Indie FIlms

M

Mr. Blonde

Hey guys,
I haven't posted here in a long time, busy with school and all, but I have a quick question and your help is greatly appreciated. My english teacher is letting us do a research paper on anything we want and I decided to do it on indie films that are breaking into mainstream hollywood. It is said that Tarantino brought indpendent film to hollywood with "Pulp Fiction" (which ive used in my paper) but I was wondering if you guys could give me a few more films to use. I have some ideas but I want to see what you guys can come up with. Thanks again. Take you guys.
~Kyle~
 
i'm sorry, i don't know whay i just said that, it's totally irrelevent to your question, damn me. well, i don't know, see you tomorrow i guess.
 
But anyway, Indie films have been mainstream for quite a while, they just weren't as indie as some indie films as today. Like all of Kubrick's and Woody Allen's stuff was indie, and ONe Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
 
Mr. Blonde said:
...I decided to do it on indie films that are breaking into mainstream hollywood.
Click to expand...

Not sure if I understand the question entirely. Are you speaking of how indie films changed the cinema landscape in the early nineties? Or indie films of today? And when you say "breaking into mainstream hollywood," do you mean filmmakers that were onced considered indie but are now mainstream, or do you spaek of how indie films have changed mainstream Hollywood?

Poke
 
Mr. Blonde said:
It is said that Tarantino brought indpendent film to hollywood with "Pulp Fiction"
Click to expand...
Who ever said that is woefully ignorant of independent film.

Cassavetes brought independent films to Hollywood with “Faces” and “Husbands” in 1968 and 1970. Hopper’s “Easy Rider” shook the “Hollywood” system to its knees in 1969. That film is credited with putting the final nail in the “studio system” coffin.

Roger Corman was making and distributing independent movies into mainstream “Hollywood” long before the Weinstiens or Shaye put the moves on.

The film that started the more recent surge in the independent/Hollywood hybrid was Soderbergh’s “sex, lies and videotape” in 1989 - which beat “Reservoir Dogs” to Sundance by 2 years.

Unless you are doing a paper on indie films of the 1990's (as Poke mentioned), you really need to understand that indie films began breaking into mainstream Hollywood decades before “Pulp Fiction.”

A very compelling argument could be made that the first “indie” filmmaker to break into mainstream Hollywood was Frank Capra working for the skid row, minor studio run by Harry Cohen in the 1930’s. His “It Happened One Night” shot that little, indie studio into mainstream Hollywood in 1934.
 
directorik said:
Who ever said that is woefully ignorant of independent film.

Cassavetes brought independent films to Hollywood with “Faces” and “Husbands” in 1968 and 1970. Hopper’s “Easy Rider” shook the “Hollywood” system to its knees in 1969. That film is credited with putting the final nail in the “studio system” coffin.

Roger Corman was making and distributing independent movies into mainstream “Hollywood” long before the Weinstiens or Shaye put the moves on.

The film that started the more recent surge in the independent/Hollywood hybrid was Soderbergh’s “sex, lies and videotape” in 1989 - which beat “Reservoir Dogs” to Sundance by 2 years.

Unless you are doing a paper on indie films of the 1990's (as Poke mentioned), you really need to understand that indie films began breaking into mainstream Hollywood decades before “Pulp Fiction.”

A very compelling argument could be made that the first “indie” filmmaker to break into mainstream Hollywood was Frank Capra working for the skid row, minor studio run by Harry Cohen in the 1930’s. His “It Happened One Night” shot that little, indie studio into mainstream Hollywood in 1934.
Click to expand...

MAINSTREAM n. the prevailing trend in opinion or fashion

It is true that Pulp Fiction in no way invented independent film as you have so adeptly demonstrated, however could it not be said that since Pulp fiction was such a success that the big studios of Hollywood began to recognize the financial possibility of the independent film. Is it not true that since Pulp Fiction nearly (if not all) every major hollywood studio created an independent film subsidiary. Will this trend prevail is an interesting question.

I suppose that you could use the Dennis Hopper/Easy Rider argument to say that it was at that moment that indie was brought to hollywood. Dennis Hopper did indeed introduce some of the independent sensability to the studio system and the quality of films that were produced in the seventies. However by the end of the decade the cooperate power structure had begun to rebuild the machinary due in large part to the success of formula films like JAWS. Effectively killing indie film for the next 15 years. I understand kill is a strong word. I understand that indie was still around, people did not stop making them. But how many of those movies made it to the masses? Just because I can't think of any doesn't mean that they aren't out there, it just means that they weren't prevalent.

You mention that Sex, lies, and Video tape started the resurgance of indie, perhaps you are correct. However without the sucess of Pulp Fiction would that resurgance have lasted as long and have been as successful/lucrative? How long will it contiune to last? How much of this resurrgance should be atributed to QT and how much should be attributed to the changing technological landscape. All very interesting questions.

Mr. Blonde, I think that you have choosen an interesting topic, and if handled properly I think that you can make a solid argument and perhaps ruffle a few feathers in the process. Good Luck.
 
Sorry about that guys, that came out wrong. I know Pulp didnt invent indie, i just meant to say that it was something different, a break away from normality i guess.
 
Directorik is absolutely right. The key period for indie influence on Hollywood was the late 1960's and early seventies.

The best starting place for researching a feature from that period is "Easy Riders Raging Bulls" by Peter Biskind.

If you are looking for a complete change in film making culture when indie film making changed the look of hollywood, that's the period. You've got to remember that before Easy Rider, French Connection and the Exocist that the vast majority of Hollywood output was still 1950's style rom-coms. It was all Jerry Lewis and Rock Hudson.

The key directors Hopper, Altman, Bogdanovich, Cassavettes, Coppola, De Palma, Friedkin, Polanski, (Paul Schrader as a writer) Scorcese and Towne, these guys changed everything.

Strangely enough, in my opinion the most influencial of all of these was William Friedkin who single handedly redefined two genres. I think French Connection and the Exoricist have done more to shape modern film making and TV than almost any other films.

I think without this heritage there wouldn't have been a QT. That isn't to detract from what he's achieved, but his influence is just a continuation of the work of Friedkin and Scorcese.
 
This is a fun argument that us indies get into from time to time.

My personal opinion is this, without the independent acheivements of filmmakers in the sixties, seventies and even eighties (let's face it, Dirty Dancing was at one point the highest grossing indie film ever) QT probably would not have had the impact he had. BUT his impact was far greater than any previous independent.

It is true that QT (and it's really not his doing, it's more the Weinstein's doing) ushered the acceptance of indie film to a place it had never been before. Without QT there'd be no mainstream acceptance of people like Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez (even though El Mariachi hit the scene about the same time as Resevior Dogs, he didn't get more mianstream acceptance 'til after RD did).

I have more to say on this, but I unfortunately have to do something right now.

To Be Continued ...

Poke
 
Poke said:
It is true that QT (and it's really not his doing, it's more the Weinstein's doing) ushered the acceptance of indie film to a place it had never been before.
Click to expand...
This is the only thing I disagree with.

Of course “Pulp Fiction” plays heavily in the mainstream accecptance of independent films, but unlike “sex, lies and videotape” and “Reservoir Dogs” it was a well financed, well marketed film that opened wide (1,338 theaters).

It was Soderbergh’s film that really opened the doors to the next generation of filmmakets like Tarintino, Smith and Rogriguez. When Miramax paid $1,000,000 for the rights during the Sundance festival it caused all the "majors" to flood those festivals looking for "the-next-big-thing". And Miramax found it 2 years later with "Reservoir Dogs" - which never got wider than 61 screens.

I know it's almost heresy to say it - but QT was riding the wagon of independent/mainstream, not leading the charge.
 
When I speak of QT's role I am speaking of RD not Pulp Fiction. Ask the average person, "Ever heard of Resevior Dogs?" Then ask them, "Ever heard of Sex, Lies and Videotape?" I would think you'd get more people recognizing RD.

And think about this, QT went from low budget resevior Dogs straight to well financed Pulp Fiction. Soderbergh was stuck in low budget land for a long time. The success of QT with RD, although greatly indebted to Soderbergh's S,L&V, was what made indie hot in Hollywood.

Poke
 
hey mr. blonde, this is off topic, but where abouts in connecticut are you? odd coincidence that i'm also 17 (well, i'm assuming you're in high school.)

back on topic, i think for this conversation to continue further, someone needs to define "indie", because clearly some people are defining it as "independently produced in a non-hollywood studio", while others are defining it as "produced on a non-hollywood budget", while still others are defining it as "more artistic, nonlinear style."
 
locust tree said:
"independently produced in a non-hollywood studio"
Click to expand...

I think we've all been sticking to this one pretty strictly. The only film I see listed here that doesn't fit this description is Pulp Fiction.

Poke
 
Poke said:
I think we've all been sticking to this one pretty strictly. The only film I see listed here that doesn't fit this description is Pulp Fiction.

Poke
Click to expand...

:huh:ok see now I am getting confused....

produced is not the same thing as financed??? or is it??? can a hollywood studio finance an independently produced film??

the reason I ask is because I was under the impression, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the the key directors of the seventies(as mentioned aboved) recieved most of thier finances from the hollywood studio system.


I kinda figured the "what is indie?" question would come around eventually.
 
I am under the impression that Resevior Dogs was originally financed by a company that was not part of the Hollywood studio system. It was then bought by Miramax. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

But I am working under the idea that an indie is a film produced and financed outside the studio system.

Poke
 
here's a fantastic article that i will attempt to put in a cliff notes version (no net link) from a fall 1996 5th anniversary edition filmmaker magazine (yeah, that was a long time ago... :) ). i understand it may be a bit outdated, but a nice article to reference nonetheless.

the fifty most important independent films. now i'm not going to type down every single one but i'll list the ones i found interesting. the article contains a little blurb as to why each film made it to that particular spot, but again, my apologies. i just cant type it all out.

the list was compiled from several dozen critics, curators, distributors, and producers. here's an excerpt:

"...there is a crucial difference between best and most important. While quality was obviously an important determinant in these selections, our respondents were also careful to selectfilms that were pioneering in some historical, cultural, or business context. These aren't necessarily the "best" indie films, although most are pretty great, but rather 50 essential viewing choices for anyone interested this country's independent media past."

and now, for the list. (asterisk next to the films i've personally seen)

50. Deep Throat by Gerard Damiano 1972
45. Trust by Hal Hartley 1990 **
42. Mala Noche by Gus Van Sant 1985
40. The Wedding Banquet by Ang Lee 1977 **
39. Roger and Me by Michael Moore 1989
37. Chan Is Missing by Wayne Wang 1982 **
36. Bad Lieutenant by Abel Ferrara 1992 **
35. Pink Flamingos by John Waters 1973
32. The Naked Kiss by Samuel Fuller 1965
31. Crumb by Terry Zwigoff 1994 **
30. Hoop Dreams by Steve James 1994 **
27. Easy Rider by Dennis Hopper 1969
26. Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song by Melvin Van Peebles 1971
25. Mean Streets by Martin Scorsese 1973 **
19. Badlands by Terrence Malick 1973
15. Night of the Living Dead by George Romero 1968 **
13. Reservoir Dogs by QT 1992 **
11. Safe by Todd Haynes 1995**
10. Slacker by Richard Linklater 1991**
9. Blood Simple by the Coen Bros 1984**
5. Return of the Secaucus Seven by John Sayles 1980
4. sex lies and videotape by Steven Soderbergh 1989**
3. She's Gotta Have It by Spike Lee 1986**
2. Stranger Than Paradise by Jim Jarmusch 1984**
1. A Woman Under the Influence by John Cassevetes 1974**

now since this is article is almost a decade old, lots of debate can be made as to what else should be added from within the last 8 years. but do notice that pulp fiction (1994) was not on this list. i wonder how different the list would be now that its had time to make its mark on indie film history.

anyway, happy discussing!
 
ok see now I am getting confused....

produced is not the same thing as financed??? or is it??? can a hollywood studio finance an independently produced film??

the reason I ask is because I was under the impression, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the the key directors of the seventies(as mentioned above) received most of their finances from the hollywood studio system.
Click to expand...

Good point and to be honest I'd have to go back and do some more serious research to find out the answers to that, something I don't have time for at the moment. I think you'll find that these directors all started off as indies and many of them became absorbed into the system as their careers progressed. That last statement won't stand up on a case by case basis, but has a degree of truth to it.

I think what is true is that they almost created indie film making as a brand, setting it up as meaning unconventional approaches to storytelling, innovative production techniques and the idea as director as a salable commodity.
 
clive said:
Good point and to be honest I'd have to go back and do some more serious research to find out the answers to that, something I don't have time for at the moment. I think you'll find that these directors all started off as indies and many of them became absorbed into the system as their careers progressed. That last statement won't stand up on a case by case basis, but has a degree of truth to it.

I think what is true is that they almost created indie film making as a brand, setting it up as meaning unconventional approaches to storytelling, innovative production techniques and the idea as director as a salable commodity.
Click to expand...


I agree with all you have said here. The major indie directors of the ninities, QT, Smith, Rodriguez, Linkleter, soderbergh, et al that we have been discussing have also been absorbed by the studio system. Isn't that absorbtion part of the equation however. To have indie "brought" to hollywood is not to just have a major studio pick up and distribute and indie film but rather it is the participation of hollywood in the creation of films utilizing inide sensabilities.

My next question relates to our agreed definition of indie film as independently financeed and independently produced. Over the past several years there have been the creation of smaller studios that are subsidiaries of the larger studios. Companies like Focus picture, sony classics, even miramax could be included in this list (however their success over the past ten years has probably pushed them out of this group), were created to find and distrubute indie and foreign film. They also finance films. Hell, even Sundance has now gotten into the business of financing film. These companies seem to be interested in preserving the indie sensabilities while creating profitable films. So where do you draw the line? All film even indie must get there funds from somewhere. So if Sundance continues to grow and funds even more films, but sticks to their intention of fostering new filmmakers and promoting the creation of independently minded film, will those films still be considered indie?

I know this gets us into the gray area that makes it so difficult to define what is indie. However I believe that it is neccesary to explore this idea before we can get to the bottom of who brought indie to hollywood ;)

Great list Clive, thanks for taking the time to type that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top