Programming Cult: Fantasia Film Festival and Programming Oppositional Taste
What is cult cinema? Most scholars well versed in cinema subculture admit that it is a difficult term to define. Cult cinema is duplicitous in nature and depending on the context can encapsulate a multitude of different kinds of cinema. Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton’s Cult Cinema: An Introduction (2011) delves into the many different ways that cult cinema culture manifests itself. The book goes as far as to explore its reception, audiences and the practices of cult cinema. The authors immediately take a sociological approach to the title and reflect that it is often used synonymously with religious belief and behaviour. Cult is similarly grounded in institutionalization, and is less concerned with universal, professional and bureaucratic structures of belief. Another aspect of cult is that the term is frequently used in a counter-culture context and cult is associated with deviations from that which is normal and mainstream. 1
Marc Jancovich, Antonio Lazaro Reboll, Julian Stringer and Andy Willis’s book Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste (2003) succinctly define cult cinema. In their introduction the authors note that cult cinema is not singular, but a pluralistic term that is an ideology that manifests itself in audiences, at screenings and in filmmakers. Characteristically, this ideology is largely in opposition to the mainstream and the authors note, “it is necessary because it is by presenting themselves as oppositional that cult audiences are able to confer value upon both themselves and the films around which they congregate” (2). Cult audiences revere that which does not conform politically, culturally or artistically to the mainstream and is in opposition to ‘good taste’. 2 Throughout the book the authors delve into the value that cult cinema culture imparts on films and filmmakers that fall on the wayside of the mainstream. The authors reveal how cult audiences often revere unappreciated filmmakers and legitimize their contribution to the filmic canon. 3 Similarly Andrew Willis’s contribution to the book reveals how audiences have valued films that are taken outside of their original political and geographical contexts. Jeffery Sconce’s work on cult cinema or ‘paracinema’ postulates that cult audiences’ preoccupation with ‘bad cinema’ is not out of economic necessity or due to an audience’s inability to access more refined art. Sconce is in opposition to Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the ‘luxury of taste’ and suggests rather that culture audiences are in fact highly sophisticated. Paracinema audiences actively seek and proliferate ‘bad cinema’ because they have tired of high art that is often perceived as stagnant and stifling. 4 What is revealed by these academics is a self-perpetuating subculture that is made up of highly sophisticated audiences that are dedicated to ‘bad taste’ and in opposition to the mundane mainstream.
Mathijs and Sexton’s exploration of cult cinema similarly reflects on cult film festivals. The authors describe cult festivals as, “one where niche cults rule —where the interrogations of and confrontations with processes of valuation are built into the fabric of the festival” (41). The authors similarly note that there is a, “strong alignment between viewer and programmer, as part of the same cultist alliance. Visitors to these festivals are seldom only visitors, but rather fellow believers” (41). Therefore the relationship between audience and programmer in the cult festival context is tremendously important. The authors go on to note that this connection leads to a more reflexive, vocal and participatory audience. Lindiwe Dovey’s research on festivals reveals that it is audience participation that make film festival screenings a unique and valuable experience. Drawing from Leslie Witz, the author marks that “festive excitement” or “festive excess” is the ultimate measure of success at these events. The author argues that the most meaningful experiences at festivals are those that are “violations in the program” (17). The spontaneous outbursts of cheer, applause and screams of fright help accentuate the collective festival experience. The author states that audience and organizers alike cherish these experiences and they help festivals remain relevant in the age of digital cinema. 5 The centrality of a vocal and participatory audience at cult film festivals becomes obvious in these reflections and help to reveal the unique and often wild experience of going to a cult film festival event.
The film festival is a unique kind of cinematic event that helps to sculpt mass film culture. Roya Rastegar emphasizes this fact in her article “Difference, aesthetics and the curatorial crisis of film festivals”(2012). The author notes,
Programming decisions about what to include or exclude directly affect public access to independent films by determining what films critics write about, and what distributors pick up for theatrical, DVD or online release. But festivals do more than simply showcase the ‘best’ of a year’s crop. Festival programmers actively define film culture on local and global scales by cultivating public notions of quality and taste. (2)
Jeffery Ruoff similarly posits that programmers are cultural gatekeepers that are tasked with revealing the value in films, while dispelling that which is unworthy. 6 Henri Langlois famously stated that, “A film that is not screened is dead” (Ruoff 25) and programmers consistently need to wrestle with the politics of selection in order to create a program that articulates a festival’s charter. 7 When it comes to that which is on the fringes of culture and on the margins of pop culture this is especially true. Peter Bosma similarly notes that the creation of a festival program not only has to impact the intended audience but also needs to sell tickets. Festivals need to be economically viable to ensure future instalments and for festival to remain financially feasible. 8 Cult programmers have the daunting task of not only discovering new films, but also creating a program for a highly reflexive and self-conscious audience that is in opposition to popular and mainstream taste. Many of the films that are programmed are often buried in annuals cinematic history and are unheard of productions that are excavated and revealed to be valuable examples of fringe cinema. Cult programs need to be obscure while delivering fresh cinematic experiences from both past and present and that cannot be found in a regular cinematic context. In the end these programs will help sculpt both underground and often even popular film culture.
Mathijs and Sexton mention a hand full of festivals that they mark as exemplary cult, including Brussels International Fantastic Film Festival, Fantastic Fest in Austin Texas and Montreal’s Fantasia Film Festival. The authors state these particular festivals champion the cult ethos, bolstering vocal and well-versed audiences that promise uniquely rambunctious screening experiences. These festivals feature a slew of genres such as horror, action, science fiction and comedies. The authors only hint, though, at the longstanding impact of the festivals’ program on cult cinema culture.
Fantasia International Film Festival’s impact on cult cinema has been both longstanding and poignant. The festival, celebrating its twentieth year, is regarded as highly reputable and is praised by fans, filmmakers and mainstream press alike. Quentin Tarantino states that the festival is, “the most important and prestigious genre festival on this continent.” 9 Mathijs and Sexton’s reflection that Fantasia is a distinctly cult festival seems to be problematic in that the term is so nebulous. This coupled with the fact that the authors do not at all reflect on the festival’s program in any way seems to gloss over what cult festivals uniquely offer audiences with their program. The authors do mention that this is not meant be a limiting title but nonetheless the cultural clout that Fantasia wields seems to be overlooked and undermined. 10 Fantasia does not only perfectly articulate Jancovich, Lazaro Reboll, Stringer and Willis’s definition of cult cinema but creates, and perpetuates, cult cinema culture through its programming. From May to September 2015 I conducted five interviews with key Fantasia programmers and figures: Mitch Davis, director of international programming, Simon Laperrière, programmer of the Camera Lucida section, Nicolas Archambault, Asian program director, Donato Totaro, sometime programmer, long time devotee and genre film scholar, and Philippe Spurrell, long time operations manager of the festival and programmer. The interviews with these programmers reveal how they develop their program, their relationship with the Fantasia audiences and their thoughts on cult cinema culture. These interviews coupled with the scholarship on cult cinema reveal that at its core Fantasia is a distinctly cult festival. This fact becomes obvious when one reflects on how the programmers actively search for new voices in genre cinema that are often overlooked by the mainstream; the Asian cinema program; and the way in which the program re-appropriates film history to give recognition to overlooked cult filmmakers. Bosma and Rastegar both note that much of the programming process is conducted behind closed doors and many of the most important conversations are exclusively reserved for those who are a part of the programming team. It is for this reason that these interviews tended to be largely anecdotal. This research sets out to reveal how Fantasia champions oppositional taste through its programming practices and the unique process of programming for a cult festival. Rastegar notes, “Festivals do not just showcase cinema, they actively build audiences and communities” (312), the programmers’ selections dictate aesthetic trends and impact the film market in multiple ways. This is especially true to the cult cinema that puts itself in opposition to the mainstream but nonetheless has proven to be tremendously influential to filmic canon. 11
Cult Cinema: An Introduction’s postulation that cult programmers and audiences are “fellow believers” and “…programmers and audiences share an agenda…” (41) reveals the symbiotic relationship between festival organizers and audiences. The author goes on to note that these audiences are particularly preoccupied with ritual and actively participate in the screenings, cheering, screaming, laughing….and even meowing. 12 When asked if Fantasia was a distinctly cult festival Simon Laperrière remarked that cult primarily manifests itself in the ritual screenings and it plays a large part in the festival experience. He added that cult culture is similarly present at the festival in the relationship between the audience and films. All the programmers interviewed similarly hold the Fantasia audience in high regard marking their enthusiasm and kinetic energy. Though the audiences are loud and outspoken the programmers acknowledge that they are tremendously respectful and clever when it comes to the films being screened. Liz Czach’s article “Cinephilia, Stars, and Film Festivals” (2010) posits that cinephilia and the cinephilic experience is an endangered one and that festivals are its last refuge. The author goes on to note that most cinephilic festivals market their “audiences as stars” emphasizing well versed and sophisticated viewers that are respectful and enthusiastic during screening. 13 The ‘audience as star’ is an essential part of Fantasia and this fact becomes apparent when one reflects on the high regard in which the programmers hold the attendees of the festival. Similarly, the 2016 promotional video for Fantasia consistently refers to its sophisticated audiences that create a unique and compelling screening experience. Filmmakers and stars such as Jon Watts, Kevin Bacon, Munro Chambers, Barbra Crampton and Micheal Cote praise the Fantasia audience throughout the video for being outspoken, interactive and helping to create a unique screening experience. 14
Nicolas Archambault states that, “Our audiences carry the festival” and he follows this up by noting, “we grow with our audiences… this is kind of a miracle.” Archambault seems to be articulating the symbiotic relationship that the programmers and audiences share. Bosma notes that one of the most difficult elements of programming is being aware of your audience and predicting how they will experience a particular film. 15 One of the primary ways that the festival grows with its audience, while at the same time meeting the audience’s cult expectations, is by consistently providing new voices and perspectives to genre cinema. Fantasia manages to bring forth these voices by balancing out the program with the most recent big titles in genre cinema. Mitch Davis states that the big name titles will attract crowds and give the festival the economic viability that it needs to survive. This thereby allows Davis to take chances and program “fringe” films that are new, exciting and fresh voices. The programmer credits Tony Timpone, long time editor of Fangoria Magazine, as the festival’s secret weapon when it comes to purveying the rights to screen the big name titles. Davis similarly articulates that the structure of the festival itself is set up to benefit the audiences. The program director states that the festival is spread across a three-week period in order to give audiences ample time to see, not only the big names at the festival but the smaller unknown features and new cinematic voices. Davis maintains that these films are key to the festival’s prestigious status and help up and coming filmmakers find their audiences and even distributors.
The process in which the festival programs its films is similarly a unique one in that programmers actively search for new filmmakers. Davis marks that one of the most valuable elements of his creating the Fantasia program is the fact that he watches all the submissions to the festival himself. Instead of a screening committee that watches the submitted features and only brings the worthwhile submissions to the attention of the program director, Davis watches all the submissions. Using the online submission platform Without A Box the director of programming wades through literally hundreds of films searching for the films that move him in some way. Once a film is recognized as having potential or having something “even marginally of interest” (Davis) he then passes it down to another delegate of the programming team and asks for their position on the film. Davis states that “the best films get lost in screening committees” and thus takes it upon himself to scour all of the submissions, ever conscious of the time, money and effort that the filmmakers have put into these productions.
Finding new and fresh voices for audiences that are well versed in cult cinema not only keeps Fantasia relevant but also helps perpetuate cult culture. Rastegar notes that festivals are, “one of the most powerful curatorial filters of the film world, festivals are the first line of defence; they are the point of crossover between audiences and filmmakers, cinematheques and multiplexes.” (311). Dozens of films that have gained notoriety and found large-scale success in the film world were first screened and found distributors through Fantasia. Films such as Unfriended (2015) and Turbo Kid (2015) were given a platform by the festival through which they eventually became mainstream successes.
When asked if Fantasia is a cult festival, Nicolas Archambault immediately stated, “no”. Archambault followed this up by stating, “This is being really honest, what is a weakness sometimes, while at the same time a strength… at Fantasia, is that Asian and international (programs) are going on their way, on their side… It’s almost like two festivals.” Archambault in his program sets out to create a “panorama of the Asian market” that speaks to the many different popular genres that are gaining notoriety in the Asia. While Archambault states that his programming is not wrapped up in cult cinema culture Andrew Willis would disagree. Willis’s chapter on Spanish horror cinema demonstrates how cult cinema is often transplanted to a different culture to be consumed in a context that is different from its intended audience. 16 Willis states, “However, not only are these products celebrated in this new context for their supposed difference from the ‘mainstream’ (although they may in fact be the mainstream of their own culture) but this often involves an exoticization of other cultures” (4). Willis’s reflection on cult cinema’s practice of transplanting culture not only articulates how Archambault’s Asian program is definitively cult but also speaks to his process of developing the Asian section of the festival. The programmer’s first step in developing a program entails researching new and up and coming productions from well-known filmmakers and actors and creating a tracking list. The programmer then selects the productions that are appropriate for the festival. He then contacts the distributors for screeners or trailers so as that he can actually see the films. Frequently these films don’t even have trailers and often the programmer’s initial selections end up being not appropriate for the festival. Archambault similarly states that actually going to festivals such as Busan and American Film Market is highly beneficial to his selections. By immersing oneself in the Asian film market one makes essential connections with distributors and finds gems for his exported program. This immersion has led to some of his most successful programs such as the Korean spotlight that Fantasia featured in 2010. Archambault admits that his passion for Korean film actually inspired him to journey to Korea and fully experience the culture. This demonstrates that the programmer as a fan has himself been drawn in by the exoticization of Asian films. Archambault admits that much of his programming is in direct relation to the extensive time he’s spent in Asia. The influence that Fantasia’s Asian program has had on cult cinema culture is longstanding, especially in the Montreal community. The festival was created out of a desire to see Asian action films on the big screen. Before the festival’s inception cinephiles had to venture to Verdun or Chinatown to get bootlegs of Asian genre films. Martin Sauvageau, André Dubois and Pierre Corbeil saw the demand and created the festival essentially creating a cult cinema culture in the city. 17 Totaro also reflects that Fantasia has similarly influenced cult cinema culture in North American by being one of the first festivals to bring J horror to North America. Films such as Ringu (1998) and Jun-on (2002) were first screened at Fantasia and would jump-start a craze in mainstream popular culture.
Peter Hutching’s chapter on cult auteur Dario Argento reveals how cult cinema culture frequently reappropriates filmmakers from the fringes of cinematic history, demonstrating that they are poignant and important filmmakers. The author draws from Jeffery Sconce’s work on ‘paracinema’ defining the term and perfectly encapsulating how cult cinema re-appropriate auteurs. [Hutchings, Peter. “The Argento Effect.” Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste. Ed. Mark Jancovich. Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 2003.134..]] The author observes,
Sconce defines paracinema as ‘less a distinct group of films than a particular reading protocol, a counter-aesthetic turned subcultural sensibility devoted to all manner of cultural detritus’ (Sconce 1995: 372). While he notes that paracinematic cinephiles, ‘search for unrecognized talent and long forgotten masterpieces, producing a pantheon that celebrates a certain stylistic unity and/or validates the diverse artistic visions of unheralded “auteurs’’. (Hutchinson, 134)
The fact that paracinema is more of a ‘reading protocol’ than an actual group, demonstrates the crucial role that the screenings themselves play in cult culture. It similarly displays that by screening lost or overlooked genre films at festivals in fact plays a large role in creating and perpetuating cult culture. Festivals often reclaim these lost auteurs by screening unedited director’s cuts of films or lost or hard to find titles. This marks a popular practice at Fantasia and the festival often recognizes filmmakers lost in the depths of filmic obscurity. The festival often conducts spotlights on underappreciated filmmakers or awards filmmakers lifetime achievement awards. Richard Stanley is a perfect example of a filmmaker championed by the festival as an unsung cinematic visionary. The infamous director’s career nose-dived after being fired from the big budget Hollywood production of The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996). Fantasia has featured spotlights on Stanley multiple times throughout the festival’s history and each time hosts the filmmaker as a guest and screens hard to find versions of his work. Films such as Hardware (1990) and Dust Devil (1992) have been praised by the cult audiences and are a perfect example of a filmmaker dispelled by the mainstream culture only to regain notoriety through cult cinema culture. Stanley has become such cult icon that a documentary was released in 2014 reflecting on Stanley’s production of Moreau. Lost Souls: The Doomed adventure of Richard Stanley’s Island of Doctor Moreau (2014) reveals the shocking story of this production and the film reflects on the filmmaker’s failed career. Lost Souls also features a slew of key Fantasia figures such as Kier-La Janisse and Mike Gingold who comment on the cult icon’s work and his legacy. Fantasia has similarly highlighted the talents of Jean Rollin, Jose Mojica Marins, Ken Russell and Tobe Hooper giving these under appreciated horror auteurs lifetime achievement awards and crystalizing their place in cult cannon. Davis states that he cherishes, “the ability to take filmmakers that felt like they have always been neglected and to… help validate them. You know help people realize how great they are… that these are filmmakers worthy of celebration.” The programmer goes on to state that this is his way of, “righting so many injustices in the cinephile universe” (Davis). Reflecting on giving French filmmaker Jean Rollin a lifetime achievement award in 2007, Simon Laperrière similarly notes that helping to give these filmmakers the recognition they deserve is an essential part of Fantasia. When asked if he thought Fantasia was a cult festival, Mitch Davis wholeheartedly agreed. Davis states that at Fantasia screenings there is,
…the sense of collective adoration mixed with collective discovery, because when you have a cult screening for a retro title… you have a combination of people. You always have people who already know the film inside out or the filmmaker’s history inside out and they are coming in knowing they’ll love it more or less. You also have a group of people who are coming in discovering this as newcomers and as their first time. These two types of discoveries and these energies together really amplify the movie to something exhilaratingly special and this is doubled when the filmmaker is present to revel, to bask in that energy himself or herself. But then engage directly with the audience in a real back and forth afterwards. I mean it’s so special. Festivals like Fantasia nurture that, they encourage that, and they often help to take it to the next level because of the personal aspect where people get to interact with the filmmakers right after that experience. Beyond that we try and never have a barrier between the filmmaker and audience.
Davis’s focus on the two kinds of audience members coupled with an emphasis on the energy and excitement about the event reveals the cult ethos at the heart of the festival. The director of programming similarly notes the fact that audiences have access to guest filmmakers making Fantasia a uniquely cult experience. Davis states, “we try and not have a barrier between filmmaker and audience…” Mathijs and Sexton similarly notes that cult festivals, “… allow for an unusual closeness between fans and producers” (42) and audiences are given access to filmmakers through special events, signing booths and screenings. Q and A sessions are also often largely unregulated by PR reps and throughout the festival filmmakers can often be found around the festival and at other events and screenings. The featured filmmakers often have a unique appreciation for their audiences and revel in the fandom. 18 Fantasia helps breath new life into forgotten cinematic works, giving filmmaker’s work a second life while at the same time helping to perpetuate cult culture.
Cult film culture is gaining notoriety in the film industry and by academics alike. Film researchers are paying more attention to niche markets that are proving to be more lucrative and valuable than previously thought. 19 At the forefront of the development of cult film culture are film festivals that help reveal new, exciting and fresh filmmakers, important foreign spotlights and unearth lost cinematic masters. Fantasia is one of the most important cult festivals in North American not only creating a unique and diverse screening experience but it is also perpetuated by audiences and fan culture. Through a reflection on the process of creating a program coupled with analysis of the kinds of films found at the festival it is revealed that the festival is, at its core, a cult film festival. David Balzer in his book Curationorism (2015) researches the root of the term ‘curator’ and marks that at the heart of the word is the Latin word, ‘cura’ or care. The author goes on to note that historically curators were religious figures and priests. 20 The religious connotations of the word cult coupled with centrality of care and the historically religious role of the curator perfectly encapsulates the role of the programmer at Fantasia. Davis describes himself as a “… zealot, I’m a religious fundamentalist” when it comes to cinema and states that Fantasia is unique in that the programmers are, “the lunatics (who) have taken over the asylum.” As Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton emphasize the programmers and audiences are “fellow believers” (32) convened to share in a sacred tradition that is both ritualistic and, perhaps to some, even out-dated. The programmers are Pentecostal priests and purveyors of the good word and the audience looses itself in a communal experience that is both highly ritualistic and personal. For many, Fantasia seems to transcend merely going to the movies, but instead promises a truly unique cult experience.
The 2015 Fantasia Crew: Front Marc Lamothe, Pierre Corbeil; left to right: André Dubois, King-Wei Chu, Ariel Esteban Cayer, Mitch Davis, Simon Laperrière, Éric S. Boisvert, ?, ?, Isabelle Gauvreau; back row: Nicolas Archambault, (partially hidden) Rupert Bottenberg
Archambault, Nicolas. Personal interview. September 3rd 2015.
Balzer, David. Curationism: How Curating Took over the Art World and Everything Else. Toronto: Coach House, 2014.
Bosma, Peter. Film Programing For Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. New York: Columbia UP, 2015.
Czach, Liz. “Cinephilia, Stars, and Film Festivals.” Cinema Journal Winter 2010 2 (2010). 143.
Davis, Mitch. Personal interview. September 27th 2015.
Dovey, Lindiwe. Curating Africa in The Age of Film Festivals. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2015.
Jancovich, Mark, Antonio Lazaro Reboll, Julian Stringer, and Andrew Willis, eds. Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003.
Laperrière, Simon. Personal interview. August 17th 2015.
Mathijs, Ernest, and Jamie Sexton. Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Rastegar, Roy. “Different, Aesthetics and Curatorial Crisis of Film Festivals.” Screen 53.3 (Autumn 2012): 310- 317.
Ruoff, Jeffrey. Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals. Scotland: St Andrews Film Studies, 2012.
Sconce, Jeffrey. Sleaze Artists: Cinema at the Margins of Taste, Style, and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007.
Spurrell, Philippe. Personal interview. June 18th 2015.
Totaro, Donato. Personal interview. July 2nd 2015.
- Mathijs, Ernest, and Jamie Sexton. Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. ↩
- Jancovich, Mark, Antonio Lazaro Reboll, Julian Stringer, and Andrew Willis, eds. Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. ↩
- Jancovich, Mark, Antonio Lazaro Reboll, Julian Stringer, and Andrew Willis, eds. Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003, p. 4. ↩
- Sconce, Jeffrey. Sleaze Artists: Cinema at the Margins of Taste, Style, and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. ↩
- Dovey, Lindiwe. Curating Africa in The Age of Film Festivals. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, 17. ↩
- Ruoff, Jeffrey. Coming soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals. Scotland: St Andrews Film Studies, 2012. ↩
- Ruoff, Jeffrey. Coming soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals. Scotland: St Andrews Film Studies, 2012, 26. ↩
- Bosma, Peter. Film Programing For Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. New York: Columbia UP, 2015, 70. ↩
- Website. http://www.fantasiafestival.com/2015/en/about. ↩
- Mathijs, Ernest, and Jamie Sexton. Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. 41. ↩
- Rastegar, Roy. “Different, Aesthetics and Curatorial Crisis of Film Festivals.” _Screen _ 53.3 (Autumn 2012): 312. ↩
- Mathijs, Ernest, and Jamie Sexton. Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, 41. ↩
- Czach, Liz. “Cinephilia, Stars, and Film Festivals.” Cinema Journal Winter 2010 2 (2010). 143. ↩
- Website. http://www.fantasiafestival.com/2016/fr/pre-festival/ ↩
- Bosma, Peter. Film Programing For Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. New York: Columbia UP, 2015. 64. ↩
- Willis, Andrew. “Spanish Horror and the Flight from ‘Art’ Cinema 1967-73.” Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste. Ed. Mark Jancovich. Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 2003. 71. ↩
- Totaro. ↩
- Davis. ↩
- Bosma, Peter. Film Programing For Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. New York: Columbia UP, 2015, 37. ↩
- Balzer, David. Curationism: How Curating Took over the Art World and Everything Else. Toronto: Coach House, 2014, 30. ↩