| By the end of the 1960’s, the era of the Production Code was all but over with the Hays Office’s ability to dictate film content dwindling steadily. This loosening of what was acceptable to see on screen- as well as what was quickly becoming profitable to see on screen- coupled with the general financial decline of the major studios spearheaded the movement that has come to be known as independent film. As people know of it in a modern sense, Bill Horrigan explains, “there are at least two notions of indie film: an independent film would be a film that might show at Sundance [or] would be one whose concerns, methods, and mode of address would render it deeply unpresentable in that context.” However, this umbrella term under which countless films are huddled is truly too vague for anyone to honestly define its contents. “Independent film.” What is an independent film? It may be argued by this critic that, in fact, the term is as easily definable as a concept like love, for example, which encompasses so many emotions and individual experiences/situations that the mere idea of categorizing it by even a name seems misguided. In dealing with so-called independent films, those individual experiences and situations are the individual films, genres, filmmakers, and all of the very specific criteria that could not possibly be defined by a single name, “independent.” Furthermore, if one were to put all such film to a specific definition, he would certainly run across innumerous exceptions to his rule. Thereby, it may actually be easier to say what an independent film is not than to define what it must absolutely be. First of all, an independent film is not one because of its production background. Back in 1997 at the Oscars, touted as the year of the independents, the Best Picture nominees were Secrets and Lies, The English Patient, Jerry Maguire, Shine, and Fargo. Jerry Maguire was the one exception, commonly regarded as the only studio picture of the bunch. Fargo, however, was produced at PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, who has also released such films as Notting Hill and Batman, which are anything but independent in nature. Similarly, Secrets and Lies was made at Channel 4 Films, one of the UK’s largest production houses and Shine was produced by AFFC (Green Card) and Australian powerhouse, Film Victoria (Romper Stomper, Muriel’s Wedding). As for Best Picture winner, The English Patient, filmmaker Jay Rosenblatt says, “When a film like The English Patient is called ‘independent,’ the term becomes ludicrous…[the film] was the exact antithesis of what one would usually think of as an independent film.” Truth be told, The English Patient cost $27 million dollars- heads above the familiar independent known to scrape for those last nickels and dimes- and was produced at none other than Miramax Films, a major studio notorious for hiding behind an “independent” label. Even in this isolated situation, it is clear that production background is many times contradictory to those films that are called “independent.” Subject matter is another area in which films are misleadingly labeled as independent. While this is perhaps the most easy to justify due to the endless financial associations between the major studios and their investors (read: studios cannot often or are hesitant to take on material that is too racy at the risk at losing financial backers), the fact remains that there are, again, clear exceptions to this rule. One blaring example is Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers. While a masterpiece of cinema, NBK is undeniably, brutally violent and profane and actually holds the record for having influenced the most copycat crimes. Still though, NBK was a wide release from Warner Brothers, thus making it ineligible- theoretically- for “independent” standing. Another example is Spike Lee’s Summer of Sam, which was possibly his most commercial release, despite its content- and title- making direct reference to the bloody summer of David Burkowitz’s killing spree in 1977 New York. Summer of Sam was made at Touchstone Pictures, a subsidiary of Disney. So, though there may be some truth that independent films tackle issues and subjects that the major studios cannot or will not deal with for financial security reasons, clearly there is some level of risk-taking that undermines that argument, proving once again that the line of independence is blurred. Last, the cinema of the auteur, film marked by distinct directorial style, does not belong solely to the world of “independent” film, as the revolutionary ideal of the auteur figure suggests. Francis Ford Coppola upon being asked by Paramount to direct The Godfather is quoted as saying, “They want me to direct this hunk of trash. I don’t want to do it. I want to do art films.” Coppola and many of his contemporaries were all deeply influenced by European film, particularly those in which the artist and director on a movie were one in the same. Similarly, this influence has trickled down to today’s filmmakers and, as such, the feeling of inherent rebellion against the studio machine, which tries to stifle creative artistry- in theory- is what primarily has caused this popular association of the auteur with the independent scene. Again, though, too many cases of name directors with distinct styles work best within this “machine” and certainly their resources in that structure cannot be denied. Woody Allen, being one of the only true auteurs to come out of the 1970’s film renaissance, repeatedly has his films produced and released through Buena Vista, Miramax, and DreamWorks. Manhattan was produced by United Artists. Tim Burton, whose name is immediately synonymous with a very unique directorial style, has made his entire career within the studio system, particularly at Warner Brothers. Even more recently, Kevin Smith, famous for having maxed out his credit cards to make the ultra-low budget Clerks, now has steady work through Miramax and MCA/Universal. The deep realization here is that popular independent directors do not stay too independent for long when they realize the resources they would be gaining from a studio’s financial backing. As Peter Lunenfeld, faculty at the Art Center College of Design, says, “Young directors are not to be faulted for their desire to make ever larger-budgeted productions- the American cinema has relied on such conscious careerism for so much of its vitality for almost a century.” None of these arguments on stereotype in defining the “independent” film even touches on the many diverse genres of film all grouped together painfully as “independent.” Everything from low budget horror to pornography is arguably independent. Nor does it argue for the real spirit of what possibly does define independent cinema: the need to tell a story over the need to cash a check; a filmmaker’s journey to make film art at any cost- though not usually financial. However, even by these mentions it causes the use of such a blanket term to seem all that much more flawed and ridiculous. As Jim Moran and Holly Willis of Filmmaker Magazine state, they are often “accused of rehashing the standard rags-to-riches tale of the first-time filmmaker without noting how the telling of [that] tale sustains a particular capitalist agenda.” This capitalist agenda, too, may be the reason why the term “independent” has become so abstract and convoluted, perhaps degrading “an entire arena of art-making practice,” as Peter Lunenfeld says. Moran and Willis explain that the argument is now strong concerning the debasement of true independent cinema’s political edge “by reducing the term [independent] to nothing more than a marketing tool.” Conceivably the reason why there is no possible unifying definition of independent film and/or why it has become a now ever-popular buzzword/marketing tool is that the films themselves as well as their makers have grown apart in purpose. While there are still many filmmakers yet to be discovered who die to tell the stories that remain untold or filmmakers who look forward to innovating with the newest experimental video technologies, the rebellion against a system (particularly the declining studio system) that was so much a part of the pioneering independents has gone by the wayside as studios are now often eager in trying to get the racy material from the hotshot directors that will put people in theatre seats. Unifying purpose- outside of the most basic desire to make film in the first place- is absent and thereby the hodgepodge of talent that this situation creates becomes as impossible to categorize or define as their work. “Independent film” may now be used as a buzzword because of the false ideals that America’s collective conscious understands from that phrase, however, the term itself remains misplaced in its representation. The repeated flaws in the logic that rehashed the term “independent” for use in the distribution and marketing process are too noticeable to ignore. By truly examining the stereotypes and ideas inborn in the term, it is clear that there truly is no single appropriate definition for “independent” film. |
| Introduction: Too often journalists and fans grab hold of buzzwords and shifts within genre-dominated Hollywood, creating an overhyped and overly generalized scope of vision within the industry. "Indie" or "Independent" film is a major example of this occurance. A label that undoubtedly has become too ambiguous to hold real meaning over its almost-30 year history (if not arguably longer). Or does it have relevance? It is still used incessantly, after all. As someone who often exaggerates and holds to these generalized labels in order to get ideas across to you, my readers, I find that it is my duty to investigate this particular journalistic catch-all. I hope you take something from this. The ultimate judgement is your own. Thank you, Dan |
| What is an "Independent" Film? |
| By Dan |
| Other Essays By Dan |
 |