Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer
He went mainstream in 1986 with The Fly and every film since has been financed (wholly or partially) by a major studio. His first few films were revered amongst the Horror fraternity. So while those films were cult, he is certainly not a cult director.
|
Certainly not a cult director? While Cronenberg may be one of the more widely know directors deemed "cult", he is still most definitely a cult director (even with the inclusion of A History of Violence and Eastern Promises). You seem to barr him from being considered "cult" because
The Fly was a studio effort, but seem to be ignoring the fact that
The Fly itself is very much a cult film. Since
The Fly Cronenber has made
Naked Lunch and
Dead Ringers, two films which also have cult followings. I'm not sure what your definition of "cult director" is, but for me a guy who has been churning out "cult films" since the 60s qualifies for the title.
Quote:
|
Tarkovsky is revered as you say by scholars and film aficionados alike but to mainstream fans he is very much an unknown quantity so it that sense his name suggests a cult following.
|
Orson Welles is unknown to most mainstream audiences, is
Citizen Kane a cult film and Welles a cult director? You've got a very loose definition of the term. I doubt most mainstream audiences could name a Kurosawa film, does he qualify as a "cult director" in your mind? The denotation of the word "cult" makes it applicable for use in these situations but you know very well that its connotation does not. Semantics arguments are worthless and adidasss has already stated that he could have used a better word.