|
A Motion Picture Industry Perspective: Independent of What?
If you want to start a debate amongst film lovers, critics, or even film school students, ask them exactly how they define an independent film. Everyone seems to have a different idea about what categorizes a movie in this way. For some it comes down to the size of the budget. For some it comes down to the subject matter. And for others it comes down to the amount of involvement of a major studio. But to a film maker out there on his own, scraping together whatever money, actors and locations he can in order to get his vision recorded, the term “independent” is a very personal one that he does not believe any major studio should co-opt in order to make a few bucks. If you want to get technical, here are some of the various definitions of the word as found in Webster’s: “not influenced or controlled by others,” “not subject to another’s authority or jurisdiction,” “not depending upon something else for existence, operation, etc.,” and “not relying on another or others for aid or support.” The technical definitions rarely, if ever, come up in polite conversation, but they are important. On Saturday, March 5th, the “2006 Independent Spirit Awards” were handed out, during which people in the Hollywood film industry constantly offered up their own ideas on the subject. Ang Lee, who won the award for Best Director at both this awards show as well as the Oscars the following night, had this to say about independent film: “To me it means grab as much money as you can to do what you’re not really supposed to do.” This is an intriguing quote, to be sure. And this is coming from the man who directed the $120 million Hollywood studio film Hulk. Even the film he won the awards for this year, Brokeback Mountain, was budgeted at $14 million. Actress Naomi Watts (star of the $200 million dollar studio film King Kong) was this year’s Honorary Chairperson of the Independent Spirit Awards. Right before handing out the Best Picture award to Lee’s Brokeback Mountain, she proceeded to “define” independent film yet again for the audience of mostly Hollywood stars. According to Watts, “Every year at these awards we struggle to come up with a definition for independent film. And every year the definition becomes more tortured and stretched.” Is it because Hollywood is afraid of being shut out of an awards show at which it doesn’t technically belong? Watts goes on to say, literally, “you know it when you see it.” She says, “It’s not a budget limit or a degree of major studio involvement or the size of the release.... When you see a film that is authentic, that is daring, that is different, that is deeply true—no matter how fantastic the plot—when you see these things you know you’re watching an independent film.” Almost all of the films that were released in the ‘70s—including The Godfather Parts I & II, Chinatown, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, and All the President’s Men—fit this exact definition, yet they were all funded and released by major studios. There was nothing independent about them, yet they were all daring and true and authentic films. More recently, Steven Spielberg’s Munich and Stephen Gaghan’s Syriana were also both financed and released by major studios. Both of those films may have cost a lot more than Brokeback Mountain or Good Night, and Good Luck, but does that mean that they weren’t daring and authentic films? Given that definition for “independent” films, why weren’t either of those films nominated for Independent Spirit Awards? Pretty much all of the definitions bandied about at these awards seemed to gloss over the whole idea of a film maker being truly independent in favor of downplaying just how much Hollywood studios have actually subsidized the idea of “independent” filmmaking as a trendy marketing scheme. Hence, why budget limitation and major studio involvement do not figure into their ambiguous definition of “independent film.” The only thing the studios have actually done is to replace the old term “art-house film” with the new term “independent film.” This euphemism of sorts is almost akin to changing the term “shell shock” to “post-traumatic stress disorder.” It doesn’t change the fact that studios still put money into and release “art” films, but it appears to have made those films more palatable to the moviegoing public. When true independent films—such as Richard Linklater’s Slacker, Robert Rodriguez’s El Mariachi, and Kevin Smith’s Clerks—were released, audiences noticed that they were all made with tiny budgets (raised almost entirely by the film makers themselves) and cast with complete unknowns (usually the film makers’ friends or local actors), but they tapped into something that typical art-house fare did not. They tapped into a sense of being hip. The dialogue, the style, the music. The films seemed to be made for people in between the art-house audiences and the big-budget studio audiences. So when Hollywood execs noticed how much money these films were making and how much positive press these films were receiving, they got the idea that they could market the art-house films they were already making in a similar way, to make the films seem “hip.” And some studios that weren’t even making art-house films started jumping on the bandwagon as well, creating whole subdivisions in their companies to solely handle their “independent” films. Now “independent” films have become as commonplace and trendy as computer-generated special effects. And because of this sudden onslaught of trendy films in the marketplace, it has caused a big debate in this country as to what is truly the definition of this genre. Sarah Silverman, the host of this year’s Independent Spirit Awards, jokingly quipped in her monologue at the beginning of the ceremony, “The Academy Awards honors the biggest directors and superstar actors, while this show is the champion of struggling artists ... like Ang Lee and George Clooney.” Robert Rodriguez made his first film for approximately $7,000. Richard Linklater made his first film for $23,000. And Kevin Smith made his first film for around $27,000. All three of them made the films they wanted to make with the money and resources that they had at their disposal. Rodriguez’s film was picked up by Columbia, Linklater’s by Orion, and Smith’s by Miramax. From the success of their films in theaters and on home video, they have been able to receive money to continue making films. With each success they’ve found that they’ve been able to get even more money for their subsequent productions. The problem, though, with getting more money to make a film, is that the people writing the checks want to be more involved in the decision-making as well as creative processes. So if the film maker has to listen to and deal with other people’s opinions, then that film maker starts giving up some, if not all, of the independence that he or she used to enjoy. Remember all those weighty definitions? Somehow they don’t seem to matter. When Miramax gave Rodriguez $35 million to make Spy Kids, they didn’t just say, “Here, do whatever you want.” No. They had some say in the direction of that film. Yet it was considered by many at the time to be an “independent” film. Just because it was put out by Miramax! Even Smith has made comments about doing what Miramax has asked him to do simply because they wrote the check. That doesn’t sound like someone who’s totally independent. And let’s not forget with whom Miramax signed a deal in the ‘90s for assistance on financing and distribution: DISNEY! Obviously this article is not going to bring an end to this debate. The film makers who have no money and make movies without any assistance from Hollywood will forever feel like they are the true independents. However, as long as the phrase is a viable, trendy, and profitable one for the marketing departments in the big Hollywood studios to latch onto for sales and promotions, the true independents will never be properly celebrated or recognized. “Independent,” you say? Independent of what?
L. Alan Brooks is an independent film maker and writer living in Wilmington, N.C.. |
|
Agnes McDonald
Proving the Wind: Civil Rights and the American Mission. Walking With the Wind, by John Lewis An Essay in Review by John L. Godwin
Poetry Page Poetry by Agnes McDonald, Carol Johnson, John L. Godwin |
|
Ecotone |
|
CCV Arts & Humanities
CCV Arts & Humanities offers a broad range of articles dealing with issues and events in music, motion pictures and the fine arts. CCV also brings you reviews and original essays in the fields of history, literature, religion and more. The aim of our magazine is not just to cover certain issues, but to open windows of insight for authentic knowledge and the kind of inspiration always vital to the humanities. At CCV, we know that one thoughtful insight reasonably shared is worth more than a million words. |
|
Carolina Civic Voice Spring 2006 Vol. 6, No 1 |