What is a Cult Movie?

“The various elements that feed into Mathijs & Mendik’s (2008) ‘definition of cult film’ can be usefully employed to determine whether a film is a cult movie.” Discuss this observation making detailed reference to a film viewed on this module.

In this essay I will be talking about Mathijs and Mendiks criteria for cult films from its anatomy to its political economy to its cultural status. I will be also describing how the film ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’ (1975) fulfils every single one their criteria in some way and exemplifies what it means to be a cult film. I shall also discuss how another film ‘Eraserhead’ (1977) that is considered cult doesn’t fit all of their criteria.

One section of Mathijs and Mendik’s definition of cult film is its anatomy, this being its ‘style, format and generic modes’. They split anatomy into eight key elements, the first element is innovation. RHS was innovative and perhaps revolutionary in the way two of its lead characters engage in homosexual activities on camera, this was previously only hinted at in films. (Teenage fanatics. 2014)

The next part of cult films analogy highlighted by Mathijs and Mendik is its badness; films that are ‘valued for their ‘ineptness’ or poor cinematic achievement’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.2). The aesthetic badness of RHS is found in its cliché set designs and plastic props. However how much we can attribute to parody and how much is genuine badness could be debated. Fourteen minutes into the film when Brad and Janet are entering the gates of Frankenfurter’s castle there is a ‘‘enter at your own risk’ notice repeatedly illuminated by lightning bolts and tacked by a ridiculously high iron fence’ (Weinstock. 2008. P.25). However the writers Sharman and Richard O’brien were keen to parody and tribute horror B movies of the 30’s such as Frankenstein and King Kong through to the 70’s so it is evident that this sign is a nod to these films (Smith. 2010. P.15). The camera work a minute after this as the camera zooms in and out of the tower is very bad; a most probably unintentional parody of the crash zooms in slasher flicks and Sci-fi films.

RHS transgresses the boundaries of good and bad by making light of its badness in the context of a parody. Mathijs and Mendiks say that by the ‘challenging of one or more ‘conventions’ of filmmaking’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.2) transgression can be achieved. Both RHS and Eraserhead challenges stylistic, moral and political conventions. Most prominently RHS challenges the style conventions in its fashion. The costume designer Sue Blane did no research into classic horror film her style was informed by subcultures such as the hells angels. The result is a strange myriad of ripped fish-net tights and red hair that has impacted the development of punk music fashion trends. Politically the film is very charged with homosexual, bisexual and transvestite imagery and connotations that challenged the homophobic Americans this was also championed by artist such as David Bowies Ziggy Stardust.

Mathijs and Mendik state that cult films challenge the generic conventions whilst also adhering to ‘generic regimes of production’ by ‘mixing genres (Alien,1979), exposing and/or mocking a genre’s unwritten rules satirically (Blazing Saddles,1974) or hyperbolically exaggerating those rules’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.2). RHS does all of these it is a clash between the genres of Sci-fi, horror, comedy and musical. It mocks the horror and Sci-fi genres unwritten rules in the form of exaggerated zoom shots that go into spires with equally exaggerated lightning bolts and it also features stylistic parodies of horror and Sci-fi B movies in its inclusion of over the top warning signs, space-outfits and gore. Eraserhead features no parody and no mixing of genres yet does challenge generic conventions in its style.

The references to the pop musical and film culture are found almost instantaneously within the opening number ‘science fiction double feature’, in this Frank says that he wants to be dressed like Fay Wray, the heroine of King Kong. RHS takes imagery from a plethora of pop iconography in film:

‘Characters act in the emotional register of figures in rock ‘n’ roll mythology’ (Smith. 2010. P.15)

RHS is full of intertextuality with old classic Horror and Sci-fi as well as its references to well-known cultural myths and archetypes. Riff Raff is the archetypal horror film doorman with his ‘Igor-like hump that mysteriously shifts about on Riff Raffs’s back’ (Weinstock. 2008. P.25) creepy voice and 1921 ‘Nosferatu’s’ Count Orlek-like features. The historical background that Rocky Horror encompasses is a chain of gothic literature such as Sheridan Le Fanu’s, 1871 ‘Carmilla’ a story about a lesbian vampire, Bram Stokers ‘Dracula’ and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelle ‘Frankenstein’; the latter is what RHS is adapted from. Eraserhead doesn’t contain a lot of intertextuality with myths or other films.

Loose ends is an element of cult films that Mathijs and Mendik propose leaves the viewer puzzling over its ending and meaning (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.3). RHS ends with Riff Raff and Magenta revealing that they are aliens before they fly off to the planet Transsexual. The humans are left in a thick dust crawling in the dirt. The criminologist narrates over the top in time with the tune:

‘And crawling on the planet's face

Some insects called the human race

Lost in time, and lost in space

And meaning’

(The Rocky Horror Picture Show’. 1975)

This beautifully sums up the condition of our existence but the viewer is left puzzled at the pure zaniness and incomprehensible element of the plot. We are left wondering what will happen to Brad, Janet and Dr Scott, they are alive but what of their self, sexuality and relationship with each other have they been left with. This ending allows the viewer to speculate and fan theories to arise. The loose ending also allowed the sequal ‘Shock Treatment’ (1981) to be made.

Nostalgia is Mathijs and Mendiks idea of ‘a yearning for an idealized past’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.3) and the last element in the analogy is Gore; this being ‘uncomfortable material – violence, decay, mutilation or cannibalism’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.3). In RHS as with many cult films the nostalgia comes from remembering the time when they first sang along to it as well as remembering the times that the film represents.

The only real gore of the film is in the scene where Eddie an ex-delivery driver is murdered by Frank with an ice axe. In Eraserhead a different type of gore is explored verging more on elements of mutilation with the deformed baby.

Another section of Mathijs and Mendik’s definition of cult film is its consumption (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.4). Justin Smith writes ‘certainly any thoroughgoing account of the cult film cannot ignore the cult that has grown up around the film itself’ (Smith. 2010. P.13). This is where Eraserhead fall short to RHS in terms of cult film definition because it has a far smaller cult following a far fewer rituals, live viewings and sense of community.

The first part of Mathijs and Mendiks section on consumption is its active celebration; this is the films celebration that is ‘close to the organized forms of religious or spiritual worship’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.4). The active celebration of RHS is the ritualized celebration that it is so famous for, by the end of 1979 there were two showings a week at over 230 cinema’s. This lead to a form of cult following where the fandom adapted its own rituals such as dressing the part of Eddy, shouting responses to characters and throwing toast, water, toilet paper, hot dogs and rice at points throughout the film (Rocky Horror fan site. 2008). When telling my father that I was watching RHS he replied with a phrase that was obviously a running joke amongst Rocky fans ‘when watching RHS make sure you don’t ladder your tights’; this was disturbing to hear him say yet exemplifies active celebration nonetheless.

Another part of consumption is the films communion and community (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.4). RHS’s late night viewings led diehard fans forming a sense of community that would meet up with a sense of belonging, camaraderie and fellowship before, during and after a screening:

‘Many of the film’s showings are prefaced by preshows involving the initiation of ‘’virigins’’, costume competitions, trivia bowls, parodies of beauty contests, or skits incorporating material from other movie cults.’ (Weinstock. 2008. P.142).

What Methijs and Mendik mean by the ‘liveness’ of a performance is its ability to give the viewer a sense of being there, or being part of it (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.4). This is amplified by certain events such as festivals and sleepovers.

The forth part of consumption that RHS fulfils is commitment (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.4). Die hard RHS fans possess an intense cinephilia with the trivia, commitment and rituals of the film. The rebellious quality of RHS ties in to its homo-eroticism. Any film with a wealth of overtly sexual homo-erotic scenes will likely herd an audience of rebellious people of alternative sexual groups to fight against the right wing system or whoever disagrees with the material in the film. Cinephilia is a rebellious attitude that is self-righteous and potentially pretentious condemning mainstream cinema.

Mathijs and Mendiks idea of an alternative canonization is the way that cult films are ‘pitched against ‘official’ canon’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.4). Cult films are championed by their fandom and it often materialises in the films making their way to ‘top-100’s’, ‘best ever’ lists. These lists are often not even official but from amateur blogs and discussion groups.

Now I will discuss how Rocky Horror fulfils all of the criteria of Mathijs and Mendiks section on ‘the political economy of cult film’ (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.5). Production is a part of the political economy of cult film that refers to incidents and myths that happened during the films production. Rocky Horror has a number of production legends and trivia, there is a myth of a serious motorbike accident with Meatloaf’s stunt double in the scene where he is being chased by Frank around the lab and another that the skeleton that comes out of the coffin is actually real. (The FW. 2010)

Promotion is the second part to the political economy of film (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.6). After RHS initial flop as an unsuccessful hit it became popular at some late night viewings and advertisers started realising that they could ride this niche of cinema by marketing it as a cult film. Finally there is the films reception, this is the gravitas that it picks up in the ‘long period of public presence’. Testament to RHS popularity is the way that it has stayed in our collective conscious since its release and is still played at cinema’s around the world. Eraserhead was not marketed as cult film because its market was to fans of art films and their way of consumption is perhaps more restrained to meet ups between friends as supposed to seedy late night cinema viewings.

The cultural status of the film is split into the three sections of strangeness, allegory and cultural sensitivities (Mathijs and Mendik. 2008. P.7). RHS strangeness is evident when it is viewed and is seen by many as an allegory. RHS is a metaphor for the turning of culture from the hippie counterculture of free love to the culture of sexual cynicisms that we live in currently. (Transparency Now. No date) In Frank we find the perfect symbol of this new ideology; he draws from the archetypes of Hollywood this being the various characters in his castle and brings about his fantasies. Through watching Rocky Horror in a theatre we are ironically living in Frank’s castle; a society that turns ‘sex, violence and forbidden fantasies into theatrical spectacles’. (Transparency Now. No date). The concluding idea behind Rocky Horror is that the two Freudian drives of sex and aggression have been let free into popular culture however with this comes a dismantling of self that ends like the film does with us humans crawling in the mud. Eraserhead as with many David Lynch films contains a huge amount of allegorical material.

At the time the culture was sensitive about certain aspects of sex, and especially homosexuality. Until RHS it was only really hinted at. Rocky Horror is ‘described by director and screenwriter Todd Haynes as ‘nothing short of a Camp attack on rock and roll’, glam represented a ‘‘querring’’ of the masculine hegemony of popular music’ (Weinstock. 2008. P.35). This is exemplified by Frank the glam rock queen murdering Eddie who represents the old rock.

In conclusion RHS hits every single criteria of Mathijs and Mendik’s definition of cult film from its anatomy all the way through to its consumption, political economy and cultural status. Eraserhead on the other hand is still considered a cult film yet falls short of meeting all of Mathijs and Mendik’s points. I would disagree with a statement that says that if a film doesn’t meet all of Mathijs and Mendiks points then it is not a cult film because ultimately cult films are defined by their cult not their analysers hence why they are called cult films.

Bibliography

Eraserhead. United States: David Lynch, 1977. DVD.

Le Fanu, Joseph Sheridan and Kathleen Costello-Sullivan. Carmilla. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2013. Print.

Mathijs, Ernest and Xavier Mendik. The Cult Film Reader. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, 2008. Print.

Nosferatu. Weimer republic: F.W, Murnau, 1921. DVD.

Rocky Horror fan site. 2008. participation. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.rockyhorror.com/participation/virgins.php. [Accessed 13 May 2016].

Smith, Justin. Withnail And Us: Cult Films And Film Cults In British Cinema (Cinema And Society Series). I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2010. Print.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Library, 1996. Print.

Shock Treatment. United States: Jim Sharman, 1981. DVD.

Teenage Fanatic. 2014. 5 Similarities between The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Shakespeare. [ONLINE] Available at: http://teenagefanatic.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/5-similarities-between-rocky-horror.html. [Accessed 13 May 2016].

The FW. 2010. 10 things you didn't know about Rocky Horror Picture Show. [ONLINE] Available at: http://thefw.com/things-you-didnt-know-about-the-rocky-horror-picture-show/. [Accessed 13 May 2016].

The Rocky Horror Picture Show. United Kindgdom: Jim Sharman, 1975. DVD.

Transparency . no date. The Rocky Horror Picture Show and the Emergence of Recreational Evil. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.transparencynow.com/evil.htm. [Accessed 13 May 2016].

Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. Reading Rocky Horror. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.