What gives a film produced in the American independent sector the status of a 'cult' movie and how can this be understood in relation to the wider issue of distinctions between 'independent' and 'mainstream' cinema?

        Exclusivity of films is also key to films being considered ‘cult’ and new media such as videos, DVDs and the internet have affected this.  New media threatens the sense of distinction and exclusivity and on which ‘cult’ movie fandom depends, and threatens to blur the very distinctions that organise it.  It is the sense of a private community or club that ‘cult’ fans love about being ‘cult’ fans, having to search for an exclusive or banned film is part of their enjoyment. As are trying to find the small-secluded cinemas that show ‘cult’ films.

Originality is also a common theme, in terms of genre they both steer clear of the ‘mainstream’ and a love of the film fuels the film making as opposed to the money that will be made from it.  The two are definitely not separate, ‘cult’ films are generally ‘independent’ it terms of finance, and ‘independent’ films can become ‘cult’ films.  ‘Cult’ films are films that may not have done well at the cinema when they were originally released, but over the years primarily through word or mouth and also videos and DVDs, they have grown a legion of devoted fans.  Films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Office Space which both did not do well at the cinemas have now become ‘cult’ classics.  It is ultimately the audiences’ relationship to the film that allows it to reach ‘cult’ status, fans are usually a small group but loyal and devoted to the film.  It is not the actors or the genre that ‘cult’ fans admire it the film as an experience.  Fans of ‘cult’ films are seen in a different light to ‘normal’ film fans Andrew Sarris quotes that cultist love films “beyond all reason”, so much so that they queue for hours to see films or just trailers and go to midnight showings. I don’t think there can be a clear-cut definition of what a ‘cult’ film is, because the breadth of genres they cross makes it difficult to pin point one factor.  They can be seen as films that attract a wide variety of faithful fans, that for personal reasons identify with the story.  The two ‘cult’ films that I have chosen to look at are Slava Tsukerman’s Liquid Sky and Jon Waters Pink Flamingos.  The late seventies and early eighties was a popular time for ‘cult’ films, many ‘cult’ classics such as Repoman, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Carrie, Alien, Brazil, Eraserhead and Liquid Sky, were released during this period.  The majority of ‘cult’ films tend to fall under similar genres, in the list above science fiction and horror feature prominently.  ‘Cult’ films aim to shock, with the front cover of the film Eraserhead stating “ Be warned the nightmare has not gone away…” It is through these genres that the shock value can be achieved.  It is not to say that ‘cult’ films are only produced in these genres Pink Flamingos, Dazed and Confused and Meet the Feebles are all comedies and successful ‘cult’ films.  But the majority tend to be made under the science fiction or horror genres as it is considered that through these genres it is easier to shock.  It is the hybrid of genres that is often recognize in ‘cult’ films, and it was with the release of The Rocky Horror Picture Show that captured the celebrated mixture of genres.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show managed to be a horror film, a comedy, a science fiction film and above all a musical.  The seminal film managed to combine all of these genres and even though ‘cult’ films had existed long before it was considered a pioneer and is one of the most celebrated ‘cult’ film.

Liquid Sky was released in 1982, it was independently made by the director and writer Slava Tsukerman who as a Russian immigrant had only been in the country for three years.  Pink Flamingos was released in 1972 also independently made by Jon Waters.  ‘Cult’ films generally see themselves as opposites to the ‘mainstream’ cinema, they often try to push boundaries, be it with genre or style and the two films I have chosen to look at show this.  In Pink Flamingos we see boundaries being pushed to the limit, when watching the film the viewer is faced with shock after shock, if the ‘mainstream’ films aim is to satisfy audiences, Pink Flamingos does well in opposing this.  Instead of satisfying it may shock, disturb and disgust the viewer.  But this maybe expected from a film whose characters are aiming to be named the “filthiest person on earth.”  It is clear that the films is trying to reach it viewer through visuals, as they are faced with shocking scene after scene, each one pushing the boundaries further.  The style of the film tends to complement its nature, the film looks cheap and raw, and this matches the rawness and cheapness of the images we are seeing and the story being told.  

Unlike characters that we would normally be faced with in ‘mainstream’ films which viewers could normally relate to in someway, or understand a situation, in Pink Flamingos we are confronted with the opposite.  We are faced with characters such as Divine who in the most famous scene of the film eats dog faeces, and with characters who are in competition with her to become the filthiest people in the world.  These are characters that are not even imaginably relatable to.  As far as ‘cult’ films go to pushing the boundaries and drawing attention to social taboos, Pink Flamingos does this justice.

With Eraserhead the audience is not faced with constant images that are used in Pink Flamingos to move the film along, instead this slow moving film uses a psychological approach.  Unlike Pink Flamingos it is not packed with shocking images, but the ones it does have are intensely shocking, in one scene where we see the main character Henry carving a chicken.  Once he cuts into it blood endlessly starts to pour out of it and we see the chicken moving as if it were being cut alive.  Many of the shocking scenes in this film come as a surprise, in Pink Flamingos the shocking scenes were almost expected because of the nature of the film.  With Eraserhead, the build up to the “chicken scene” is calm and slow making the scene an intense shock.  The same feeling is felt with the revelation of their child, whilst watching the film it is difficult to know which direction the film is going to take each turn it takes is unexpected.  The intensity of the film makes the audiences realise that it is not so much about plot but about ambience and feeling.  The audience is watching a nightmare being played out in front of them, unlike the images the audience is presented with in Pink Flamingos, which seem to be there only to shock.  The shocking images we are presented with in Eraserhead symbolise so much more, they tell a story of fear, a fear of commitment, marriage and fatherhood.  And a want and need to escape from the trapped life that he has found himself in.  It is almost impossible to understand or to even have an opinion of this film after just one viewing it is far too complex.  

So there is not a definition that can describe ‘cult’ films, they are not a genre and can only be described as films which attain niche audiences, films are not made to become ‘cult’ films, and they can only really attain ‘cult’ status after many years.  In terms of the ‘cult’ movie relationship with the ‘mainstream’ I think that one cannot exist without the other.  However much ‘cult’ films may wish to be, as far from ‘mainstream’ films as possible the ‘cult’ film needs the ‘mainstream’.  The ‘mainstream’ remains central, despite its incoherence, because it is necessary so that ‘cult’ fans can produce a sense of distinction between themselves and what Fiske has referred to as ‘more “normal” popular audiences’.  If there were no ‘mainstream’ ‘cult’ movies would not have anything to compare themselves to, they would not know what they were not supposed to be.  It is the ultimately the audience who make a film into a ‘cult’ the loyal cultist who ritually watch these films many times over out of passion and admiration for the film.