Radically different or a sub-section of Hollywood - A look at the ‘independent’ sector of...

8/8/2019 Radically different or a sub-section of Hollywood - A look at the independent sector of American film

1/10

Ryan Lewis ryan@raz z lewis.com www.raz z lewis.com

1

rADICALLY dIFFEREN T OR A sUB-SECTION OF hOLLYWOOD - A lOO

T HEINDEPENDENT sECTOR OF aME RICAN fILM .

Here I will be looking at the independent sector of American cinema, and

looking at its relation to Hollywood mainstream cinema. I will be discussing the

similarities and differences between the two in order to establish whether these

two categories of cinema are indeed radically different or more examples of the

Hollywood mainstream being presented in a slightly different package.

It is firstly pertinent to define the term radically different so as to ensure

clarity within the arguments presented. Radical is defined in the Cambridge

English Dictionary as relating to the most important parts of something or

someone; complete or extreme and, as a result, we shall take radically different

on this case to mean films which are extremely different to those produced by the

Hollywood mainstream in its most important and fundamental aspects of form and

convention.

Before I can attempt to compare the two however, it is important to

establish what can actually be considered to be Hollywood mainstream and

American Independent Cinema. This is of particular importance as the term

Independent is something of a bone of contention amongst scholars and critics

with both a more literal and a more liberal definition being proposed from different

sources.

Firstly, the Hollywood mainstream can be considered to be a film

produced and distributed by the New Hollywood conglomerates and

multinational corporations (Lane, 2000, p.29) that make up the major studios

(McCrisken and Pepper, 2005, p.166) who produce high concept films (Berra,

2008, p.58) according to traditional, audience-pleasing formulae. (Quart and

Auster, 2002, p.170)

Somewhat more simply, the country of origin for a film is decided by the

International Federation of Film Archives using the country of the principal offices

of the Production Company or individual by whom the moving image work was

made (anon, 1999) and as a result a film is American if its director and/or the

company financing it are based in the United States.


2/10


2

As for defining the term Independent Cinema, it is less clear-cut. Greg

Merritt for example, in his book Celluloid Mavericks: A History of American

Independent Film takes the former approach to defining the term, stating that an

independent film is any motion picture financed and produced completelyautonomous of all studios, regardless of size. (2000, p.xii)

Others however describe American Independent Cinema using a more

liberal definition that Merritt dismisses as too slippery, the belief that

independence is determined not by financing but by professing an alternative

vision, an idea that he concedes is widely held. (2000, p.xii) It is this widely

held definition of American Independent Cinema that will be considered here, with

some consideration being given to texts having different amounts of independencefrom the studios and the mainstream.

As Geoff King says when defining independent cinema, independent is a

space that exists between the more familiar-conventional mainstream and the

more radical departures of the avant-garde or the underground. (2005, p.10)

Therefore, whilst consideration must be given to the avant-garde and underground

cinema complete autonomy from the system sometimes produces; the focus of the

here shall be on the middle ground for the most part. As their names suggest, and the above definitions outline, American

Independent Cinema is something which operates outside of the mainstream and

most common route of film production. Yet, despite this, its ability to occupy the

aforementioned space comes through its ability to offer something different

whilst retaining enough similarity to mainstream conventions to ensure audiences

arent alienated. In fact, even this space is squeezed with Geoff King noting that

mainstream Hollywood cinema also tries to offer difference-within-similarity withthe distinguishing feature of the independent sector being the greater potential

scope for difference. (2005, p. 166)

Points of comparison can be found prominently within the narrative

structure and cinematic conventions that are shared by many films from within

both the independent sector of cinema and the Hollywood mainstream.

When discussing narrative himself John Berra notes how in Hollywood

mainstream cinema narratives are largely interchangeable audiences keep


3/10


3

paying to see films they have already seen. (2008, p.57) It makes sense therefore

to say one of the appeals of independent cinema is that it provides a greater

potential scope for some new narratives which the audience can follow.

However, if Christopher Brooker (2004) is right in saying that there are onlyseven basic plots, there is only a limited amount of variation independent cinema

can provide in that respect. We must therefore consider what difference-within-

similarity that independent cinema can offer, bearing in mind that it has the

greater potential scope for difference it is perhaps unsurprising that Berra states

independent cinema expects films that possess a certain level of novelty (2008,

p.201) as this ability to offer something radical and different seems to be what

separates it from the mainstream.This novelty can come in many different forms. Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

for example is different from the mainstream with regards to the way the narrative

progresses from scene to scene and how some elements are never explained. The

scene in the dojo appears a little strange being there at all, even when the dojo

guru later reappears. Similarly, the fact there is a llama in the garden is something

the audience just has to accept, despite its unconventionality as its from this

different style much of the comedy derives.In a similar manner, Harmony Korines Gummo (1997) appears to jump

from one scene to the next in a somewhat ad-hoc manner, although it does so in a

far more extreme way which leads it to appear aimless and thrown together at

times. However, the director was doing this in an express effort to invent a new

film [that] hasn't been seen in a real commercial context, (Kelley, 1997)

something which would be radically different.

Similarly different, Palindromes (2004) has a novelty by virtue of the factthat numerous different actors portray its main protagonist Aviva over the course of

the film. Her character remains the same throughout the text, yet her

representation on screen shifts wildly with her age, race and gender all fluctuating

during the course of the movie. These latter two films provide a far less accessible

watch to the audience than that found within the narrative structure of Napoleon

Dynamite, let alone anything within the Hollywood mainstream. This does

however go some way toward demonstrating the capabilities of independent


4/10


4

cinema to provide an alternative to traditional narrative structures and

representations of them as opposed to just the stories themselves, ranging in from

more mainstream methods to more radical ones.

Still, many of the most recent high profile independent films, including theaforementioned Napoleon Dynamite, would certainly not be considered

independent by Greg Merritts definition but fall into the grey area that is termed

Indiewood cinema; cinema in which markers of indie-style distinction are often

combined with relatively more marketable dimensions (Cook, 2007, p.58) and

marketed to film buffs whose expected pleasures are more dependent upon

notions of artistry, style, wit, and intellectually engaging themes. (Connard, 2007,

p.154)The Indiewood cinema model can be demonstrated through films such as

Garden State, Little Miss Sunshine and Juno which were all distributed by Fox

Searchlight Pictures, a division of the 20 th Century Fox studio that specialises in

Independent Cinema.

As independent films they were all made on relatively small budgets and all

received plaudits and nominations at film festivals and awards from various critics

lists, film societies and the like. This independent pedigree in combination withtheir fairly conventional (and therefore accessible) use of cinematic techniques and

narrative led them to be picked up by the larger New Hollywood studio for

distribution who spend time seeking unusual movies with profit potential

(Bordwell, 2006, p.18).

Once the title is picked up by the studio it then markets the qualities of the

film traditionally associated with independents to the intended audience whilst also

demonstrating how the film is still accessible to the mainstream, using their awardsas a signifier of quality to help persuade the wider audience.

Due to these films receiving a great deal more marketing and a much wider

release than most independent features, they not only make the studio more

money for their investment, but the public also begin to associate these titles with

being what independent cinema has to offer.

As a result of this, it is more often than not in the margins of the mainstream

that American Independent Cinema is most recognisable, where it most heavily


5/10


5

marketed and gathers its greatest financial successes. However, where it is less

visible independent cinema is often at its most powerful, important and culturally

valuable - away from what is most easily marketed and financially successful, in

the margins of society. As Chris Rojek says, if independent filmmakers breakfrom the corporation their films are likely to be confined to the margins of

popular culture. (2001, p.141)

American Independent Cinema has had great cultural resonance through the

years as a result of its position as a platform for filmmakers who possess differing

views to those accepted and presented by Hollywood mainstream cinema.

Independent features have provided an outlet for the story of numerous minorities

over the years that would have been otherwise grossly underrepresented onscreen.

These numbers include directors such as Hailie Gerima who, with the LA

School sought to create a more politically radical version of independent

cinema (King, 2005, p.204) in order to highlight the problems faced by black

Americans and provide the black audience with more immediately accessible and

relevant movies.

Along similar lines, the New Queer Cinema movement worked within American Independent Cinema during the 1990s, making films which appealed

less to the mainstream tastes but instead cared about catering to the gay

audience; providing them with characters and aesthetics which would otherwise

not make it on the cinema screen with the movement not being overly considerate

of what those outside its target audience would make of the texts.

The changing cost of filmmaking as a result of digital technologies for

example has had an effect upon the production of American Independent Cinema.Studio funding is no longer as important as it used to be, and it is easier for more

personal, niche projects such as these to be undertaken through self-financing

than it has ever been. Russell Evans noted that DV film is going to cost far less

than its conventional analogue or celluloid forerunner (2006, p.72) and this

obviously provides scope for new ways to use funds that would have otherwise

been tied up elsewhere.


6/10


6

In some cases independent filmmakers may use the money to enable their

film to have a more conventional Hollywood look, as opposed to having to thing

more creatively and laterally during the filmmaking process as has traditionally

been associated with independent cinema. Others would be more inclined tomake their decisions in this regard based upon the independent spirit with which

American Independent Cinema is associated at its heart.

Those associated within the loose community (Yamato, 2009) that make

up the Mumblecore movement take advantage of this ability to make micro-

budget films in order to make movies that are extremely personal just as those

making cinema for the marginalised did. Their movies are described as ultra-

casual, low-fi severely naturalistic portraits of the life and loves of artistictwentysomethings (Van Couvering, 2007) and as filmmakers they are prolific, as

Andrea Hubert noted in 2007, In five years, they have produced a total of 14 self-

financed films between them a group whose oldest member is a mere 34.

Perhaps even more radically in terms of the film industry than the ability to

make micro-budget features could be the manner in which independent cinema

explores new distribution methods. Coupled with the abilities to make films at a

lower cost than ever before, they can now be made available online to anyone withan Internet connection alongside fare from established studios on streaming sites

such as YouTube or Hulu, or for download via the iTunes store. Such examples of

media convergence being used by independent filmmakers may allow for real

radical alternatives to the mainstream to emerge with huge potential audiences.

In conclusion, it has to be said that American Independent Cinema can both

function as a sub-section of the mainstream, yet also offer a radical alternative to

that which is a product of the Hollywood mainstream system. The space inwhich American Independent Cinema lies allows for its poles to be similar to the

Hollywood mainstream through Indiewood at one end, whilst at the other still being

a term that encompasses the avant-garde and innovative filmmaking which is

independent cinema by its strictest definition.

The rise of Indiewood and the idea of American Independent Cinema as a

sub-section of the Hollywood mainstream is reflective of the fact that independent

studios have grown or been purchased by the larger studios. That, coupled with


7/10


7

the fact that mainstream cinematic techniques can now be used with more ease,

has meant that some filmmakers have been able to work within the definitions of

independent cinema whilst making movies that are far more conventional to

audiences through choice or studio pressure. They may be considered a betrayalof the true spirit of independence (Cook, 2007, p. 58) by some, but due to their

greater exposure and marketing power, they are what a large proportion of the

cinema audience consider American Independent Cinema to be, and they must

therefore be included in any contemplation on the state of it.

Their existence however does not stop movies from being made in this true

spirit, away from the studio system and the worries about profit margins,

deadlines and audience appeal that brings. It is still within independent cinemathat the most radically different techniques, structures and representations are

likely to be found due to the extra freedom filmmakers working there possess. Yet

many of these films will never find success, and some will sink without trace. They

are however still being made, and could outnumber those more mainstream and

well known examples of independent cinema considerably.

American Independent Cinema is therefore both of the above, at the same

time and does not have to stick to one or the other. It can operate as a sub-section of mainstream Hollywood, distributing more mainstream independent film

to greater success and acting as a proving ground for aspiring filmmakers whilst it

also provides the variety traditionally associated with independents, allowing for

those with little funds or opportunity to begin making a name for themselves or get

their voice heard whilst other filmmakers can innovate and create is a less-

pressured environment.

Yet saying it is mostly one or the other is something that is increasinglydifficult to do. In terms of successes, money made and wider public perception it

does seem as if American Independent Cinema is increasingly more of a sub-

section of the Hollywood mainstream.

However, in terms of actual quantity of movies made, in comparison to those

undertaking micro-budget projects, it could be very much the least prolific side of

the independent sector it is difficult to ascertain due to the lack of distribution.

Similarly, how can the spirit of independent filmmakers overall be judged and to


8/10


8

what extent do they intend to make something different, even if not radically so? It

is only when looking at independent cinema with an implausibly narrow definition

that you can really give a confident answer, and to do so in the face of general

public perception as to what independent cinema is would be foolish.


9/10


9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. (1999). Choice of Original Release Title in Country of Origin as Main Entry.

Available: http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/arch0898.htm. Last accessed 11 Nov 2009.

Anon. (2010). Definition of radical (adjective) from Cambridge Dictionary Online. Available: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65142&dict=CALD. Lastaccessed 6 Jan 2010.

Berra, John (2008). Declarations of Independence: American Cinema and thePartiality of Independent Production. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Bordwell, David (2006). The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style In ModernMovies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brooker, Christopher (2004). The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. London:Continuum International Publishing Group

Chapman, Jane (2007). Documentary In Practice: Filmmakers and ProductionChoices. Stafford: Polity.

Connard, Mark T. (2007). The Philosophy of Neo-Noir. Lexington: University Pressof Kentucky.

Cook, Pam (2007). The Cinema Book, 3 rd Edition. London: BFI.

Evans, Russell (2006). Practical DV Filmmaking. Oxford: Focal Press.

Garden State (2004) [Film] Directed by: Zach Braff [DVD] Fox Searchlight.

Gummo (1997) [Film] Directed by: Harmony Korine [DVD] Fine Line Features.

Hubert, Andrea (2007). Speak Up! Available:http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/may/19/culture.features. Last accessed 6 Jan

2010.Juno (2007) [Film] Directed by: Jason Reitman [DVD] Fox Searchlight.

Kelley, Mike (1997). Mike Kelley Interviews Harmony Korine. Available: http://www.harmony-korine.com/paper/int/hk/kelley.html. Last accessed 6 Jan2010.

King, Geoff (2005). American Independent Cinema . London: I.B. Tauris.

Lane, Christina (2000). Feminist Hollywood: From Born In Flames to Point Break.Detroit: Wayne State University Press.


10/10


10

Leary, Mike (2005). Napoleon Dynamite. Available:http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/napoleon_dynamite/. Last accessed 6 Jan2010.

Little Miss Sunshine (2004) [Film] Directed by: Jonathan Dayton and Valarie Faris[DVD] Fox Searchlight.

McCrisken, Trevor and Pepper, Andrew (2005). American History and Contemporary Hollywood Film. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Merritt, Greg (2000). Celluloid Mavericks: The History of American Independent Film. New York City: Thunder's Mouth Press.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004) [Film] Directed by: Jared Hess [DVD] MTV Films.

Palindromes (2004) [Film] Directed by: Todd Solondz [DVD] Wellspring Media.

Quart, Leonard and Auster, Albert (2002). American Film and Society Since 1945.Oxford: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Rojak, Chris (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books.

Van Couvering, Alicia (2007). What I Meant to Say. Available:http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/spring2007/features/mumblecore.php. Lastaccessed 6 Jan 2010.

Yamato, Jen (2009). Is Mumblecore a Dirty Word? Available:http://www.cinematical.com/2009/12/14/is-mumblecore-a-dirty-word/. Lastaccessed 6 Jan 2010.

Radically different or a sub-section of Hollywood - A look at the ‘independent’ sector of...

Documents

Transcript of Radically different or a sub-section of Hollywood - A look at the ‘independent’ sector of...