MAINSTREAM OR CULT
By mainstream I mean acceptance within popular culture; in other words, the general consensus among consumers — the large group of individuals who viewed the movie, read the book, accessed the web series, etc., found the text to be interesting, entertaining, and worthy of their time. The opposite of this scenario are texts that find themselves liked only by cult followings — specific alternative groups within society that include subcultures and countercultures.
In most cases, writers write their material in the hope of achieving commercial and financial success, and there are some writers who may not be that concerned with commercial success but write to bring awareness to an issue or to reveal the truth about a specific topic. You have no control over how audiences are going to consume and react to your work, no matter what your original intention is for the work in question.
So, why do some texts become favorites within pop culture and others continue to be perpetuated throughout time? Sometimes the answer goes back to the traits found in most texts.
We can look at movies, TV shows, books, and study all of the “best of” lists, but mostly it takes looking at each text and how and where it was released and the journey the text took to find its audience. Some of our classic films such as The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Citizen Kane (1941) did not open to great box office receipts, yet, through word of mouth and critical acclaim, they have become important movies that reflect American culture and have found their place in mainstream film history. There are also films such as The Sound of Music (1965) that did enjoy box office success when first released and continues to appear on most “best of” lists. It seems this film is loved by many and has been passed down from generation to generation. Its themes of love, family values, religious versus secular pursuits, persecution — all set to memorable music — never seem to tire. The film plays annually on American network television and appears as a sing-a-long musical at special screenings across the country. Its release in 1965 was against the social challenges that America faced at the time — racism, violence, economic uncertainty, counter-culture threats from “hippies” and Vietnam protestors. Is that why the film did so well? It was an escape from the reality facing the American public. This is a mainstream text.
As far as cult films, the two mentioned above, The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Harold and Maude, did not receive box office love when first released. So what contributed to their long lasting achievement as cult favorites? In their case they both appeared in the ‘70s and the traditional movie release pattern was in place (as explained in Chapter 1). In the mid-to-late ‘70s, urban theaters that had been left behind for suburban movieplexes began showing foreign films and “midnight movies.” Pink Flamingos (1972) and Reefer Madness (1936) were being shown at midnight in New York City. On April Fools Day, 1976, Rocky Horror followed in their steps.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show became the midnight destination in many urban areas (230 theaters across the country), and not only would you attend the showing, you would also dress up as one of the many characters who inhabit the haunted mansion that lead characters Brad and Janet stumble upon. Props, sing-a-longs, and dancing took place at every screening, and as each week went by, the audiences grew and grew. Harold and Maude, essentially a love story, followed in the midnight screening time slot. Attending one of these screenings in the late ‘70s meant mouthing along with the audience as they recited many of Harold’s famous lines regarding his suicide attempts and singing along with the Cat Stevens soundtrack.
You can still find screenings of these films in urban movie houses, despite their ready availability for home viewing.
Both are important movies to view to understand how cult films find their audience.
AND SPEAKING OF LISTS
Throughout the year various organizations present their “Top 10 Best” lists — the 10 best books, the 10 best movies, the 10 best TV shows, etc., of the year, or the “Top 25” or “Top 100 Best” lists of all time, etc. No matter whether these lists are being generated by major newspapers or fan-based websites, the general public has a fascination with categorizing pieces of media. These lists are composed by critics, fans, consumers, and media experts and companies. A particular text appears within the list and it appears there for a reason, as a majority of individuals think it should be there based on some level of popularity. (Many of these are the same lists referred to in Chapter 6 and often include the quintessential text for your research).
Mainstream magazine Entertainment Weekly loves to produce these lists. For instance, here is their list for the 10 Greatest American Sitcoms from their July 5/12, 2013, “The 100 All-Time Greatest Movies...and TV Shows...and Albums...and Novels...and More” issue:
The Simpsons (1989–present)
Seinfeld (1990–1998)
The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970–77)
All In The Family (1971–79)
The Andy Griffith Show (1960–68)
I Love Lucy (1951–57)
Cheers (1982–93)
The Cosby Show (1984–92)
Roseanne (1988–97)
Arrested Development (2003–06, 2013)
The list spans six decades (1951–2013), and+ if we return to our discussion from Chapter 1 and the way media played to an unfragmented audience during that time, these shows achieved success because the majority of Americans watched them on television in real-time and via taped and DVR episodes. The masses enjoyed these shows and continue to discuss these shows. Writers who grew up consuming these shows are still in many of the writers’ rooms of shows being produced today. As creators and consumers we have embraced these shows as most of them revolve around relatable family and social issues. If you run through the traits of each of these sitcoms you’ll find many of them to be similar, such as family values, family dysfunction, friendships, comedic scenarios, gender issues, and comments on society (especially within Seinfeld and The Simpsons). There are common threads that tie each of these shows together as each one appears from decade to decade. If you want to appeal to the masses, take a look at these Top 10 lists and identify what appears in each of the shows and then apply those same traits to your material.
In the case of cult followings, let’s take a look at two more lists from the same issue:
10 Greatest Dramas
10 Greatest Cult Classics
The Wire (2002–08)
The Wire (2002–08)
The Sopranos (1999–2007)
Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)
Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)
Arrested Development (2003–06, 2013)
Mad Men (2007–2014)
My So-Called Life (1994–1995)
Breaking Bad (2008–2013)
The X-Files (1993–2002)
My So-Called Life (1994–1995)
Doctor Who (1963–present)
Law & Order (1990–2010)
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987–94)
Lost (2004–10)
Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988–99)
Prime Suspect U.K. (1991–2006)
The Comeback (2005)
The X-Files (1993–2002)
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (2005–present)
First, within the Dramas list we see similar traits among the shows again, such as compelling storylines, strong lead characters, captivating seasonal arcs, a preponderance of anti-heroes. Next, the texts mentioned are fairly recent within the history of media, all from the ‘90s, �
�00s, through to the present except for Doctor Who, which goes back to 1963. First, take a look at that fact and that most of the critics and experts that gathered these lists only really truly remember the last 10 to 20 years of content.
As for cult followings, 4 of these 20 series selections appear on both lists. This proves that there can be a fine line between mainstream and cult content. In the case of The Wire, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, My So-Called Life, and The X-Files, there are enough viewers within mainstream media who find these shows to be of interest and there are cult fans who continue to perpetuate the series content beyond the series’ time and place in television history.
My So-Called Life is an interesting selection, as it was only broadcast for one season. There are only 19 episodes, yet, due to the fact that the show originally ran on network television, ABC, it also received a run on MTV and other networks on a syndicated basis and continued to pick up audiences every time it was shown. The series features issues of adolescent angst — something that everyone can relate to — and due to that fact, just about anyone who views the difficult life of teenager Angela Chase gets sucked into understanding everything she goes through. It is a classic series, as it could have appeared at any time in television history.
As far as the other cult classics, they differ in genre — sci-fi, comedy, drama — yet each one has somewhat quirky elements, from dealing with aliens and vampires to Lisa Kudrow’s The Comeback, a brilliantly written show about the struggles of being a forthysomething actress in Hollywood that appeared for only one season on HBO. Here’s an example of a well-written show that didn’t reach its audience during its initial run, but has since rounded up a great deal of praise and enthusiasm from those who discover it. This is the future of media. We will see more and more of these small, quiet shows find an audience as Netflix and Amazon continue with their unique distribution.
So what does that mean for you as a writer in this marketplace? It means that you have the opportunity to write for mainstream, niche, cult, or any combination of these types of audiences.
It means that you can intend for a specific group of consumers to enjoy your work, but you’ll never know what group will gravitate to your work until your work is released.
TOOLKIT SANDBOX
De Palma’s Obsession, Some Questions, and The Room
CASE STUDY: Brian De Palma and his obsession with Hitchcock
Whatever you think of the work of Brian De Palma, you have to give him credit for wearing his admiration for Alfred Hitchcock on his sleeve. With any study of De Palma’s work you will inevitably find a writer, critic, or author discussing how De Palma consistently copies (some would say rips off) Hitchcock’s scenes within his movies, from Obsession (1976) to Femme Fatale (2002), but most especially in the back-to-back sexual thrillers Dressed to Kill (1980), Blow Out (1981), and Body Double (1984).
This triad of movies featured grisly mysterious murders, dark surroundings, violence in public places, Psycho-like shower scenes, double identities, surprise twists, shapeshifter characters, etc., culminating in many critics out and out stating that Body Double was just simply a literal remake of Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954).
So how does the director of such popular mainstream films as Carrie (1976), Scarface (1983), and The Untouchables (1987) fall into a cult-level status as a result of too closely copying Hitchcock, THE master of suspense? How did these homages to a fellow director go awry for De Palma?
I’m sure De Palma’s intentions were good. Obviously, he is influenced by one of the great directors, as we are all influenced by our mentors. He grew up watching Hitchcock’s films and wanted to emulate them, this is clear. However, when similar elements are executed (no pun intended) by De Palma, the result is either so incredibly unbelievable or cheesy that we can’t take him seriously. The result is that Dressed to Kill, Blow Out, and Body Double have achieved cult status — for all the wrong reasons. Some viewers love these films, mostly because they can see what De Palma was trying to do. It’s a noble attempt, however the results drew criticism. Take some time to view these three films (only after you have watched your necessary Hitchcock films first, such as Psycho, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, Vertigo — at least), and you’ll see how one director’s “homage” perhaps goes too far. Does De Palma’s admiration pay off? I’ll let you be the judge.
Learn from this. If you are going to include references to writers, directors, producers who have preceded you, at least do them well. (For an opposing look at how one director successfully applies homage to cinematic predecessors, study the films of Quentin Tarantino. He has mastered the homage factor, no doubt.)
QUESTIONING WITH THE WRITER’S ADVANTAGE:
As you do your research, ask yourself “How do I anticipate my project being accepted by audiences?”
Would your audience consider your work to be mainstream? Why?
Would your audience consider your work to be a candidate for a cult favorite? Why?
Are you considering all types of consumers as potential audiences?
What are your favorite cult movies, TV shows, books? Why?
Do you think some individuals like unusual (not mainstream) movies because they want to appear to be different?
If you like cult material, does that make you odd? Do you think differently of folks who like material that is not usually considered mainstream?
EXERCISE
Inside The Room
Identify some films from the past two decades that have achieved cult status (include Tommy Wiseau’s The Room). Why are they considered cult films? Why didn’t they reach the mainstream audience?
CHAPTER 10
TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF YOUR GENRE
As you continue to research your genre, you’ll need to examine how the texts you’ve been studying build off of one another. This is not only identifying and understanding the influences of a particular writer, but also being aware of how all of these creators of content have come together to write similar themes and ideas within genres. Studying how writers pay homage to existing texts to build their own texts is important. This produces patterns within a genre that lead to trends within that genre.
NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING
In 1983 novelist/screenwriter William Goldman wrote a quintessential book about writing in Hollywood entitled Adventures in the Screen Trade. (You should read it, no matter what kind of writer you are.) In it he stated that “Nobody knows anything” when it comes to studios and networks as they put together their rosters for the next blockbuster summer season or television season. And this remains true to this day. Yes, there is a massive amount of research conducted and Twitter responses are monitored, however, what ultimately happens at the box office on any given weekend or when a new TV series is broadcast or available via a web service, the distributors (along with the creators of the content) do not really know whether the pieces of content will be a hit or a miss.
The reason I am bringing this up at this point is that sometimes there’s this mysterious thing that happens among development folks, and often they end up developing similar projects — at random. Sometimes this has to do with the culture, as an issue is going on in society (such as fear of infectious disease or terrorism hijinks) and development executives pick up on that, or it has to do with the zeitgeist that we all live in and the patterns of the everyday lives we lead. When you study Joseph Campbell and his discussion about myths, and later work with Christopher Vogler’s The Writer’s Journey, you’ll understand that our media is just a reflection of the collective consciousness of our times, and movies (and content within all media in general) are our modern-day contemporary myths. Being aware of this and knowing how to tap into that collective consciousness is part of knowing The Writer’s Advantage.
So when you do a search for this practice under “Twin Movies” or “identical movies released at the same time,” you’ll see that lists g
o back a couple decades. (Also note that this happens in publishing and with TV shows as well — see next paragraph). Some examples of this phenomenon are:
Dangerous Liaisons (1988) and Valmont (1989)
Jurassic Park (1993) and Carnosaur (1993)
Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994)
Dante’s Peak (1997) and Volcano (1997)
Antz (1998) and A Bug’s Life (1998)
The Truman Show (1998) and EDtv (1999)
Chasing Liberty (2004) and First Daughter (2004)
The Prestige (2006) and The Illusionist (2006)
Olympus Has Fallen (2013) and White House Down (2013)
...and so on and so forth. There are many of these twin movie examples. In most cases, one of these films performs better than the other, leaving the other one behind in cinema history without much fanfare and glory. And as I said, this happens in the publishing industry and with TV series as well.
SPOTTING TRENDS
As we look at the examples of movies and the development of similar ideas at about the same time of release, we see that this practice is fairly common and not especially desirable. Within the television industry, however, this mirroring of ideas is often what sets off a trend within a particular season. For instance, during the television seasons of 2011 through 2012, five sitcoms appeared that featured female comedic leads along with behind-the-scenes creators, producers, and crews that included a good number of women. HBO’s Girls, CBS’s Two Broke Girls, Fox’s New Girl, and NBC’s Whitney and Are You There Chelsea? — all produced, written by and starring young women in their twenties to thirties. Coincidence or trend?
The Writer's Advantage Page 11