgrim vs The World. These new films are either hipster films that are about subversive culture, while they themselves are mainstream money-making vehicles, or movies like the Hangover (and sequels) that substitute unintelligent jokes for wit and idiocy for absurdity. They make money at the box office when they come out. They do not have a niche audience because they are mainstream movies. They are not edgy or subversive or uncomfortable. Therefore, these films, in their quest to become cult films and to fill the cult film quota for the newer audience, have become the very definition of everything that is not a cult film.
These films are not the same as intentional cult films. There have been several instances in history where cult films have intentionally hit the “so bad it’s good” sweet spot. For example, both Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and Tromeo and Juliet were intentionally made to be bad. There has been a fierce argument going on that Ed Wood made his movies intentionally bad. This does not mean that they are not cult films. The problem is not with the intent of the film, the problem is with confusing films that are watched ironically with films that are just as silly, but are meant to be taken as serious films.
After all, when a person goes to see the film Shaun of the Dead, they would not think, “The people who made this film did not intend this to be funny, but I am laughing at the absurdity of it”, they are thinking, “This movie has intentional humor and I am laughing in the parts where the makers of this movie intended for me to laugh”. That is not to say that films like Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim vs The World are bad or unenjoyable films. They are, however, not cult films.
The essential problem with this whole situation is that the definition of cult films is being lost. Although recent cult films are being made, like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, less cult films are being made now than ever before. This is a huge shame, because, take it from somebody who has seen every film mentioned here; They are worth saving.
No comments:
Post a Comment