What is independent film?
How do you define an independent film?
– Lee Myers
via imdb
Classically, an independent film was one that was made outside of the conventional studio system, be that Hollywood, Bollywood or Pinewood. But with the rise of the “independent” labels of the major studios, such as Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage, that distinction is pretty much moot. Also, consider that the last three Star Wars epics were made independently (by Mr. George Lucas). Any movie with fast-food tie-ins really shouldn’t qualify, in my opinion.
I’d argue that the term “independent film” should be reserved for talking about the movie itself, rather than how it was financed.1 There’s a reason the word “independence” so often shows up in proximity to “revolution” — a shared spirit of frustration, anarchy and apple-cart-upsetting. From their conception, independent films aren’t just made outside of the studio system. They are made in opposition to the studio system, with its relentless need to round off the corners and soften the blows. And in standing against the status quo, independent films help to change it.2
Of course, my proposed redefinition of independent film can’t accommodate many of today’s darling indies, which mollycoddle their audiences with a careful recipe of quirk, warmth and family dysfunction.3 Just the very term “indie” seems to embody that spirit of fuzzy cuteness. I would call on filmmakers to start feeding their movies after midnight, and let their vicious little monsters roar.
- I propose labeling conventional movies “dependent films.” Try it. It’s fun. ↩
- Think the early years of Miramax, with the first movies by Soderbergh, Tarantino and others. ↩
- I blame THE FULL MONTY. ↩
Articles
January 31st, 2007 at 8:12 am
But it’s always after midnight!
January 31st, 2007 at 8:16 am
From an interview with Steven Soderbergh on DV.com (see link at bottom)
“I guess I agree, for the most part, with William Goldman’s assessment that studio movies reinforce things that we want to believe, and independent films challenge those ideas.”
http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=23902911
January 31st, 2007 at 9:02 am
John, I love that you just used a Gremlins reference. Thank you for making my day.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:03 am
Oh, God! Gremlins flashback!
It seems that a lot of people have talked about redefining “independent” to mean a certain type of mentality. But when “independent” is subjective, and means whatever movie you think is off-beat, the word ceases to have meaning. I mean, Fight Club arguably meets your definition, but the fact that it is arguable is exactly what my problem is.
Why don’t we just use a different word, or come up with a new one? (I’m not clever enough to come up with one myself.)
January 31st, 2007 at 9:20 am
January 31st, 2007 at 9:28 am
I agree- film financing isn’t the defining element of independent film. I would also agree most of the indie darlings today aren’t, in my mind, really independent films. However, I think one of the problems for us newbies can be summed up as follows: if a tree falls in the wood, and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound? Or, to put the analogy in context, if I make a movie, and it’s not distributed, did I make a film that contributes to independent film if no on has seen it?
The impact of indiewood (and it’s financing) is that it has narrowed the range of acceptable movies. What was innovation in the early 90s is now tested markets. It’s good to talk about letting out the monsters, but how do we let them out in a way?
I’ll give you an example- gay films. Queer cinema was developing wildly in the late 80s and early 90s, and now, it just seems predictable. I notice today that IFC has just purchased Wild Tigers I have Known. I am sure it’s a sweet film. But, the first image I saw from the production stills was of a boy with lip stick on. How many shorts and features have I see this in? I am writing something that doesn’t do that (hopefully). It’s not a coming out story. It’s not about gay bashing. It’s not a romantic comedy. It’s not about HIV or rent boys. I am terrified no one will be interested once I’m done, especially in the environment that I describe above.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:59 am
The three recent Star Wars films snub their noses at the entire world. Isn’t that independent?
January 31st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Doug J - Little Miss Sunshine is only the most recent example. There’s also Pieces of April, Billy Elliot, Home for the Holidays, My Big Fat Greek Wedding… the list goes on and on. (and while I enjoy these guilty-pleasure movies, yes, the term “indie” does ring of a certain fuzziness and it shouldn’t. Maybe without the “ie?” An “indep” movie perhaps?)
January 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Does the very general question remind anyone else of Personality Parade? No? Just me.
I remember when John Malcovich was being interviewed for Ghost World (he produced it). Pretty much everyone referred to it as an indie movie, and Malcovich prickled, as it was a studio movie. Everyone just saw oddball and no major stars, assumed a studio wouldn’t go near it.
Peter Biskind also interviewed Ed Norton for ‘Down and Dirty Pictures’, a book about indie movies. He was kind of perplexed when Ed Norton told him he’d never been in an independent movie. You can see why - Edward Norton just seems so … indie.
Also loved the Gremlins reference.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“It’s good to talk about letting out the monsters, but how do we let them out in a way?”
By writing and shooting good films. I give you and example: A friend of mine produced an independent movie that would fall into the category that Craig describes as “gay films”. The film has heart, humor, and the hero does not wear lipstick. Here comes the best part, you can Netflix “The Mostly Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green”, in other words it got distributed. Why? Because it’s a good film. And because of the that, somebody heard the tree fall. See my point?
January 31st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I agree completely with your definition. What I especially love is that your standard allows many “dependent” films to be recognized as independent.
As far as I know, Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” was a dependent movie, even though its spirit was anything but. No attempt to soften the edges or insult the audience’s intelligence. Gilliam fought a hell of a battle for his movie, but he eventually succeeded. As you pointed out, some far less independent “independent” movies have been made….
(The studio system is apparently an amorphous blob monster that can devour and emulate anything independent of itself, leaving no way to tell who’s a good guy and who’s a bad guy. The only way I see to rid the Earth of its evil presence is to destroy it from the inside out.)
My point is, I don’t worry about liking independent or dependent movies…. I just like good movies — even cute ones once in a while.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I think today’s consumers commonly associate “indie” films with “arthouse” films, and assume that all indie films are designed to be quirky and pushing boundaries.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Was debating this same topic with some mates a few nights back and its as impossible as defining ‘alternative’ music.
My $0.02: Nearly all films are bankrolled by someone other than the director, whether it be a studio or private investors. Given the primary interest of these people is to see a return on their investment, how can any film truly be independent? Doesn’t this need to make a profit compromise the directors singular vision?
Using that as a definition, you could call argue that only something like Clerks is a truly independent film, given that it was entirely funded by Kevin Smith, and thus only person he answered to was Kevin Smith.
However I noticed in his recent blog Kevin Smith labelled Ryan Gosling flick Half Nelson as “The One That Made Me Ashamed I Was Ever Identified as an Independent Filmmaker, Because This is Real Independent Film”.
So I guess Half Nelson is an independent film!
February 1st, 2007 at 2:42 am
… and what about the situation in other countries? In Germany (and most parts of Europe) we have no studio system. Instead, there is a system of state funding for the movies, which takes the pressure off of the producers to create a commercially successful film. Does that make every German movie indie or arthouse? It certainly leads to a lot of films that nobody wants to see, because they are so strange (and often pointless) that they don’t sell any tickets and will never be noticed outside our country. The whole of Europe actually produces more films p.a. than Hollywood, but unfortunately only very few of them have the ability to “make it”. My point (if I have one) is, that movies from the US (both indies and dependents) seem to care more about marketability, which isn’t per se condemnable.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:13 am
Well, there’s this confusing merchant mentality (I don’t know what else to call it) wherein someone is always trying to sell us someone else’s character. Like intellegent and artistic, “indie” has become more of a look and a scene than a definition. People seem to confuse it with “Emo,” and when someone thinks of independant films these days, it’s likely they unconsciously call up a mental montage of “Weezer” vidoes.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:48 am
Arthouse! That, to me, is a much better term, because it doesn’t have the confused etymological baggage of who paid for it. Can we go back to using “arthouse”?
February 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Sure, let’s just break out the Andy Warhol arthouse films.
Your film could’ve been better, John, if YOU’D filmed the Empire State Building for 8 straight hours.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am
The only problem with independent films, other than major studios producing them, would be the fact that at least one (Not always the case) movie comes out every week with this tagged to it. Studio films show you what you think you want, and independent films show you what you really want to see, be it subconsciously. Most “indie” films have the association with low budget, and that isn’t always the case. A lot of films without WGA association tend to receive “indie” association. Five years ago most people would be able to define what an independent film was, but only a few can define it in today’s fast-paced garbage bin. I find it funny that most really thought-provoking movies are always slapped with the independent film status. Status quo leads to blockbuster, and Innovative leads to independent glory, sometimes.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
A quick Google search of “How the hell am I going to finance my Independent film” directed me to one of my favorite blogs! Thanks for posting this article (on a much talked-about subject) and thanks for continuing to help make cinema mean something.
If anyone is interested in my indie project, please click on my name/link to see the website.