Sunday, January 4, 2009

The Failure of Spirit and Cult Film

I wrote the following in response to a this post on io9.com.

I think the failure of The Spirit proves the rule that cult success never strikes twice. This film, for all intent and purpose, is a sequel to Sin City not 300. Sin City did not make a lot of money, but it has developed a cult following.

In the realm of cult film making there are two things that can happen when you make a follow up the a cult hit 1) it either becomes mainstream straight ahead hollywood movie or 2) it fails.

An example of the first outcome. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was made for about 150,000$ outside of the hollywood system. It became a huge successes and grossed 30 million. With returns like that a sequel had to happen. 10 years later The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was released. It make double what it cost to produce. It was far more gory, much like the slasher horror films that were popular during the 1980s.

example 2: Rocky Horror Picture show slowly became a cult film in the years after it was released but the 1981 follow up Shock Treatment has been largely forgotten. Rocky Horror did not gain a cult following right away. It took a number of years for the midnight movie culture of the film to spread across the country.

7 years after Rock Horror came out, and well after it became established as a cult film Shock Treatment was released first as a midnight movie. Only after it had opened in niche theaters did it have a general ride release. They were trying to capture the already existing cult market for the film, without acknowledging what made it cult in the first place.

Getting back to The Spirit, Miller seems to be going back to the same creative well that he and Robert Rodriguez used before. Miller didnt' do it any better, or bring anything new this time. Lots of sequel rehash successful films. However cult audiences do not seem to be as forgiving. Cult film goers, like other fandoms, go above and beyond the norm. That is what makes them fans. They are not interested in seeing rehashes and remakes.

The Spirt was doomed to failure from the start.

5 comments:

Roscoe said...

.... I need to read this deeper.. AND see the damned film...

...
but.. wouldn't Sin City 2 be the sequel to Sin City... ?

I mean.. Hrrmn.. going back and reading Graeme's post.. and..

seems to me like you might be misreading Graeme. I don't think he's arguing a Sin City /OR/ 300 thing.. but rather, making the case that both of those movies inflated Miller's status in Hollywood.

_J_ said...

To Roscoe: Within the realm of sequel conversations one can invoke a differentiation between "sequel" and "spiritual sequel". So Sin City 2 can be a "sequel" and The Spirit could be a "spiritual sequel". If if we want to remove the term "spirit" to keep the conversation secular we can talk about sequels in terms of technique, overarching plot structure, etc.

Sin City and The Spirit are "related" in some way, in terms of cinematic critique. I'm just not sure how we'd classify that.


"In the realm of cult film making there are two things that can happen when you make a follow up the a cult hit 1) it either becomes mainstream straight ahead hollywood movie or 2) it fails."

No. No. No. No.
No. No. No.
No. No.
No.

One cannot define future possibility based upon the past. One may define future probability based upon the past.

It is not accurate to say "there are two things that can happen". It is not sensible to limit future possibility based upon the past.

One could say "there are two things that may happen". Except that there are many more than two things that may happen. There are a nigh-infinite number of things that may happen.

If human beings could predict box office performance in the manner you suggest then I'm not sure what that reality would be...but it would certainly not be this reality.


And '97 Seconds' may very well be the best fucking episode of House ever.

Roscoe said...

okay.. now.. I follow that.. but.. I'm not sure the comparison's valid.

...because, The Spirit looks to me like a sequel in only the most superficial of elements.

I dunno.

Mike Lewis said...

@ros - spiritual sequel not but more a metaphor. It is is a film made using the same techniques by the same guy. I guess a better word to use in the Sin City/The Spirit would be creative follow up.

The reason i am talking about these two films together is because if frank miller had gone to Lion's head studio and said he wanted to make the spirit using traditional film techniques (non-green screen) would they have gone for that?

also, i am not arguing with Graeme about Sin City or 300, but making a 2nd argument about the film / nature of cult film.

In any case you are we are arguing around the point, but not the point itself.

Roscoe said...

.. I'll give you creative follow up..

and.. yeah.. okay.. I really need to see this movie. For Free. or Less.

with Rage Juice by my side.