Juno/Indiewood

L

LucyAlfie

Hi there.

I'm a film student at the University of Warwick and I'm writing an essay on the indie teen film. I just wondered if anyone had anything to say about Juno in relation to independent cinema? My research so far has lead me to come to a tentative conclusion that Hollywood has adopted the indie aesthetic and conventions to create commercial teen films, such as Juno...I am also looking at and thinking about Adventureland, Boys Don't Cry, Superbad, Brick, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist; films like that!

Any thoughts/reviews/opinions would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure you guys have a lot to say about the subject!

Cheers.

xoxox
 
Welcome to indietalk!

I'm interested in how you can to this tentative conclusion.
I'm always interested in peoples views on "Hollywood" and
"indie" especially when it comes to aesthetic and customs.
 
While all the films listed have a similar look and feel to them, I wouldn't necessarily equate that to an indie asthetic. It's kind of like the film implementation of Seattle Grunge. :)
 
The indiewood feel is just an other mask of the Hollywood system. IF you want to control a country, control the government and control the the group who see conspiration in this government.

After pulp fiction, the big guy saw a new market and took control of it. You think Sundance is about indie filmmaking, give me a break.
 
I think out of all of those, the only one that stood out as noteworthy (that I've seen) is Brick. I found that to be much truer to Indie roots than Adventureland, Superbad, Juno, and some others.

I know they claim to be "indie" but you just can't have that much star attachment to it with what is typically regarded as an indie budget. Tarantino, Rodriguez, Nolan, and Kevin Smith, I think, are far more closer to what indie is with their first films than what is out now.

That's not to say those films aren't enjoyable. I loved Brick. Superbad is decent (and the only Michael Cera movie I can stand). And, I know you didn't include it but it's part of the recent trend, but 500 Days of Summer was an excellent take on the romantic comedy that really hasn't been handled so well since Annie Hall.

Most of those films you listed (Brick and Superbad excepted) really shove the whole "Hipster" scene down your throat and that's what doesn't appeal to me in the least.

That might be why those films are called "indie" because Hipsters tend to hate things that are popular and mainstream, but the irony of it all is that they ARE mainstream now. It's a fad.

And, Will, no one could have put it better. Though I'd compare these films to the likes of Brittney Spears and other pop garbage out there than Seattle Grunge, but to each his own.
 
Will Vincent said:
While all the films listed have a similar look and feel to them, I wouldn't necessarily equate that to an indie asthetic. It's kind of like the film implementation of Seattle Grunge. :)
Click to expand...

He is pretty much correct by saying this. Don't confuse Indy Asthetic to Hollywoods play on style... Completely separate things we're talking about.
 
Lord of Light said:
And, Will, no one could have put it better. Though I'd compare these films to the likes of Brittney Spears and other pop garbage out there than Seattle Grunge, but to each his own.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the pop garbage still has that shiny candy coated look most of the time.. The Seattle Grunge scene was dirty, raw, and in your face.. Kind of the same thing going on in most of the films mentioned here, dirty, kind of raw, etc.. I wasn't in any way referring to the quality, just the look/feel.
 
directorik said:
Welcome to indietalk!

I'm interested in how you can to this tentative conclusion.
I'm always interested in peoples views on "Hollywood" and
"indie" especially when it comes to aesthetic and customs.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the welcome! Not only am I new to indietalk, I am also new to this whole forum/blog thing! (yes, I know I am WAAAAY behind the times!), so apologies now for any mistakes/lack of etiquette....

I said 'tentative' because my research is by no means finished so I didnt want to make any bold statements when I don't realllllly know what I'm talking about ha ha!
 
Thanks EVERYONE for your thoughts so far - I wasn't expecting anyone to post anything, so I'm more than glad that you guys have.

One thing that I'd quickly like someone to clarify is what you mean by the Seattle Grunge scene....It's not something I have come across before and it sounds really interesting ("AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A FILM STUDENT?!" I hear you say...)

Also, can any of you suggest any good indie films which have teenagers or teen issues as their focus? Is Boy's Don't Cry any good?

Keep talking please as I find it really interesting!

Cheers,

Lucy.

P.S. How do I get a profile pic?
 
Last edited:
TheOpusFuller said:
He is pretty much correct by saying this. Don't confuse Indy Asthetic to Hollywoods play on style... Completely separate things we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yeah for sure, my essay is going to basically be about the way that Hollywood has jumped on the bandwagon after they realised that indie films had a cult youth following....:yes:
 
Lord of Light said:
I know they claim to be "indie" but you just can't have that much star attachment to it with what is typically regarded as an indie budget. Tarantino, Rodriguez, Nolan, and Kevin Smith, I think, are far more closer to what indie is with their first films than what is out now.

Most of those films you listed (Brick and Superbad excepted) really shove the whole "Hipster" scene down your throat and that's what doesn't appeal to me in the least.

That might be why those films are called "indie" because Hipsters tend to hate things that are popular and mainstream, but the irony of it all is that they ARE mainstream now. It's a fad.
Click to expand...


Cheers for these opinions. I too think that it is ironic about the whole Hipster thing. I feel that Juno tries too hard to be cool and different/kitsch with Ellen Page's clipped, sarcastic form of speech and amassed references to pop culture through mise-en-scene (I'm thinking of her burger phone!!!). It's almost as if it is trying to lump everything together that has the 'cool' label, but in doing so has become a kind of over-exaggerated vision of the alternative teen......its like someone has just decided to change their style to fit in - Hollywood pretending to be something else to aquire the indie audience. Thus, the 'mainstream' audience might think they are 'being cool' and saying 'no to the man' by watching Juno (a Hollywood film, in Indie film's clothing), but are actually simply conforming....

Woh, massive stream of consciousness....Apologies....:blush:

All thoughts/comments would be greatly appreciated!!:D
 
I definitely do notice a lot of films trying to seem "indie". But by saying that i just notice that there are a lot of films mimicking the aesthetics and performance styles, etc that i tend to equate with films like "Napoleon Dynamite", "Rushmore" (Or Wes Andersons other films), "Garden State" and many many more.

Not that those films are alike one another but they each have things about them that made them stand out that were novel (at the time). That being said those filmmakers were influenced by older films which may have had very similar styles but that aren't so much in the public conscience anymore.

But i do think often filmmakers are very influenced by a lot of the younger American directors which i suppose you could say were indie?

I must say watching 500 Days of Summer it did feel like the whole thing was very referential, especially of some of the films (and their directors) i mentioned. BUT then again Tarantino's films are referential from start to finish and everyone considers him very original!

It's an interesting subject, i wish you luck with it. If nothing else it has at least spurned debate and discussion so it would make a good project. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top