Mainstream films can best be defined as commercial films that have a wide release and play in first run

theatres (A movie theater that runs primarily mainstream film fare from the major film companies and
distributors, during the initial release period of each film). Being sold at popular stores, or more
typically, at general stores can also be an indicator. Hollywood movies are usually considered
mainstream and blockbusters are also mainstream films. The boundary is vague. Mainstream suggests
middle-of-the-road and implies commercial viability, sometimes implying that the commercial viability is
tantamount to a loss of artistic creativity. The opposite of mainstream film may be experimental film, art
film or cult film[citation needed].

a) Wide release is a term in the American motion picture industry for a motion picture that
is playing nationally (as opposed to a few cinemas in cities such as New York and Los
Angeles). Specifically, a movie is considered to be in wide release when it is on 600
screens or more in the United States and Canada.[1]

In the US, films holding an NC-17 rating almost never have a wide release. Showgirls
(1995) is one of the rare films with an NC-17 to get one.

The term is sometimes used informally in relative terms. For example, a documentary or
art film promoter might speak of a film expanding from a few New York and Los
Angeles screens to cinemas in major cities across the U.S. as moving into "wide release"
even though it might be playing on single screens in as few as 15 or 20 major cities.

Yet a new meaning may come to the term Wide Release as an upcoming DVD and Video
On Demand experiment from Time Warner will see films released on the these platforms
after only a month or so in theaters. Meaning the term would refer to films released on
DVD after this month long period, as opposed to a wide theatrical release in Canada and
the United States.[2]

b) Blockbuster, as applied to film or theatre, denotes a very popular and/or successful production.
The entertainment industry use was originally theatrical slang referring to a particularly
successful play but is now used primarily by the film industry.

Origin of the term

Although some entertainment histories apparently cite it as originally referring to a play

that is so successful that competing theaters on the block are "busted" and driven out of
business, the OED cites a 1957 use which is simply as a term of "biggest", after the
bombs.[1] Whatever its origin, the term quickly caught on as a way to describe a hit, and
has subsequently been applied to productions other than plays and films, including novels
and multi-million selling computer/console game titles.

In film, a number of terms were used to describe a hit. In the 1970s these included:
spectacular (The Wall Street Journal), super-grosser (New York Times), and super-
blockbuster (Variety). In 1975 the usage of 'blockbuster' for films coalesced around
Steven Spielberg's Jaws, and became perceived as something new: a cultural
phenomenon, a fast-paced exciting entertainment, almost a genre. Audiences interacted
with such films, talked about them afterwards, and went back to see them again just for
the thrill.[2]
c) Experimental film or experimental cinema describes a range of filmmaking styles that
are generally quite different from, and often opposed to, the practices of mainstream
commercial and documentary filmmaking. "Avant-garde" is also used to describe this
work, and "underground" has been used in the past, though it has also had other
connotations. While "experimental" covers a wide range of practice, an "experimental
film" is often characterized by the absence of linear narrative, the use of various
abstracting techniques (out of focus, painting or scratching on film, rapid editing), the use
of asynchronous (non-diegetic) sound or even the absence of any sound track. The goal is
often to place the viewer in a more active and more thoughtful relationship to the film. At
least through the 1960s, and to some extent after, many experimental films took an
oppositional stance toward mainstream culture. Most such films are made on very low
budgets, self-financed or financed through small grants, with a minimal crew or, quite
often, a crew of only one person, the filmmaker. It has been argued that much
experimental film is no longer in fact "experimental," but has in fact become a film genre
[1]
and that many of its more typical features - such as a non-narrative, impressionistic or
poetic approaches to the film's construction - define what is generally understood to be
"experimental".[2]

d) Art film
Japanese director Akira Kurosawa made a number of films in the 1950s and 1960s that
broke the conventions of mainstream filmmaking.

An art film (also known as art movie, specialty film, art house film, or in the collective
sense as art cinema) is typically a serious, independently made film aimed at a niche
audience rather than a mass audience.[1] Film critics and film studies scholars typically
define an "art film" using a "...canon of films and those formal qualities that mark them
as different from mainstream Hollywood films",[2] which includes, among other elements:
a social realism style; an emphasis on the authorial expressivity of the director; and a
focus on the thoughts and dreams of characters, rather than presenting a clear, goal-
driven story. Film scholar David Bordwell claims that "art cinema itself is a [film] genre,
with its own distinct conventions."[3]

Art film producers usually present their films at specialty theatres (repertory cinemas, or
in the U.S. "arthouse cinemas") and film festivals. The term "art film" is much more
widely used in the United States than in Europe, where the term "art film" is more
associated with "auteur" films and "national cinema" (e.g., German national cinema). Art
films are aimed at small niche market audiences, which means they can rarely get the
financial backing which will permit large production budgets, expensive special effects,
costly celebrity actors, or huge advertising campaigns, as are used in widely-released
mainstream blockbuster films. Art film directors make up for these constraints by
creating a different type of film, which typically uses lesser-known film actors (or even
amateur actors) and modest sets to make films which focus much more on developing
ideas or exploring new narrative techniques or filmmaking conventions.

Furthermore, a certain degree of experience and intellect are required to understand or

appreciate such films; one late 1990s art film was called "largely a cerebral experience"
which you enjoy "because of what you know about film".[4] This contrasts sharply with
mainstream "blockbuster" movies, which are geared more towards escapism and pure
entertainment. For promotion, art films rely on the publicity generated from film critics'
 reviews, discussion of their film by arts columnists, commentators, and bloggers, and
"word-of-mouth" promotion by audience members. Since art films have small initial
investment costs, they only need to appeal to a small portion of the mainstream viewing
audiences to become financially viable.

e) A cult film (also known as a cult movie/picture or a cult classic) is a film that has acquired a
highly devoted but specific group of fans.[1] Often, cult movies have failed to achieve fame
outside the small fanbases; however, there have been exceptions that have managed to gain fame
among mainstream audiences. Many cult movies have gone on to transcend their original cult
status and have become recognized as classics; others are of the "so bad it's good" variety and are
destined to remain in obscurity. Cult films often become the source of a thriving, obsessive, and
elaborate subculture of fandom, hence the analogy to cults. However, not every film with a
devoted fanbase is necessarily a cult film. Usually, cult films have limited but very special, noted
appeal. Cult films are often known to be eccentric, often do not follow traditional standards of
mainstream cinema and usually explore topics not considered in any way mainstream—yet there
are examples that are relatively normal. Many are often considered controversial because they
step outside standard narrative and technical conventions. [2]

A cult film is a movie that attracts a devoted group of followers or obsessive fans, despite having
failed commercially on its initial release. The term also describes films that have remained
popular over a long period of time amongst a small group of followers. In many cases, cult films
may have failed to achieve mainstream success on original release although this is definitely not
always the case. Whilst they may only have a short cinema release cult films often enjoy ongoing
popularity due to myriad VHS, LaserDisc and DVD releases. In some cases, these films tend to
enjoy long runs on video, thus being issued in video "runs" with more copies than other movies.
The movie Office Space (1999), which lost money during its box office run, managed to turn
significant profits when word-of-mouth made it a popular video rental and purchase. Harold and
Maude (1971) was not successful financially at the time of its original release, but has since
earned a cult following and has become successful following its video and DVD releases. This
has also happened with The Big Lebowski (1998), among others. Many cult films were
independent films and were not expected by their creators to have mainstream success. Carnival
of Souls (1962), Night of the Living Dead (1968), Pink Flamingos (1972), Eraserhead (1977),
Basket Case (1982), The Evil Dead (1981) and its sequels, and Napoleon Dynamite (2004) could
all be considered cult films.[citation needed] Sometimes the audience response to a cult film is
somewhat different than what was intended by the film makers. Cult films usually offer
something different or innovative in comparison to mainstream films, but cult films can also be
popular across a wide audience.

A film can be both a major studio release and a cult film, particularly if despite its affiliation with
a major studio, it failed to achieve broad success on either the theatrical or home video markets
but was championed by a small number of dedicated film fanatics who seek out lesser-known
offerings. It is also true that the content of certain films (such as dark subjects, alienation,
transgressive content, or other controversial subject matter) can also decide whether or not a film
is a "cult film", regardless of the film's budget or studio affiliations. An example may be Paul
Verhoeven's big budgeted, highly sexualized Showgirls (1995), initially intended to be a drama
film about the rise of a Las Vegas stripper, that flopped both critically and commercially when
released theatrically; afterward, it enjoyed success on the home video market, generating more
than $100 million from video rentals.[4] Today, it is a favorite of gay audiences and audiences in
general have considered it to be a comedy thanks to frequent midnight movie showings.
According to activist writer Naomi Klein, ironic enjoyment of the film initially arose among
those with the video before MGM, the film's chief marketer, capitalized on the idea. MGM
noticed the video was performing all right, since "trendy twenty-somethings were throwing
Showgirls irony parties, laughing sardonically at the implausibly poor screenplay and shrieking
with horror at the aerobic sexual encounters."[5