Hmmm. I think to be regarded as a cult film, you can't have massive mainstream success on first-run cinema release. Hence I doubt that the James Bond films, nor Pulp Fiction, should be on this list.
Robert Merkel
The non-definition of "cult film" is a cop-out and is likely to annoy anybody looking for a definition, IMHO.
Some key points (not every film that has "cult" status has all of these):
- Cult film is in the eye of the beholder.
- Cult films attract obsessive fans
- Cult films generally don't gain that status until some time after their release.
- A film that attracts too large a number of fans cannot be regarded as a cult film.
- Films of certain genres (horror, science fiction) are more likely to be regarded as "cult" films.
- The attraction of cult films is often totally different to the original intentions of the director,
and often contains "subversive" elements like references to homosexuality.
What do others think RM
The non-definition was put up in an attempt to drive out exactly these sorts of ideas... Why don't you ramp up the definition accordingly? sjc
I must have misinterpreted your original article - I thought that you meant that saying *anything* about what makes a film a "cult film" is pointless.
I apologise. In any case, if nobody else comes to the party I'll write some more on the topic in a bit-- RM
No, I can see how you took it that way. I maybe didn't phrase it too well: I wasn't saying it was pointless, more that as soon as one position becomes apparent, another contradictory one will tend to refute it. I think you have some well thought out ideas about it, though, and I'm interested to see what you come up with. sjc
I think that a series films like the Bond flicks might qualify differently that one-offs like Pulp Fiction, no matter the audience. The category seems to me like a different FLAVOR of cultishness from, say, Rocky Horror, but not a totally different phenomenon. --
MichaelTinkler
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)