Cult or Classic? A meditation on The Big Lebowski

Tara Reid as Bunny Lebowski in The Big Lebowski (1998)

On Bluesky, I found myself reviewing the context of a photo from The Big Lebowski, specifically the scene where Tara Reid as Bunny Lebowski is extending her right foot to Jeff Bridges (off camera) and says. "blow on them." I chose the particular still for a jokey reason and assumed that everyone has seen The Big Lebowski. My reason for that assumption is because the platform itself is replete with predominantly lefty hip people. 

Let me be clear: I don't assume on a regular basis that everyone has seen the film, but I will admit that I do think many people are aware of it and have some idea of what it entails. Or I should say: I had thought that. On reflection, I began to question my assumption and have to admit that in many cases, there are those of us who may be seeing the world through more confirmation bias than we might be willing to admit.

There is a larger discussion to be had about that, but for our purposes here, I want to narrow the focus to adjusting expectations about why a film I like or you like and that we think is almost a cultural touchstone or even part of pop cultural lingua franca, might not necessarily be those things across the board or outside a certain context or demographic.

Watching my own reactions, I thought it interesting that my pal had probably not seen the film, but I asked myself why I thought she would have, and are there other similar blind spots in my assumptions that might lead to a broader, if inconclusive conversation?

My reaction was based on the idea of extended broad appeal of a film that met with mixed reviews upon release but grew in popularity, particularly among the college aged demographic in the early aughts. Steve Buscemi confirmed as much in an interview and it got me thinking that if Buscemi saw me approaching him, would he assume that I was as big a fan? We are the same age, but I have to admit that TBL was a film I returned to repeatedly over the years fairly consistently. 

Honestly, though, out of his CV, I would be more likely to ask him about Trees Lounge, Fargo, Boardwalk Empire, or any number of other works but would only refrain from mentioning the movie at hand because I would assume he might be weary of talking about it. Still, the question in my mind formed: why would someone not have seen or known about it?

The first part is easy: not everyone is a moviegoer. Not everyone is a Coen brothers fan. Not everyone cares for screwball comedy or - and this is where I got more interested - a fan of cult films. And this led me to the second part of that of that question.

What if a person hasn't heard of a film? Does that invalidate its claim to universality or its cultural cachet? This led to determining what, in fact, is a cult film? What is a classic film?  All of this slammed into an article that I cannot find, but read recently where Citizen Kane was referred to as a "cult film". I stopped and read that several times. But I did ask myself is there a context for considering Welles' work - one of the most important and influential films in cinema history - as a "cult" film.

And this led me to asking myself, "well, what is a cult film, Johnny boy?"

In my mind, I know what a cult film is. It is usually an independent film (though not always), one that had a meager but fervid following upon release (more than likely), and is very often, just plain eccentric or "weird" for lack of a better term (this, too, seems more likely). 

I began listing titles that fit the bill. Okay, The Big Lebowski. But what about Blue Velvet? How about Lanthimos Poor Things or the Daniels' Everything Everywhere All at Once for newer examples, but what about, say, Forbidden Zone, Repo Man, or UHF for older ones? How many "bad" movies are cult films like now? How many of Ed Woods' films are considered "cult classics"? At this point, we begin to see something else: does the quality of the film determine its status as a "cult" film?

I have seen Dr. Strangelove or How I Quit Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb and 2001: A Space Odyssey referred to as "cult films". I find that odd. To me, these are stone-cold, unassailable classics of filmmaking. I have seen Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Murnau's Nosferatu referred to as "cult films". 

These were thoughts running through my head yesterday and a different kind of bias showed up: I am not really sure that I care for the designation of "cult film." Period. How come?

In large measure, I find that it reduces a film to a "nothing but"; oh, "Repo Man is a fun flick, but it's nothing much, it's just a cult film." Or "For a cult film, Blue Velvet is pretty good." "Cult" in this case strikes me as a demarcation of lesser quality filmmaking. That could be arguable for Repo Man (though I could argue as much against it) but Blue Velvet is hardly an example of lower caliber cinematic craft. 

What I was encountering was my own prejudice against the word "cult"when applied to movies. Funny, I think. Nevertheless, it did challenge me to look at what criteria might separate out the cult movies from the classics and can a film be both? Or do these terms set up opposititional/mutual exclusive frameworks?

The latter question gets a qualified "no"; I find it hard to see Metropolis as a cult film (I'm dispensing with the quotation marks), but I can see how it might be if another criterion is introduced; genre. If we are discussing a work of science fiction, it feels easier to say "Fritz Lang's Metropolis is a great example of a sci-fi cult film." Genre connotes a narrower range of critical assessment. "Noir", "Science Fiction", "Romance", "Comedy", "Action", etc.; once we start applying descriptions as delimiters, the resulting assessment is limited. 

The flipside, of course, is that a film may "transcend the boundaries" of its given (or assumed) genre. Thus, Metropolis, Solaris, and 2001 extend their meaning and influence outside the genre of science fiction. While they do, perhaps Jurassic Park does not or Fantastic Voyage or The Andromeda Strain.

Is The Exorcist merely a horror film or is it a classic film addressing the issues of innocence, damnation, morality, guilt, and evil through the prism of the horror genre? Why is The Exorcist a classic and The Exorcist II a cult film (it is, you know)? Here is where I think we get closer to workable definitions.

I can see The Big Lebowski as a cult film; I would have a harder time seeing Sullivan's Travels, My Man Godfrey or His Girl Friday as cult films. Or from the Coens' own body of work, Fargo or Miller's Crossing. Lebowski is a riotously hilarious fun movie and/but Fargo has a bit more thematic richness to it. Sturges, Hawks, and the Coens have produced works of stunning intelligence and depth but/and they have made light fluffy popcorn entertainments. But the question returns: why does one film - cult or classic - endure? 

How many people know the title The Lady Eve? How many, after almost thirty years after its release, know The Big Lebowski? Not necessarily as works they have seen, but just in terms of familiarity with the contents of the films as absorbed into the pop cultural landscape and as shorthand between people. There was a period where "Shut the fuck up, Donny" was a phrase I heard more frequently than I would have guessed at the time. I was watching Jeff Bridges saluting John Goodman's getting his star on Hollywood Boulevard by donning the Dude's bathrobe (the video was nine years old, so around 19 years after the film) and while I was laughing and Goodman was laughing (really hard!), I later wondered if there was anyone in the crowd who wondered what Bridges was doing. Surely not. But maybe?

So a cult film can have cultural specificity within a given a given timeframe. If someone says "Rosebud", though, what then? How many people get the reference that it refers to the sled that a fictional character played with in his youth and formed the thematic bookend for a study in wealth, power, influence, and hubris that came to be known as a reference for "spoiler!"?

Does knowing the one reference make me more of a movie geek or make Citizen Kane more irrelevant to the cultural dialog? Or both?! Still, no one watching The Big Lebowski and Citizen Kane would mistake one for the other or - I think - one as a genuinely great work of art and the other as a great goofy flick. (What would surprise the audience is that both are pretty funny! Kane may not be a laff-riot, but there are some very wry moments there that feel more contemporary than ever.)

Of course, we bump against other elements, as well. How much does the cultural impact of a film or any work, for that matter - dim over time? Is there a ratio or a proportional equation that could be drawn such that we determine a film's status in relation to how much its initial impact has lessened since its release? 

There is also the matter of literacy. Not just "film literacy", but literally, "literacy" as in who reads these days and what do they read? I am not referring to film criticism, but to how movies read or are read by any given audience. 

I was surprised when a casual acquaintance back in my working days was shocked that The Big Lebowski took place in the early nineties. It's stated baldly and plainly early on. Admittedly, when the film came out, Operation Desert Storm was only seven or eight years in the rear view, but watching it in the 21st century with its lack of cellphones strike my friend as strange? Apparently, it went right by them, because as he pointed out: the movie picked up so much speed and was so funny, he quit thinking about the time period it was set in. I would argue that is both a testimony to the film, but also a refection on how younger audiences process narrative information.

At least, he found it funny.

I think what has come into focus, for me anyway, is that a cult film could be described as a movie with a relatively broad cultural specificity and imprint relative to its absorption over time from its initial release. A classic - for lack of a better term - is a more universally accepted work the impact of which may likely extend longer, but often is more thematically rich than a cult film (though this is not always the case). 

I suppose I should also consider addressing an aspect that also became apparent in my description of my young friend's reading of The Big Lebowski: how is a narrative received in any given historical period? How are people conditioned by their period in time? These are fraught times and information assaults people in a way that practically inculcates ADHD. As a teacher of mine once said, people are subject to being mentally shredded by the demands on their attention and the stresses of jobs that require multitasking and a repeatedly divided awareness.

Who has time for art that might require a more steady involvement? Yet, absent works of that type, we would be far more impoverished as beings. In the face of all that, what does it matter if a film is a cult item or a classic work? Funny you should ask. Or funny, you should ask.

I don't know if Barbie or Oppenheimer are going to go down as cinematic classics. However, it was pretty glaringly obvious that both films struck a deep cultural nerve, at the very least at the moment, but I think they continue to resonate even if no one is wearing Barbie swag or reading up on modern physics. They met a desire for works that could approach "big themes" with divergent approaches and rendered those themes immediately apprehensible. More recently, we could viably say the same about Sinners and One Battle After Another. 

The point is that we lose something if this type of work ceases to make an impression. A cult film may be more effluvial, but might actually mean something to the people who experience beyond its text; a so-called classic might just be not only a deepening, resonating experience, but might actually be enjoyable. 

I suppose, then, that the next time I use the word "cult" it will be with greater awareness of what that term can hold and the next time I use the word "classic", well, I'll have a better idea of what it means.

Afterthoughts

1. Of course, I have left out what many consider obvious cult films: exploitation flicks, poverty row B-movies, a lot of the stuff I write about under "Slumming", and so on. I don't think anyone would mistake Mesa of Lost Women for The Spirit of the Beehive.

2. There is a worth of literature about cult films, particularly as "forgotten" films that also bear consideration under that sobriquet. Perhaps a discussion of "forgotten classics" is in order, as well, at some point.

3. None of the foregoing is intended to be definitive. I think there are shades and nuance that could be brought to bear on the topic and in greater detail.  I am not even certain that this is a particularly necessary subject for anyone but film fans and academics.