An indie film is a film that is produced outside of the major film studio system. It isn't a broad term, it is very definite. You listed some of the gems that I mentioned (Not by opinion, only by success) Those can't be "considered" indie, those are literally indie films.
Studios are not in the film biz anymore.
- Thread starter ChimpPhobiaFilms
- Start date
An indie film is a film that is produced outside of the major film studio system. It isn't a broad term, it is very definite. You listed some of the gems that I mentioned (Not by opinion, only by success) Those can't be "considered" indie, those are literally indie films.
Yes. Although quality and budget of indie films can vary greatly. An indie film can be as you described "produced by students, hobbyists, and amateurs who thought they had a great idea and could afford a miniDV cam", and they can be successful mainstream films that get a wide release, starring known name actors. Indie also has different meanings. It can mean both unsupported by a major studio, or having an intentionally uncommercial style.
I see your point. But if I were to elaborate on my original statement I would say... I don't want to JUST entertain with my films. I want to go beyond that.
Entertainment by itself can be great, or it can have a lackluster undertone. Entertainment can be a very mundane temporary distraction for your mind. Watching a slinky go down the stairs can entertain you, but it's not going to inspire, provoke thought, or stimulate you.
My point was that by successfully attempting to inspire and provoke thought, entertainment is a usual result. I believe a good film is entertainment. Again, what is a good film that is not entertaining?
I'm guessing "An Inconvenient Truth" but I couldn't make it through the whole thing.
So with more money going to television, should I be focusing on a web series instead of narrative shorts ?
"Good movie" is soooo subjective. 2001 good? Jaws good? Birth of nations? or Rush hour? or Die hard or Alien?
Different people get entertained differently - some love "good" classic,"artistic" movies,they get endorphins high from intellectual stuff. Some people adore trash, some art abstract metaphysic shizzle.
So actually when people say "classic and/or non conventional movies" are much better and 99% of Hollywood shit,it is kinda not democratic as obv Hollywood produces main stream, mass appeal stuff that makes moneyz (superheroes) as everyone watches it. While 1% of "intellectuals" say oh where are all the good movies. And business model that prices high and targets niche markets is non sustainable.
Different people get entertained differently - some love "good" classic,"artistic" movies,they get endorphins high from intellectual stuff. Some people adore trash, some art abstract metaphysic shizzle.
So actually when people say "classic and/or non conventional movies" are much better and 99% of Hollywood shit,it is kinda not democratic as obv Hollywood produces main stream, mass appeal stuff that makes moneyz (superheroes) as everyone watches it. While 1% of "intellectuals" say oh where are all the good movies. And business model that prices high and targets niche markets is non sustainable.
I guess you can say all good movies are entertaining, if we have a broad definition that includes "stimulating thought and emotions" or "engaging the audience." I think it's just that people tend to think that "entertaining" movies are only those which provide amusement like most Hollywood films. I would say that I was entertained by movies like Tokyo Story, Citizen Kane, In The Mood For Love, Wild Strawberries and many of my favorites on a deeper level than just "amusement."
Woody Allen once said something like "Art is just entertainment for intellectuals." Although I think that excellent "entertainment" films can (and should) be elevated to "art" film status, I pretty much agree with him. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what label we put on a film, we're all going to watch films that we enjoy and it's great that film encompasses so many styles for different tastes.
Woody Allen once said something like "Art is just entertainment for intellectuals." Although I think that excellent "entertainment" films can (and should) be elevated to "art" film status, I pretty much agree with him. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what label we put on a film, we're all going to watch films that we enjoy and it's great that film encompasses so many styles for different tastes.
Yeah, a fun article and thanks for sharing.
Who did I just hear saying in an interview that Hollywood had simply released too many films this or last summer, and it was just too much product at once to find enough consumers? This person said that Hollywood needed to pull back on how much it released at a time...and go back to longer runs for each film.
Which sort of echoes what Landis said.
Maybe Sony has come to the same conclusion.
Which also sounds rather intimidating and disheartening.
Who did I just hear saying in an interview that Hollywood had simply released too many films this or last summer, and it was just too much product at once to find enough consumers? This person said that Hollywood needed to pull back on how much it released at a time...and go back to longer runs for each film.
Which sort of echoes what Landis said.
Maybe Sony has come to the same conclusion.
Which also sounds rather intimidating and disheartening.
IMHO, one has to consider John Landis' comments in context. With the exception of the first decade or so of commercial filmmaking, the late 60's, 70's and 80's was in many ways a golden age of cinematic experimentation. In the 30's and 40's commercial filmmaking, particularly in the US was in general more of a factory production line than a means of artistic expression (although there were of course some exceptions). I think John Landis, along with some other filmmakers of his generation, are finding it difficult/impossible to fund and make the type of projects which were possible when they were making a name for themselves. Not being able to make the type of films one desires/expects to be able to make must be extremely frustrating and demoralising.
I would say the exact opposite! The "people" only want good movies, whereas filmmakers, artists, etc., generally seem quite content when only certain aspects of a film are "good", even if overall the movie is not good. But this statement raises a number of questions such as; what do we mean by "good" and what do we mean by entertaining, etc?
I would say for example that indie filmmaking does not exist to make good films but to make bad ones! The major studios have evolved a formula for making films which cumulatively provide enough profit for them to stay in business. This "formula" results in a relatively limited opportunity to experiment beyond the boundaries of convention which make a film "good" to the current masses. Indie films on the other hand can afford to target smaller demographics and to risk levels of experimentation which are extremely difficult or outright impossible for large multi-national corporations. However, along with this greater ability to experiment is the far greater risk/probability of not appealing to any demographic and of making something which is considered "bad" or even worse. This IMO, is why indie filmmaking exists! A good example of this is a film like Upstream Color by Shane Carruth, obviously made for a small demographic consisting mainly of film critics, film aficionados and other filmmakers but which would probably be viewed by the masses as incredibly boring, nonsensical filmmaking masturbation.
I know some film makers/aficionados won't watch blockbusters on principle but this demographic is minuscule. Unlike the masses, I sometimes want to watch an artistic film with some deep meaning that I have to work at, other times, after a hard week, I just want to kick back and enjoy some relatively mindless escapism. The $100m+ blockbusters rely on not just entertaining a main target demographic of say teenagers but also of providing entertainment value to a number of other demographics. It's extremely difficult to achieve this, certainly way more difficult than making an indie film which has some aspect of artistic merit.
True but again of course that depends on what you mean by "good" and "bad". For many critics, filmmakers and aficionados, the big blockbusters are generally "bad", formulaic trash. However, blockbusters are not cheaper to make than what many aficionados would probably consider a "good" film, in many cases they are 100+ times more expensive!
But there is your problem, a vicious circle if you will, because the obvious question is: Who are these "others" you're referring to? Unless you can successfully market to and entertain these "others", there will be no "others" beyond you, your mates, your family and possibly the mates and family of your cast and crew! To make competent films is relatively expensive. Unless you have a big inheritance or a day job which provides you with a considerable amount of spare cash and time, you're going to need either a miracle, or to make some profit from your film to fund the next film and that brings us back to entertainment value. Put bluntly, in the vast majority of cases currently, one either has to start with the premise of making a film which primarily entertains "others", or one makes films purely for one's own artistic satisfaction and to a very large extent has to give up the idea of "others", you can't generally have both!
If this is your definition then some of the films you've listed are not indie films. Mud for example was not "produced outside of the major film studio system". Many/Most of the cast, crew, other personnel and filmmaking facilities were exactly the same as those used by the major studios and so I would say that Mud was made in the studio system, just not with major studio funding. Not being funded by a major studio is arguably enough to make Mud an "indie" film but it's certainly a bit of a grey area rather than black and white IMO.
G
I would say the exact opposite! The "people" only want good movies, whereas filmmakers, artists, etc., generally seem quite content when only certain aspects of a film are "good", even if overall the movie is not good. But this statement raises a number of questions such as; what do we mean by "good" and what do we mean by entertaining, etc?
I would say for example that indie filmmaking does not exist to make good films but to make bad ones! The major studios have evolved a formula for making films which cumulatively provide enough profit for them to stay in business. This "formula" results in a relatively limited opportunity to experiment beyond the boundaries of convention which make a film "good" to the current masses. Indie films on the other hand can afford to target smaller demographics and to risk levels of experimentation which are extremely difficult or outright impossible for large multi-national corporations. However, along with this greater ability to experiment is the far greater risk/probability of not appealing to any demographic and of making something which is considered "bad" or even worse. This IMO, is why indie filmmaking exists! A good example of this is a film like Upstream Color by Shane Carruth, obviously made for a small demographic consisting mainly of film critics, film aficionados and other filmmakers but which would probably be viewed by the masses as incredibly boring, nonsensical filmmaking masturbation.
I know some film makers/aficionados won't watch blockbusters on principle but this demographic is minuscule. Unlike the masses, I sometimes want to watch an artistic film with some deep meaning that I have to work at, other times, after a hard week, I just want to kick back and enjoy some relatively mindless escapism. The $100m+ blockbusters rely on not just entertaining a main target demographic of say teenagers but also of providing entertainment value to a number of other demographics. It's extremely difficult to achieve this, certainly way more difficult than making an indie film which has some aspect of artistic merit.
True but again of course that depends on what you mean by "good" and "bad". For many critics, filmmakers and aficionados, the big blockbusters are generally "bad", formulaic trash. However, blockbusters are not cheaper to make than what many aficionados would probably consider a "good" film, in many cases they are 100+ times more expensive!
But there is your problem, a vicious circle if you will, because the obvious question is: Who are these "others" you're referring to? Unless you can successfully market to and entertain these "others", there will be no "others" beyond you, your mates, your family and possibly the mates and family of your cast and crew! To make competent films is relatively expensive. Unless you have a big inheritance or a day job which provides you with a considerable amount of spare cash and time, you're going to need either a miracle, or to make some profit from your film to fund the next film and that brings us back to entertainment value. Put bluntly, in the vast majority of cases currently, one either has to start with the premise of making a film which primarily entertains "others", or one makes films purely for one's own artistic satisfaction and to a very large extent has to give up the idea of "others", you can't generally have both!
If this is your definition then some of the films you've listed are not indie films. Mud for example was not "produced outside of the major film studio system". Many/Most of the cast, crew, other personnel and filmmaking facilities were exactly the same as those used by the major studios and so I would say that Mud was made in the studio system, just not with major studio funding. Not being funded by a major studio is arguably enough to make Mud an "indie" film but it's certainly a bit of a grey area rather than black and white IMO.
G
Last edited:
I agree with this 100%
In regards to ridiculously high budget hollywood films, its all been crap recently! Each one I have seen, screams cliché and cliché its annoying!
Man's got is spot on.
In regards to ridiculously high budget hollywood films, its all been crap recently! Each one I have seen, screams cliché and cliché its annoying!
Man's got is spot on.
I just watched two really good movies - Family Weekend and World's Greatest Dad.
With name actors and a great story, the problem was that these films both appeal to a limited market. Not sure it makes sense to spend millions of dollars on something like this. At some point, the cost of production is going to have to come down to meet the realities of the market.
With name actors and a great story, the problem was that these films both appeal to a limited market. Not sure it makes sense to spend millions of dollars on something like this. At some point, the cost of production is going to have to come down to meet the realities of the market.
Are all non-commercial, non-Hollywood films "bad"?
I think that people who know more about film (study it, watch a lot of it, write about it, etc.) have more valuable opinions than people who are ignorant of film. Is the average Hollywood blockbuster better than films like Citizen Kane, Wild Strawberries, or Tokyo Story? Although it is "harder" (in terms of manpower, money, and time) to make a film like Transformers it does not take as much valuable insight, visual aesthetics, or personal expression that is needed to make an artistic film.
I don't know what you mean by filmmakers and critics only being content when only aspects of a film are "good." Overall, a film like In The Mood For Love is "good," the use of music, acting, cinematography, everything. It is praised as one of the greatest films of the century because it is overall a "great" film. The average Hollywood film has little to no artistic merit at all so it isn't praised by filmmakers or critics. Average audiences don't want a film that is overall "good," they want the film to satisfy their expectations and only want the technical presentation to be "good."
I also don't think any indie filmmaker sets out to make "bad" films.
Maybe you're defining "good" in a different way than I am. Perhaps you're saying that "good" means "a film that makes lots of money." In that case, never mind about what I said.
True. They can afford to spend more because they know they'll make it back, but the same care doesn't go into it because they know if the movie is bad, it will still sell.
Sure, everyone would like to make a good movie in an ideal world, but if the blockbuster script is "good enough" it's cheaper to say "let's shoot it!" rather than to spend time and money to make it great.
Same thing happens on set. An actor might deliver a line poorly, but to the studio producers, as long as the actor got the words right, it's "good enough, let's move on!" whereas a filmmaker who wants to make a good movie would do another take.
It simply comes down to the motivation behind making the film. You're either trying to make money, or you're trying to make a piece of art. If your art ends up making money in the end, congratulations on a successful career as an artist!
Last edited:
Not true. There have been plenty of box office bombs. I recall a lot of box office failures in Summer.
Lone Ranger?
RIPD?
Turbo?
The Mortal Instruments?
A balance can be found between business and art.
Did you really think I was speaking in absolutes and that I do not realize not all blockbusters are successful?
I agree with this. But every moment you spend on the business side is effort that could have gone into your art.
No.
As a filmmaker, I want my work to be seen. I have ideas. I have visions and stories to share with the world. Without having elements that will appeal to mass audiences, and organized distribution and financing plans - I question as to why I would even both to make a film if it's never going to get made OR seen.
Shawshank Redemption found a balance.
The Godfather found a balance.
More recently, Gravity found a balance.
All of the above were very complex and unique films different from anything made before them, and most likely anything to come in a long time that will even up to their greatness. But of course, that's purely opinion.
I think it's a great goal to try to achieve this kind of success, but it's been a long time since the New Hollywood of the 70's that granted creative freedom to commercial filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, early Spielberg, early Lucas, Robert Altman, Michael Cimino, and many more.
I think we all want our work to be seen as filmmakers, but by whom? An "art" filmmaker like Jia Zhangke says that he's content as long as his films can be screened in China and appreciated there (even though they are viewed internationally by cinephiles as well). Other filmmakers want to make films almost exclusively for cinephiles (even though they don't say it) such as Bela Tarr or Jean-Luc Godard. So for me personally, it's about finding the right audience, and that doesn't necessarily have to be the masses.
I do hope however, that commercial film will go towards the New Hollywood route just because so many gems were made in that period
Not all, just the vast majority.
One would usually take this first sentence as a given when applied to almost any field of human endeavour. In the field of filmmaking though, particularly when applied to films made for the mass market, it is frequently not true! It is often the case that those who know a lot about films de-construct them into their constituent crafts/arts, focus on the most obvious ones and judge each on it's aesthetic artistic merits. This is a valuable exercise but tends to miss, dismiss or undervalue some filmmaking elements which are not only vital but in many cases of paramount importance. So in the final sentence I've quoted above, I would agree with all of it, except the last word! This is why one sometimes finds films loved by the public and hated by critics and vice versa.
With all due respect, this opinion while quite common among critics/aficionados (and some filmmakers) is untrue and IMO demonstrates both an ignorance of filmmaking and no small amount of snobbery and pretentiousness. Blockbusters particularly, but all narrative films to a certain extent, depend on making the audience feel involved, thereby providing a form of escapism and hence entertainment. Making an audience feel continuously involved is exceptionally difficult. If we take for example the Omaha Beach landing scene in Saving Private Ryan; critics might praise the cinematography, the realism and how the scene captures the horror, the good (but not necessarily great) acting, the script, etc. While all these observations are entirely valid, as someone involved in the making of commercial films I have a slightly different focus, namely; How do you create an unbroken 18 minute sequence of unremitting high octane energy and horror? It's incredibly difficult in filmmaking terms to maintain such high energy for such an extraordinary long time. The obvious danger is that the audience will become accustomed to the gore, visual style, sounds of battle, etc., and once the audience is accustomed to these elements you are by definition introducing a degree of monotony which is only going to lower the emotional impact and energy of the scene as perceived by the public. Spielberg (and the various teams of creative personnel he employed) used just about every trick in the book and created a horrific, high energy scene which audiences found riveting. And, the quality of the cinematography, acting and script was also enough to please the critics and the result is one of those incredibly rare animals, a film loved by both the critics and the public.
My point here is: What is "good", a film with aesthetic artistic merit or a film which creates and maintains the audience's involvement and interest? What takes more "valuable insight", making a film with some aesthetic artistic merit or making a film which grips an audience and keeps them on the edge of their seat? Surely the latter requires a huge amount of insight into audience perceptions, attention spans, etc., and no a small amount of artistry to manipulate those perceptions?
I'm not a great fan of Transformers but it does demonstrate considerable insight and artistic skill to manipulate, involve and maintain the involvement of it's target audience. To deny this fact or worse still to disparage or not even recognise it, brings me back to my first sentence above regarding ignorance, snobbery, etc. The most common complaint of public audiences towards indie films is that they are uninteresting/boring. Appreciating ALL the fine details of what makes films like Transformers not boring to it's target audience is hugely valuable insight which virtually all indie filmmakers would be, IMHO, foolish to ignore.
I'm not saying that films like Citizen Kane are without merit, far from it, I'm just saying that Citizen Kane (for example) was obviously not made for any of today's major cinema going demographics and is largely without merit in this particular respect. While Citizen Kane has tremendous import and influence on the history and evolution of filmmaking, most of today's cinema goers probably couldn't even sit through it, because most cinema goers are not interested in the history and evolution of the cinematic arts but in escaping from the stresses of their lives through the art of filmmaking entertainment. Something at which Orson Welles was extremely adept with the target audiences of his day.
I completely disagree! Far more time, effort and money is put into blockbuster scripts than into the average indie film. The difference here is how you define "good", "bad" and "great". Is a script "good" if it has some deep meaning/symbolism and is stimulating intellectually or is it "good" if it provides a filmmaking vehicle to interest, involve and maintain involvement of a target audience? Indie films frequently strive for the former at the expense of the latter, while blockbusters frequently strive for the latter at the expense of the former! When we apply this statement to all the filmmaking crafts/arts individually and to the film as a combined entity (rather than just applying it to the script), we discover: Why there is often a disparity between critics and the public and, one of the most significant factors as to why so many indie films are commercially unsuccessful. Indeed, one could argue that achieving a high standard with both the former AND the latter simultaneously is the very definition of a "great" film!
The latter is obviously far more highly prized than the former as far as public audiences are concerned and IMHO requires at least as much, if not more (!), insight, experience, skill and artistry to accomplish than the former. In other words, far more "care" goes into the making of blockbusters than into the average indie film but this care is focused on achieving the latter and those few who primarily value the former are at least partially oblivious and/or dismissive of this achievement and so view blockbusters frequently as lacking in "care", poor and/or "bad". Likewise, many of the public (and some commercial filmmakers) see films which heavily focus on the former to be little more than boring, pretentious, filmmaking masturbation which is therefore similarly "bad". It's important that both approaches exist individually, and of course that filmmakers also exist who can successfully combine them. But IMO, filmmakers with some degree of commercial intention or of communicating to a wider audience are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face' if they refuse to fully understand, appreciate and/or even disparage what it takes to achieve the latter.
Again, I would disagree. I would agree with this statement had you said that usually indie filmmakers don't intentionally set out to make a bad film. However, many indie filmmakers don't know how to, or deliberately don't want to; write, plan, shoot, edit or construct a film which constantly interests and involves the audience. In either case, whether they realise it or not, they are setting out to make a "bad" film!
How many times does one see threads on IT along the lines of: "How do I get that 'film look'?". The obvious response from my perspective is: How would getting a "film look" achieve anything other than just the above former definition of "good" if you don't also get the "film sound" and far more importantly, how you combine all the A/V elements to create an overall "film feel"?
No, I'm not specifically saying that a film which makes a lot of money defines a "good" film. The amount of money a film makes at the box office is an indicator to how well a film may have achieved it's goal of involving and entertaining it's target audience, but marketing, distribution and the size of the target demographic also have to be considered as very considerable parts of the box office takings equation. So it is possible that a "good" film may not make a lot of money and of course a "lot of money" is relative, $60m would be a massive success for an indie film which cost $5m to make, market and distribute but a massive failure for a $200m blockbuster. I do agree though that we appear to be defining "good" differently, but I don't think that difference is quite as you are perceiving it.
G
I agree that the vast majority of films (commercial and non-commercial) are "bad."
I guess we'll just have to disagree even though I understand your point of view. There must be talent and skill at work when trying to give "what the audience wants" because it's even hard to pin down what they really want in the first place and succeed at providing them with it. But I would not necessarily call these films "good." Nor would I say that mass audience opinion matters more than the opinion of experts within the film. Would you say that Rihanna makes better music than Beethoven just because of mass audience appeal? Also, would you say that every New York Times best-seller is as "good" as literary masterpieces by Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Cervantes, Proust, or Dickens? Just as literature or music, I think that film is an art that should be evaluated in a similar manner.
I think that a "good" film is one with artistic aesthetic value, whether it is a commercial film or not. One reason I think mainstream audiences are not reliable in evaluating film is because they have very many unreasonable biases such as not watching foreign films, not watching black and white films, or not watching "silent" films. Critics, cinephiles, and filmmakers have a greater understanding of film so their opinion is more valuable when evaluating film as art. If we're evaluating film as a form of escapism then I think mainstream audience opinion is more valuable.
In The Mood For Love is one of my favorites so I'm obviously biased, but I see nothing at all wrong with the film (although I'm sure there may be a flaw because there is no truly flawless film).
Again, I don't care how much effort goes into the making of an average blockbuster, or how much thought is put into it if in the end another mediocre formulaic film with no aesthetic value is produced. I understand that most audiences watch films for escapism, but that is not the way I evaluate film. I also don't watch films because of their historical importance or their role in the evolution of film, I usually watch them because I want to view meaningful art that has aesthetic value. When I first saw Citizen Kane I didn't care about how innovative the audio and camera techniques Orson Welles used in the film were, I enjoyed it as a cinematic experience with meaningful themes, great visuals, and it was just fun to watch for me. I didn't know that the story was based on a real newspaper publisher, or that Orson Welles was the first to use many of the techniques in the film, I just knew that everything I saw in the film worked for me. After I fell in love with the film I began to study it, read about it, read the screenplay, and view it in different contexts.
And sorry, I meant to say that indie filmmakers don't set out to intentionally make "bad" films, that's what I meant so we agree there. I also agree that a lot of indie filmmakers (including myself) often ignore the overall film experience both the aural and visual experience. We have to remember though that filmmaking is a collaborative art and that is why it's so incredible. There are experts in each art and craft that help out with sound, visuals, editing, writing, costumes, props, sets, locations, and so much more. I do think though that any director should have a basic understanding of all of these arts and crafts in order to make them best fit his/her vision.
And yeah, I think we just have a different definition of "good." It is important to understand the kind of "good" you are explaining though. I'm sorry if I came off as snobbish or ignorant, I actually love some contemporary commercial cinema and Old Hollywood is one of my favorite periods of cinema. And I know there is a lot of work, thought, and art involved in commercial films, however, as a film viewer I don't value it since the end product is usually weak IMO.
Last edited: