I didn’t really imagine a definition for “cult films” before reading the general characteristics in “The Cult Film Reader” and had never really questioned it either. Considering I’ve been a part of the crowd of consumers to media my whole life I would generally gravitate towards the cinema of my attraction, which had no formula. I’ve always found a polarizing view on movies to be very boring, and can recognize the worth of a film being “critically acclaimed” but always find that my personal language in movies I’ve seen will ultimately draw me to enjoy something new. I did find particular interest in cult films even without a full understanding of what they were because of the enthusiasm of fans surrounding their existence and that both considerably “bad” and “good” films could be in its rankings. The characteristics that Ernest Mathis and Xavier Mendik go through in the reader are anatomy, consumption, political economy and cultural status, with transgression or “badness” being a side effect sometimes. The consumption of these movies is usually not industry fed and raised, but rather appropriated by a group of people that the film possibly never meant to appeal. I enjoy this concept because the power is given to the audience which allows more room for innovation, such as seeing the fantastic qualities in a mess of a work such as Dwain Esper’s Maniac. 

Maniac was an interesting watch, though hard to follow, and made me think about how convincing it may have been in 1934 for a public with much less understanding of mental illness. It’s exploitation of just about every mental illness possible is laughable now, but probably a very different type of frightening and weird for its time. Although the film is shot technically “bad” there are scenes with unexpected terrifying qualities, such as the one where the doctor imposter is crawling up the stairs towards the camera with a deranged look.

By claiming the film to be “educational”, Esper got away with the exploitation of many taboo subjects in the film such as rape, animal abuse, murder, etc. Being in the Pre-code Era of Hayes Code censoring, Esper uses strange-to-the-point-of-humorous techniques to imply dark subjects that speak to audiences on a guttural level. Even with the censorship of movies in the time of its release, the public would still have interests in these subjects because (surprise) people like seeing violence, it’s realistic. This would draw any early example of a cult following to this film, as well as its bizarre film techniques and plot twists that are avant-garde for its time in film history. The appeal of these movies doesn’t lie in its inherent “goodness”, especially in the context of when it was made, but rather the universal raw qualities and its ability to exist outside of structured plotlines. Discussion on whether the film itself or the audience is what makes a movie has long been had, and a film such as Maniac would hardly be remembered in the present day is there wasn’t qualities about it that resonated with audiences even now.