When is a cult not a cult?

[ladyofastolat]

Okay, so what is a cult DVD? Looking at my DVD collection I can find a few that definitely aren't (Notting Hill, Sleepless in Seattle), a lot that definitely are (original series Star Trek etc.) and a whole lot that might be or might not be.

Recent debate (some of it after wine on Friday night, so possibly unreliable, though very heart-felt) has ranged over the following issues:

- Is it something to do with the content? Magazines like TV Zone claim to cover "cult TV", but cover programmes before they've even aired, suggesting that some things come ready labelled as "cult" even before any audience has watched them. All sf and fantasy seems to do this, as do things about gangsters, drink or drugs, most black comedies, and satire.

- Is it to do with the type of person who watches them? Is a cult DVD defined as being "the sort of DVD a person who likes cult DVDs watches." It's like the definition of geek, which sometimes seems rather circular. Liking certain things gets you labelled as a "geek", and therefore all those other things that this geeky person does also become, by extension, geeky pursuits. Is a cult DVD purely defined as "one someone can take to a cult DVD-watching weekend without thinking that your fellow attendees will laugh at you for owning it."

- Is it to do with the viewing figures: If a film is a "cult success", this normally means "hardly anyone watched it." However, it does usually also mean that those few people did really like it. Really, the classic cult TV series is one that a small group of people love obsessively, but most people have never heard of, or "don't get it". However, merely having low viewing figures doesn't make something a cult. There are plenty of low-rated serious documentaries on TV, which no-one would call cult.

Anyway, the above become my working definition of cult TV - something that "the majority" doesn't watch, but those who do watch it like it obsessively, and set up internet sites devoted to it, etc. "Firefly" is an obvious example - low-rated, unheard of by "the masses", but instantly with hundreds of websites and forums devoted to loving it.

But there are still questions...

What about Star Wars? It has the obsessive fan base. It has the sf subject matter. No-one would question its presence at a cult DVD weekend. But most people in the world have watched it. It can hardly be called a minority thing. And ditto with "The Lord of the Rings" - a "cult book" that almost everyone has read, or is at least aware of.

Does the mere presence of obsessive fans make something a cult? But what about soap operas? Eastenders doubtless has a fan club, and people who base their whole evening schedule around catching every episode. But is Eastenders cult TV?

Can something stop being a cult? For example, now that Doctor Who is watched by millions, and is the latest fashionable thing for all 10 year olds to watch, is it no longer cult TV? Or, in 2006, are the recent series of Doctor Who non-cult, but the older series still cult? The X-Files started as cult TV, but then seemed to become flavour of the month for a while. Did it stop being cult TV during these years? Then, later, did it become cult again, since viewing dropped to the hardcore of loyal fans?

Does age alone bestow cult status? A lot of old TV series seem to have become cult, merely on the grounds of surviving. 60s shows that were mainstream in the 60s are now cult. In 20 years time, will "Friends" be called a "cult comedy show"? Websites devoted to cult TV are full of old children's TV shows like Bagpuss. A lot of sites seem to use "cult TV" and "classic TV" interchangeably. But Casablanca, and Citizen Kane... Classic movies, undoubtedly, but cult ones...?

Then things like Buffy come with the "cult" label on it right from the start, before even airing. Age doesn't always come into it.

There is nothing absolute about it; it is related to audience. Anything in a foreign language seems to become by definition cult, regardless of the subject matter, genre, or popularity in its home country. Bob the Builder probably isn't cult if watched by 4 year olds, but if Bob the Builder DVDs suddenly become all the rage with students, it probably is a cult show, for them.

No, I have no answers whatsoever, so, in the absence of a conclusion, I will just bring this to a sudden and abrupt.

Comments

[the-marquis.livejournal.com]

I think, having skimmed as I want to get some breakfast, that 'cult' labelling used to be awarded due to either
A) The film fanbase was largely obsessive (Star Wars, Monty Python)
B) Low initial sales of a video/dvd after a poor cinema run but that didn't die off as word of mouth spread that "X" was a good film - so that sales continued steadily and maybe grew over time (eg Spinal Tap). Although A & B can apply to the same film and poor cinema could be due to poor advertising or coming out at the wrong time eg a great film but which opened whilst Titanic was on...
C) The film was loved and watched repeatedly by students because it was arty and clever and eventually some of them became film studies lecturers and wrote books (eg Withnail & I, The Wicker Man).

although I can't be sure if this is thinking I've read somewhere that's percolated through or my own idea based on bits and bobs in SF & film magazines.

The label has been misused and stretched over the years though, so films that were cult now share the label with things which given the size of their fanbase seem too large to be cult. I mean would you call "Lost" cult? I wouldn't given all the hoohaa and posters

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Your A, B, and C all seem fair.

I think "Lost" could go either way. It's fairly mainstream, watched by millions, and backed with lots of marketing... but it does also have an obsessive fanbase. There's probably a whole lot more Lost fan sites, fanfic etc. than there are for, say, "Sex and the City", to name a random other American show that seems to be talked about a lot. (Not that I've ever checked to see what the size of Sex and the City fandom is.) So I'd say that Lost fandom has quite a lot in common for a cult TV show's fandom, even if the show itself is fairly mainstream.

Er... I think.

[the-marquis.livejournal.com]

Yes it is a bugger to pin down. Perhaps we should just leave it at "I think this is cult"

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

I have a suspicion that any film, TV programme or DVD is always referred to as either mainstream or cult. Mainstream ones are Hollywood blockbusters, programmes shown on BBC one at prime time, and so on; anything else is referred to as cult. There is a third category, but it's never actually referred to: this is the stuff that people watch when it's on and then forget about, so even if it gets a DVD release no-one really notices.

As an alternative hypothesis, "cult" TV and film is the equivalent of "indie" music: stuff that some people like, but that doesn't get to the pop charts (and would be selling out if it tried). Perhaps a refinement of that is that a cult item is one which is made because the makers think it's a good thing to make in an of itself - as opposed to one which is made because research shows that this style of programme is popular at present and another channel has got a better one than we have, and in which the scripting, casting and production all tick the appropriate boxes for that genre.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I quite like your last definition - though I'd question if any TV show nowadays could get made without a lot of consideration of the market. Ratings mean everything in TV nowadays. Ditto in films. Your small film maker can make a film out of the love of it, but will he get a distributor? Arguably, merely by reaching our screens, a film or TV show has become mainstream, in a way.

[evilmissbecky.livejournal.com]

Hee! Icon love!

As far as "cult" goes, my understanding of the term was always that word of mouth was heavily involved. So a TV show like Firefly fits perfectly. It wasn't heavily advertised by the network, it wasn't a big hit, but the fans themselves took up the torch, and quite proudly, at that.

Or the movie Office Space which tanked in the theater, but became a huge seller on DVD.

Star Wars sort of defies classification. I would say it isn't a cult thing, because it's become so pervasive in our culture. Not to mention the relentless advertising and promotion that accompanies it.

Ultimately I think that "cult" is one of those words whose definition is always changing. In fact, I doubt there will ever be an accepted method of classing a show/film/book/CD as "cult."

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you're right - that the word has no clear definition. One person's cult hit is another person's mainstream sell-out.

I think word of mouth has a lot to do with it - and, in today's Internet age, the Internet can do a lot of that word of mouth stuff. I think a cult show is likely to have a lot of websites created by fans, while a mainstream one has the official site, and that's it.

I think Star Wars is perhaps mainstream and cult, both at the same time. Its vast merchandise machine, and the fact that everyone's seen it, makes it mainstream, but a lot of fans react to it in a very cult way. To those obsessive fans, it is a cult movie, because of the way they react to it. To "normal" people, it's just a normal, mainstream movie.

[tovaglia.livejournal.com]

Being devils advocate:

Perhaps cult status happens when entertainment consumers end up participating in the branding process. Mr A. Person decides that a brand (TV series/ book or whatever) is for him, then he will go out and buy anything with the same brand, regardless of quality. Arguably, something can't be cult unless it is bad on some level - "it's so bad, it's good". eg any attempt by SF shows to do romance (Star Wars ep 2 etc.). Meeja types then say "A few people really like this, we have no idea why, so for heaven's sake leave it alone and don't argue as long as it keeps bringing in money". Since there's no serious attempt by either critics or paymasters to engage with the content, the creators retain full creative control and often enter into a direct dialogue with the fans. The fanbase of "cult" shows is characterised by a tendency to categorise, analyse, discuss and most of all love the show despite its evident defects.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Also devil's advocating...

In today's Internet age, it certainly seems the case that the creators of "cult shows" interact with the fans quite a bit - lurking on message boards and forums etc. Though one could argue that this isn't really any different from the makers of any commerical product and their attempts to do market research. The makers of a new biscuit will test it on consumers, and alter it in response to their comments. The makers of a big commerical blockbuster movie will have test screenings, and alter it in response. If Joss Whedon talks to fans and puts things into Buffy purely to please them, is this any different from a biscuit company's marketing man suggesting that more cinnamon is added to the new recipe, because market research showed that it should?

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Speaking from a marketing perspective: yes, it is different.

Market research very rarely involves that kind of open dialogue: marketing people tend to find it quite scary: they want much more control, and they don't like negative opinions being visible to other customers. There should be more open interaction of this kind in commercial contexts, but there are few companies where there is, and even the few companies that do make a big point of their user forums - for example, Lush - the interaction tends to be very heavily censored, and critical opinions tend to be quickly crushed.

I think Marketing as a discipline has a hell of a long way to go when it comes to the net. :-(

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I was interested to go on a marketing course a few months ago. A marketing course specifically for librarians, that is. The big message throughout the course was that marketing equalled having a customer-focused service. It was all about smiling at your customers, making their every visit to the library a happy one, listening to them etc. It was about thinking about different user groups, asking them what they wanted, and giving it to them. It was very different from any idea I had in my head of what "marketing" was about - much more fluffy, far less cynical.

But maybe marketing means something different in the public sector from the private sector...

[bunn.livejournal.com]

On a course like that you would probably get the fluffy side, but you are already experiencing the less fluffy one, probably.

Marketing has a strong customer-focus element, but the other side of it is profit: finding customers that will buy profitable services with the minimum of hassle and expense. Customers that want complicated things and can't pay for them properly, or obscure products that nobody else wants should be got rid of, so you can focus on people who are easy to serve costeffectively.

So, for example, a reduced book-budget would be a result of marketing analysis too: reduce the spend and focus it on the most popular items. You listen to the customer when he is the right sort of customer, saying things that help you sell more stuff.

And of course, you aren't really in the business of selling people things that are intrinsically bad for them, or that they don't need and can't afford, as so many marketers are.

[intertext.livejournal.com]

That's a very interesting question, and I'm sorry that I'm, as usual, coming late to the discussion (those pesky time zones). I agree with the general concensus - looking at the "cult" shelf on my local video store, it seems that what gets labelled as "cult" are relatively obscure, unsuccessful or bizarre movies that developed popularity either through word of mouth or later on video or dvd. The movie "Donnie Darko" for example. Or "Bladerunner," which most sf fans agree is brilliant but didn't do well in the box office. TV seems to be a bit more fluid. "Firefly" is the best example. I'm not sure about "Buffy": there, perhaps it started as a cult and moved into the mainstream as it became more popular. The current show "Heroes" might have been a cult hit had it not been almost immediately popular and successful, which seems to eliminate it as cult, even though its premise is geeky to the extreme. "Deadwood" might qualify as a cult, as although it seems to have critical appeal and a fairly staunch fan-base, I don't think it has reached a wide audience, partly because of being cable.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the fact that someone was a cult means that, to many people, it is always a cult. Althouhg Buffy started as a cult show, watched by a few, but then became popular, its initial fanbase continued to interact with it in the same way as they had before, and thus, to them, it remained a cult show.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Just to note that this weeks 'the week' includes a reference to 'the cult TV show 'Countdown'. That wouldn't have been my personal definition of 'cult', but...

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

Perhaps "cult" means "has a following", although things which the "normal" person is supposed to watch as a matter of course don't count - Eastenders, Big Brother, Hollywood films, etc.

[nilsigma.livejournal.com]

Chambers Dictionary gives cult as 'something which is popular and regarded as particularly significant by a certain group of people: a fashion, craze or fad.'

I think that is not a bad definition - its the combination of significance and a group of people that makes a real cult, or else it is just a craze whipped up by PR.

On this basis I would say Star Wars is now not a cult (no significance and the craze has died away), original Star Trek clearly is still a cult (significance and fanbase) as is 'Magic Roundabout'. Something like 'I'm a Celebrity' probably is a cult at the moment (fad, craze) but luckily for the world it won't be after a few more years. 'Doctor Who' is a cult both ways! Confusingly I would say 'Buffy' is a cult in its TV format but the original movie isn't (it didn't pack in the significance that the TV series did).

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Referring to the dictionary to define a word, rather than arguing endlessly about it...? Heresy! ;-)

I'm coming round to a definition of cult that is a purely relative one. I think the same programme can be simultaneously cult and mainstream. Even if most people watch Star Wars as a mainstream blockbuster, some fans still react to it very obsessively, treating it as very important, so, to them, it is a cult. I think something would generally be called a cult show if quite a large proportion of its audience reacted to it in a cult-like fashion, but pretty much anything can have elements of cult appeal, even if only to a handful of people.

[nilsigma.livejournal.com]

According to the BBC yesterday, the cult status of 'Adam Adamant Lives!' was enhanced by the fact that it was not on DVD and therefore it was impossible to watch it. Memory makes the cult grow fonder.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Watch BBC4 tonight at 8.30 for the first in a series looking at the history of cult television. Tonight, "Adam Adamant".

Personally, I think the reason that 'Countdown' might be cult is that it has a subset of particularly devoted fans. That would also apply to the shows and films more typically considered as cult. Just because there may be mainstream fans who watch every episode (but who wouldn't, say, bid on eBay for a Richard Whiteley autographed dictionary), doesn't mean that the programme isn't a cult. What matters is that there is a section of devoted hard-core fans who create websites, go to conventions, start up fan clubs etc.

You can apply this test to most programmes and it works (or at least it does for me). It makes particular sense for non-SF type shows and films that might be considered cult, for example:
The Sound of Music
The Blues Brothers
Spinal Tap
Anything by Oliver Postgate
Soccer AM
Test Match Special on Radio 4 LW (surely the only reason anyone ever listens to long wave radio...)
Dallas (but not Dynasty)

Even individual presenters or commentators may be cult by this definition. Although also popular in the mainstream, I would suggest:
Lorraine Kelly
Murray Walker
The late Richard Whiteley
Jerry Springer (but not Oprah or Tricia)
The late Fred Dibnah

Actually, thinking on, I may need to refine this model. If the hardcore fans exist only in Germany, then it doesn't count. Otherwise, we'll have to include David Hasselhoff...

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I really am coming around to the belief that the definition of "cult" is relative. Anything can be cult... to that single person in its audience who interacts with it in a cultish fashion. For all I know, there may well be a few people out there who are devoted in a cult-like fashion to.. [insert name of boring, mainstream programme here.] The programme will be generally called a cult programme if a large proportion of its fans react to it in this way, but it can be a cult programme, in certain circles, if anyone reacts to it in this way.

I imagine there are a lot of mainstream TV programmes that become cult programmes when they're watched in student common rooms. Countdown, perhaps? Certainly "Going for gold" for a student cult hit back when I was at Merton.