Can films like, Pulp fiction and Old Boy Really be considered cult?

What i mean by this is that both films have achieved a great deal of critical and mainstream success. Isn't it this kind of success that makes a film a hit rather than a 'cult' film?

 

I agree. Can't consider either 'cult' anymore. Nothing Tarantino has done since RESERVOIR DOGS can be considered cult. Look at the considerable hype he is given long before any of his films are released.

 

yes they can.

The term cult has nothing to do with being "mainstream" its not about popularity or elitism or even being "underground"

all it means is that the film has a fanbase with a strong sense of community, and that the film has extra-textual significance beyond what has been produced by the distributors (fan fiction, events, artwork etc.)

while there are films we tend to think of more as being "cult" than others. independant film and cult film aren't the same. technically, a film doesnt have to be outside of the mainstream at all to be a cult film. the only significant mitigating factor is whether it has significance to fans outside of the film itself/promotional shit that came out with it.

in the case of tarantino though, it would probably be a "cult of tarantino" himself rather than a cult around any of his specific films. and a lot of that is made up of grindhouse/exploitation fans anyway.

The whole online, viral marketing thing we see with films like cloverfield and the new batman films is an irritatingly cynical attempt to create an "artificial" cult around a film ahead of its release. leave loads of clues and stuff online for people to find and they'll band together to find them, and form a community around it. but cults are very hard to create in this way, and swiftly disband after the film is released if it isnt good enough (like cloverfield.)

 

autophobe2e....
I agree that 'indie' films do not grant a movie cult status and I agree that a 'mainstream hollywood' movie can be a cult movie as well as a smaller one. But any 'cult film' is, by your own definition, is seen as containing an 'extra-textual significance beyond what has been produced by the distributors'. This is why a movie like RHPS was truly a cult film back when it was released. But its over-saturation (a tribute on FOX's show GLEE) has taken away its cultural (pun not intended) significance. Its popularity as a musical was not what created it's cult status, but it's ability to bring together people who didn't feel like they fit into mainstream society for multiple reasons, including the ability to love and mock the work at the same time. The distribution of Tarantino films is geared towards the same audience as the 'viral marketing' that you are irritated by, just on a larger scale. And the types of fans drawn to it are not all 'grindhouse/exploitation fans' either. But I don't think this means that there is a fanbase that sees something deeper in these two films that is not what the marketers wanted people to see in these films. Therefore your point does not apply here.

One mainstream movie that I still can consider a 'cult' film would be THE PRINCESS BRIDE. True fans do have a sense of community in regard to themes in the film that are usually lost on the average moviegoer. But by your criteria, MOST TV shows and many movies can be considered 'cult'. Fan fiction? Just about any TV show out there has 'fan fiction' and 'artwork' based on it floating around the Internet. Does that mean they are cult films or TV? I just don't think your criteria matches your definition.

Or could it be that 'cult' status is an irrelevant term anyway? Just my feelings, but it seems that a 'cult' is by definition a small group with viewpoints that are different from the larger group as a whole. Branch Davidians were a cult. Christians are not considered a cult. What is the difference? (please, if that sounds insulting, substitute any other large organized religious group in place of 'Christians'... and my point still stands.) If a 'cult film' is still a viable term, I just don't feel it applies to the two films in the OP's question.

 

Hey dude, cheers for the response, was really good, made me re-evaluate my own position, i'll do my best to adress a few points, and to make my position clearer, although I may have to split my response between several posts.

well, yes. if it has a cult around it i suppose that it is technically a "cult film" under my definition. HOWEVER, it is important to point out that it is possible to be a fan of a film without being a part of the "cult". for example,i like star wars, but i don't buy the toys, don't go to the conventions etc. i am not a part of the community that surrounds it. When we refer to a film as a "cult film" what we mean is that the community that has grown up around it has become so large or so significant that the actual text itself is, by comparison, of less, or equal significance.

It is important to remember that "cult" is not a genre. but that we use the word in the same way. for example, one could say that: "blue velvet contains elements of horror" but one would not say that "blue velvet is a horror film" (ALTHOUGH YOU WOULD BE WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO DO SO). in much the same way, one could say that, for example, "spooks is a TV show that has a cult following" but one would be UNLIKELY to say that "Spooks is a cult TV show" but again, to do so is totally reasonable and accurate.

so, under my definition (which i still stick to) ANYTHING can be cult, but some things (in a sense) can be more cult than others. therefore, when you say "could it be that "cult" status is an irrelevant term anyway?" you're pretty much on the money, "cult" isn't some exclusive status only imbued to certain films, and certainly isn't based on how innovative, popular or mainstream the text is. its about the strength of the audiences reaction to the text. only when the audiences react strongly enough to the source material to form huge, cohesive communities which become an influential presence in their own right, often (in the case of long-running series of films or TV) beginning to have direct influence on the texts themselves. ONLY THEN do we refer to a film by the moniker "cult film" as opposed to "horror" "gangster" "rom-com" etc. but yes pretty much ANYTHING can be a cult film provided the community around it is strong enough, therefore the term itself is largely meaningless.

its true that most films we describe regularly as "cult" tend to be somewhat outside of the mainstream hollywood hegemony. this is simply because a film being different to what hollywood churns out month after month means that people respond to it more favourably. it stands out and therefore cults spring up around these films because of their rarity value. BUT THIS CORRELATION IS NOT THE MEANS BY WHICH A FILM BECOMES A CULT FILM.

in short, anything can be a cult film (and, as you point out, with the ease introduced by the internet, many things are), but the cult has to be huge before we begin to refer to it as a "cult film". the term is largely meaningless as it essentially SAYS NOTHING about the film itself, one cannot recognise a cult film as one would a horror or romance, it is not a genre, it means nothing in and of itself, but EVERYTHING to its fans :2thumbsup:

 

If you want a cult film look below

 

i confess myself a little confused by this point,

the point that i was trying to make with tarantino and the grindhouse connection (although, looking back, i made it very poorly) is that in the case of tarantino and some others like, jim jarmusch, seijen suzuki etc. cults can be formed around a directors body of work rather than a specific film

cults are not exclusively built around a single film as there foundation, often they form around the body of work of a director, or a specific genre (in the cult of tarantino, there is a significant crossover between two communities, exploitation/grindhouse fans and fans of the work of the director) therefore PERSONALLY (and, as i think i have already pointed out, a personal view is the only one that really matters, as cult status is, to a certain extent based on the personal perception of a film as the definition is broad and non-specific.) i would not refer specifically to any of his films as a "cult film" but i might well refer to the man himself as a "cult director" as it appears to me that a significant, self-identifying community has arisen around his work and around the genres in which he works which therefore justify the use of the term.

The part of your response i don't really get is the bit about marketing; viral marketers want to make the film appeal to everyone with an internet connection (although they tend to target fans of pre-existing cults or genres) people who market tarantino's films want everyone to go and see them so they target as broad a demographic as possible. i agree that they're both doing essentially the same thing but thats because they both have the same job: sell a movie to the most people that they can. i don't think that in this case the actions of the marketers have any impact on the films or on the pre-exisitng cult following.

 

I guess the point I was making (oh those many months ago) on the 'viral marketing' was geared towards the specific internet marketing that targets audiences to make it feel as if only a specific segment of the population (ie, YOU and YOU only... not that other guy) "gets it". Not all internet marketing is what I consider 'viral'. Blair Witch and Cloverfield marketing come to mind... not due to their hand held cam nature, but due to the idea that you will see more in it than someone else, and that makes you part of the 'group' and 'in the know', so to speak. These are what I consider attempts to create a 'cult'. The difference I guess boils down to intent (was the movie created with the mindset of making a movie that will be enjoyed by everyone, or only specific, possibly disenfranchised, persons only) making the difference when it comes to my point of 'viral marketing'. And it's this point that drives the original answer to the post. I don't believe that if the intention to create a 'cult' is a large motive behind a film that the targeted segment of the population will respond that way. They will usually see the intent and be put off from objectively enjoying the film. Hope that helps explain myself a bit better.

 

Or, to be more succinct, internet marketers do have a lot to do with creating preconceptions that have a heavy impact on the cultural status that will cling to the film, before and beyond the films release.

 

One day? Pulp Fiction is pretty popular though. Idk if it's really "cult" or more mainstream...hmm. Maybe in between?

 

When cult is hip it can become mainstream Doesn't mean it isn't a cult movie anymore.

 

Depends on so many factors. Blair Witch started out cult in the US because of the hype online. The "marketing" was basically word of mouth. Then the movie grossed more than 100 million and the cult status vanished.

 

Of course they can! Pulp fiction is definitely the cult movie!