A cult film is any film that has a cult following, although the term is not easily defined, and can be applied to a wide variety of films.^[2] The definition is occasionally expanded to exclude films that have been released by major studios or have big budgets,^[3] try specifically to become cult films,^[4] or become accepted by mainstream audiences and critics.^[5] Cult films are defined by audience reaction as much as they are content.^[6] This may take the form of elaborate and ritualizedaudience participation, film festivals, or cosplay.^[2] Over time, the definition has become more vague and inclusive as it drifts away from earlier, stricter views.^[7] Increasing use of the term by mainstream publications has resulted in controversy, as cinephiles argue that the term has become meaningless^[8] or "elastic, a catchall for anything slightly maverick or strange".^[9] Mark Shiel has criticized the term itself as being a weak concept, reliant on subjectivity; different groups can interpret films in their own terms.^[10] According to feminist Joanne Hollows, this subjectivity causes films with strong female cult followings to be perceived as too mainstream and not transgressive enough to qualify as a cult film.^[11]:38 Mike Chopra‑Gant says that cult films become decontextualized when studied as a group,^[12] and Shiel criticizes this recontextualization as cultural commodification.^[10]

In 2008, Cineaste asked a range of academics for their definition of a cult film. Several people defined cult films primarily in terms of their opposition to mainstream films and conformism, explicitly requiring a transgressive element, though others disputed the transgressive potential, given the demographic appeal to white males and mainstreaming of cult films. Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock instead called them mainstream films with transgressive elements. Most definitions also required a strong community aspect, such as obsessed fans or ritualistic behavior. Citing misuse of the term, Mikel J. Koven took a self-described hard-line stance that rejected definitions that use any other criteria. Matt Hills instead stressed the need for an open-ended definition rooted in structuration, where the film and the audience reaction are interrelated and neither is prioritized. Ernest Mathijs focused on the accidental nature of cult followings, arguing that cult film fans consider themselves too savvy to be marketed to, while Jonathan Rosenbaum rejected the continued existence of cult films and called the term a marketing buzzword.^[13] Ernest Mathijs suggests that cult films help to understand ambiguity and incompleteness in life given the difficulty in even defining the term. That cult films can have opposing qualities – such as good and bad, failure and success, innovative and retro – helps to illustrate that art is subjective and never self-evident.^[13] This ambiguity leads critics of postmodernism to accuse cult films of being beyond criticism as the emphasis is now on personal interpretation rather than critical analysis or metanarratives.^[10] However, these inherent dichotomies can lead critics to pronounce beloved cult films to be "so bad it's good"^[14] or for audiences to be split between ironic and earnest fans.^[15]

Quoting Jeffrey Sconce, Jancovich et al. define cult films in terms of paracinema, marginal films that exist outside critical and cultural acceptance: everything from exploitation to beach party musicals to softcore pornography. However, they reject cult films as having a single unifying feature; instead, they state that cult films are united in their "subcultural ideology" and opposition to mainstream tastes, itself a vague and undefinable term. Cult followings themselves can range from adoration to contempt, and they have little in common except for their celebration of nonconformity – even the bad films ridiculed by fans are artistically nonconformist, albeit unintentionally. At the same time, they point out that bourgeois, masculine tastes are frequently reinforced, which makes cult films more of an internal conflict within the bourgeoisie, rather than than a rebellion against it. This results in an anti-academic bias despite the use of formal methodologies, such as defamiliarization.^[16] This contradiction exists in many subcultures, especially those dependent on defining themselves in terms of opposition to the mainstream. This nonconformity is eventually co-opted by the dominant forces, such as Hollywood, and marketed to the mainstream.^[17] Xavier Mendik also defines cult films as opposing the mainstream and further proposes that films can become cult by virtue of their genre or content, especially if it is transgressive. Due to their rejection of mainstream appeal, Mendik says cult films can be more creative and political; times of relative political instability produce more interesting films.^[18]

General overview[edit]

Cult films have existed since the early days of cinema. Nosferatu (1922), for example, was an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Stoker's widow sued the production company and drove it to bankruptcy. All known copies of the film were destroyed, and Nosferatu become an early cult film, kept alive by a cult following that circulated illegal bootlegs.^[20] Chuck Kleinhans identifies the Marx Brothers as making other early cult films.^[13] On their original release, some highly-regarded classics from the Golden Age of Hollywood were panned by critics and audiences, relegated to cult status. The Night of the Hunter (1955) was a cult film for years, quoted often and championed by fans, before it was reassessed as an important and influential classic.^[21] During this time, American exploitation films and imported European art films were marketed similarly. Although critics Pauline Kael and Arthur Knight argued against arbitrary divisions into high and low culture, American films settled into rather rigid genres, but European art films continued to push the boundaries of simple definitions. These exploitative art films and artistic exploitation films would go on to influence American cult films.^{[22]:202–205} Much like later cult films, these early exploitation films encouraged audience participation, influenced by live theater and vaudeville.^[17]

Modern cult films grew from 1960s counterculture and underground films, popular among those who rejected mainstream Hollywood films. These underground film festivals led to the creation of midnight movies, which attracted cult followings.^[23] These films were more concerned with cultural significance than the social justice sought by earlier avant-garde films.^[10] Midnight movies became more popular and mainstream, peaking with the release of The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), which finally found its audience several years after its release. Eventually, the rise of home video would marginalize midnight movies once again after which many directors joined the burgeoning independent film scene or went back underground.^[24] Home video would give a second life to box office flops, as positive word-of-mouth or excessive replay on cable television led these films to develop an appreciative audience,^[25] as well as obsessive replay and study.^[26] For example, The Beastmaster (1982), despite its failure at the box office, became one of the most played movies on American cable television^[27][28] and developed into a cult film.^[2] Home video and television broadcasts of cult films were initially greeted with hostility. Joanne Hollows states that they were seen as turning cult films mainstream – in effect, feminizing them by opening them to distracted, passive audiences.^[11]:42–43

Julianne Moore and Jeff Bridges at Lebowski Fest 2011.

Releases from major studios – such as The Big Lebowski (1998), which was distributed by Universal Studios – can become cult films when they fail at the box office and develop a cult following through reissues, such as midnight movies, festivals, and home video. Hollywood films, due to their nature, are more likely to attract this kind of attention, which leads to a mainstreaming effect of cult culture. With major studios behind them, even financially unsuccessful films can be re-released multiple times, which plays into a trend to capture audiences through repetitious reissues. The constant use of profanity and drugs in otherwise mainstream, Hollywood films, such as The Big Lebowski, can alienate critics and audiences yet lead to a large cult following among somewhat more open-minded demographics not often associated with cult films, such as Wall Street bankers and professional soldiers. Thus, even comparatively mainstream films can satisfy the traditional demands of a cult film, perceived by fans as transgressive, niche, and uncommercial.^[29]

In a global context, popularity can vary widely by territory, especially with regard to limited releases. Mad Max (1979) was an international hit – except in America^[30] where it became an obscure cult favorite, ignored by critics and available for years only in a dubbed version though it earned over $100M internationally.^[31][32] Foreign cinema can put a different spin on popular genres, such as Japanese horror, which was initially a cult favorite in America.^[33] Asian imports to the West are often marketed as exotic cult films and of interchangeable national identity, which Chi-Yun Shin criticizes as reductive.^[34] Foreign influence can affect fan response, especially on genres tied to a national identity; when they become more global in scope, questions of authenticity may arise.^{[35]:157–160} Filmmakers and films ignored in their own country can become the objects of cult adoration in another, which produces perplexed reactions in their native country.^[36] Cult films can also establish an early viability for more mainstream films both for filmmakers and national cinema. The early cult horror films of Peter Jackson were so strongly associated with his homeland that they affected the international reputation of New Zealand and its cinema. As more artistic films emerged, New Zealand was perceived as a legitimate competitor to Hollywood, which mirrored Jackson's career trajectory. Heavenly Creatures (1994) acquired its own cult following, became a part of New Zealand's national identity, and paved the way for big-budget, Hollywood-style epics, such as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.^[37]

Ernest Mathijs states that cult films and fandom frequently involve nontraditional elements of time and time management. Fans will often watch films obsessively, an activity that is viewed by the mainstream as wasting time yet can be seen as resisting the commodification of leisure time. They may also watch films idiosyncratically: sped up, slowed down, frequently paused, or at odd hours. Cult films themselves subvert traditional views of time – time travel, non-linear narratives, and ambiguous establishments of time are all popular. Mathijs also identifies specific cult film viewing habits, such as viewing horror films on Halloween, sentimental melodrama on Christmas, and romantic films on Valentine's Day. These films are often viewed as marathons where fans can gorge themselves on their favorites.^[38] Mathijs states that cult films broadcast on Christmas have a nostalgic factor. These films, ritually watched every season, give a sense of community and shared nostalgia to viewers. New films often have trouble making inroads against the institutions of It's A Wonderful Life (1946) and Miracle on 34th Street (1947). These films provide mild criticism of consumerism while encouraging family values.^[39] Halloween, on the other hand, allows flaunting society's taboos and testing one's fears. Horror films have appropriated the holiday, and many horror films debut on Halloween. Mathijs criticizes the over-cultified, commercialized nature of Halloween and horror films, which feed into each other so much that Halloween has turned into an image or product with no real community. Mathijs states that Halloween horror conventions can provide the missing community aspect.^[40]

Despite their oppositional nature, cult films can produce celebrities. Like cult films themselves, authenticity is an important aspect of their popularity.^[41] Actors can become typecast as they become strongly associated with such iconic roles. Tim Curry, despite his acknowledged range as an actor, found casting difficult after he achieved fame in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Even when discussing unrelated projects, interviewers frequently bring up the role, which causes him to tire of discussing it.^[42] Mary Woronov, known for her transgressive roles in cult films, eventually transitioned to mainstream films. She was expected to recreate the transgressive elements of her cult films within the confines of mainstream cinema. Instead of the complex gender deconstructions of her Andy Warhol films, she became typecast as a lesbian or domineering woman.^[43]Sylvia Kristel, after starring in Emmanuelle (1974), found herself highly associated with the film and the sexual liberation of the 1970s. Caught between the transgressive elements of her cult film and the mainstream appeal of soft-core pornography, she was unable to work in anything but exploitation films and Emmanuelle sequels. Despite her immense popularity and cult following, she would rate only a footnote in most histories of European cinema if she was even mentioned.^[44] Similarly, Chloë Sevigny has struggled with her reputation as a cult independent film star famous for her daring roles in transgressive films.^[45] Cult films can also trap directors. Leonard Kastle, who directed The Honeymoon Killers (1969), never directed another film again. Despite his cult following, which included François Truffaut, he was unable to find financing for any of his other screenplays.^[46] Qualities that bring cult films to prominence – such as an uncompromising, unorthodox vision – caused Alejandro Jodorowski to languish in obscurity for years.^[47]