Column: The underrated cult classic phenomenon

Hoping to watch a movie? 

It’s all too common to type a movie title into a search bar, just to catch a glimpse of three arbitrary rating numbers and short reviews. We use this to decide whether to watch a movie or not. However, does this method actually benefit audiences?

Film is subjective. It’s possible that others could’ve disliked a movie that you loved, but that alone wouldn’t make you change your stance. But, if you saw its reviews before watching said film, you’re developing opinions on a movie before even giving it a chance.

This is a problem.

Valuing the short, opinionated takes of others before initially viewing a film hurts the viewing experience. It ignores the inherent subjectivity of our tastes in movies.

What does one particular film mean to you? How do you relate to its characters? How do you interpret its motifs? These questions rooted in emotion can be answered only by you, not a 280-character review filled with emojis.

Ignorantly following reviews doesn’t only affect your ability to decide what films to see, but it also affects the filmmaking process. When studios see their films underperforming at the ticket counter, they may be less likely to encourage similar scripts, despite unheard audiences enjoying them. Critics’ views do not always align with those of audiences.

This is the “Underrated Cult Classic Phenomena” in which certain films upon release are panned by critics to an extent that it affects their box-office performance — however, months or years later, audiences finally gain the voice to speak for themselves once liberated from the pressures of critics’ opinions through home video. Audiences then declare movies that they love as underrated cult classics, dismissing their critical failure.

Victims of this phenomenon may be films you love such as "Fight Club" (1999), "Blade Runner" (1982), and "Mulholland Drive" (2001). Each of these debuted to critical failure or polarization and box office failure before audiences had the chance to assign them the "cult classic" title.

Ridley Scott’s "Blade Runner" was declared a box office flop, collecting $26 million. The film’s poor box-office recovery could be attributed to its negative reviews. Critics at the time stated that the film was too grimy, slow, and niche. The summer of its release, Pauline Kael, former American film critic for The New Yorker, wrote, “Scott seems to be trapped in his own alleyways, without a map.”  Roger Ebert wrote that the film was “a failure as a story.”

"Fight Club" was disliked by studio executives, forcing director David Fincher to restructure the film’s marketing campaign. The executives were proven right as it became one of the most controversial films of the year. Premiering at the 56th Venice Film Festival, the film’s critical reception was poor as it was booed and walked out of. Two months following its initial premiere, "Fight Club" opened globally to divisive critical opinion, yielding underwhelming box office figures considering its impressive cast and crew. It earned only $11 million dollars on its opening weekend domestically.

"Mulholland Drive" was met with polarizing reviews by critics. Published before its U.S. theatrical release, The New York Observer’s Rex Reed wrote, “The worst movie I've seen this year is Mulholland Drive, a load of moronic and incoherent garbage from David Lynch…” Viewed as an enigma by some, the film was criticized for being seemingly incohesive.

So, were initial reviews of these films indicators of whether audiences enjoyed them?

No. These films have been declared cult classics.

The reason?

Audiences gained the right to watch the films independent of a review’s pressure through home video, allowing them to express their own opinions.

Audiences' appraisal of these films after their home video release has established them as cult classics, but one can’t help but wish that the films would’ve succeeded at the right time: in theaters.

If audiences had the opportunity to give these films a chance, independent of reviews marring their images beforehand, studios could’ve encouraged similar, path-breaking filmmakers and films over the years.

This doesn’t mean movie reviews are the death of cinema. Reviews offer a platform for public discourse about the works of an influential industry, and people should have the opportunity to discuss their interpretations.

Instead, the solution should come from audiences. Recognizing films’ subjectivity, audiences should give every film a chance to form authentic opinions. Afterwards, they can use reviews as platforms for discussion.

This way, audiences can be heard, ensuring films they love are successful at the right time.

opinion@dailytarheel.com