At UBC Theatre and Film, you’ll find a vibrant mix of scholars, artists, educators, and innovators reimagining how we tell stories, analyze culture, and connect with audiences. Whether they’re directing research projects, designing soundscapes, mentoring students, or diving deep into dramatic theory, our faculty, staff, and graduate students are always up to something interesting.
This series pulls back the curtain to share the work, ideas, and everyday moments that shape our community—one human at a time! Next up is Dr. Ernest Mathijs, Professor, Cinema and Media Studies. Ernest shares insights into his new book, 100 Cult Films: The Sequel, how he first became interested in studying cult cinema, and his favourite movie theatres.
Congrats on the publication of your book, 100 Cult Films: the Sequel, a follow up on the original 100 Cult Films volume. Tell us about the book and your approach to curating for the sequel.
The genesis of 100 Cult Films: the Sequel is twofold. On the one hand, there was an obvious need to supplement the narrowly curated series of films in the first book. 100 Cult Films offered an overview of the status quo, a critical celebration of what are mostly seen as uncontested cult classics. We wanted the next book to be more than simply another 100 cult films, so we took into consideration the ways in which the concept of cult cinema has changed over the years, with new films becoming cult objects, and older films being reevaluated. Plus, of course, the cultural landscape has shifted since 2011, with social movements and new forms of film distribution shaping how audiences engage with cult films today.
This led us to a new approach: not just 100 films, but 100 films viewed through four lenses. One that reevaluates classics (A Clockwork Orange, Meet me in St. Louis, The Princess Bride), another highlights films from regions otherwise overlooked (Africa, Latin America, East Asia, and Canada, as well as regions within nations such as Quebec, the rural American South, the Midwest, or the former East Germany); a third explores “weird” films and unusual performances (The Clones of Bruce Lee, for instance), and a fourth emphasizes works by underrepresented voices (such as diaspora, political films, or films about addiction, dispossession, cross-border communities—films such as The Crossing or La Commune).
To round it out, we also include films that return to traditional understandings of cult cinema, as transgressive, exploitative, exuberant, freakish—we saw the trilogy of Ti West (X, Pearl, Maxxxine) as a key example of this.
What first drew you to the idea of “cult film” as an area of study. How has your understanding of it evolved over time?
I first started studying cult films when I was a student in Brussels, where screenings of Hitchcock’s Rope, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange, Freaks, and Eraserhead—as well as Pedro Almodóvar’s Labyrinth of Passion and the films of David Cronenberg—left a strong impression. As I focused on these films (and horror films in particular) I discovered that not much research had been done on them and their followings, so I immersed myself. And like a true cult fan, once stung forever hooked.
The term “cult film” can be hard to define. What makes a film truly “cult” in your opinion?
The concept of cult has always been nebulous, but within it there is a core curiosity for the highly unusual, the freak, and the outsider—and the outlandish and provocative and controversial. Cult films are often seen as indecent, upsetting, or offensive— but they prompt us to question what exactly those labels mean. So, while the two books are testament to the changes within cult cinema, those essential qualities remain.
You also teach a course on cult film: CINE 300: Cult Cinema. What can students expect in that course?
Still from Roar! (1981)
The course gives an overview of cult cinema and explores just how wide and diverse it is. We cover midnight movies, horror and science-fiction, pastiche and parody, bewitched films, camp and “the worst films ever”, cult blockbusters, and exploitation films (and I do offer glimpses of films you will never be able to “unsee”).
Screenings are an essential part of the course. I encourage students to participate when we screen The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Room—in fact, I insist on it—and to reflect on their reactions to films like Roar! or the provocations of In Bruges or Pink Flamingos. Students are also asked to design their own exploitation subgenres, which often leads to unique assignments (we’ve had submissions on “rabbit-sploitation,” for instance). But make no mistake—it’s a serious course.
What advice do you have for students considering a degree in Cinema Studies?
Film is a subject everybody is an amateur in. You can talk to strangers about two things: the weather and movies. A degree in Cinema Studies makes you not only an expert, but a specialist in how “the movies” work, as a social phenomenon, as an industry in which you can participate, as a producer, but also as an agent, programmer, curator, writer, distributor, as someone who leads the way in making decisions on what people get to see and talk about.
What do you enjoy doing in your free time?
I watch at least one movie every day. And I play soccer religiously and fanatically, always have and always will. I’m excited to see my Belgian team play in Vancouver at the upcoming World Cup. I love cycling too (and for that reason there is a film in the book called Break Away, about how cycling can offer disenfranchised youth dignity and self-respect—check it out).
I also relax by walking—to enjoy my surroundings wherever I am, and as a spiritual exercise. I agree with Jules in Pulp Fiction when he says he just wants to “walk the earth”. Although I also understand Vincent Vega’s objections!
Do you have a favourite movie theatre?
Pathé Palace in Brussels
I feel completely at home in a movie theatre and have several favourites: Cinema Nova, the Arenberg, and the Pathé Palace in Brussels (the latter two are about a century old), as well as SilverCity in Richmond, and the Vancity Theatre and the Cinematheque in downtown Vancouver.
Is there a cult film that has stayed with you over the years—one that you return to again and again?
One film above all is Videodrome (1983), a Canadian film by David Cronenberg, funded by Universal. Largely unseen upon its release, I first encountered it on television in Belgium when it was aired as filler during a public broadcaster strike. It’s a film about viewing, about the dangers and consequences of media use, and about paranoia. It’s eerily prescient for today’s obsession with media. Simply the best film ever.
Ernest with co-author Xavier Mendik and moderator Russ Hunter at the book launch for 100 Cult Films: The Sequel
