 Cult films are often approached in terms of auteur theory , which states that the director 's creative vision drives a film . This has fallen out of favor in academia , creating a disconnect between cult film fans and critics . Matt Hills states that auteur theory can help to create cult films ; fans that see a film as continuing a director 's creative vision are likely to accept it as cult . According to academic Greg Taylor , auteur theory also helped to popularize cult films when middlebrow audiences found an accessible way to approach avant @-@ garde film criticism . Auteur theory provided an alternative culture for cult film fans while carrying the weight of scholarship . By requiring repeated viewings and extensive knowledge of details , auteur theory naturally appealed to cult film fans . Taylor further states that this was instrumental in allowing cult films to break through to the mainstream . Academic Joe Tompkins states that this auteurism is often highlighted when mainstream success occurs . This may take the place of – and even ignore – political readings of the director . Cult films and directors may be celebrated for their transgressive content , daring , and independence , but Tompkins argues that mainstream recognition requires they be palatable to corporate interests who stand to gain much from the mainstreaming of cult film culture . While critics may champion revolutionary aspects of filmmaking and political interpretation , Hollywood studios and other corporate interests will instead highlight only the aspects that they wish to legitimize in their own films , such as sensational exploitation . Someone like George Romero , whose films are both transgressive and subversive , will have the transgressive aspects highlighted while the subversive aspects are ignored . 
