What is "independent film" to you ?

B

Beginner

Recently I read some books about Independent Films, I found some differences between academic literature and our general experiences as film lovers/ makers. Some argue that "indie films" refer to alternative film which different from mainstream such as Hollywood or Bollywood, others would say independent film refers to the separation of film production, distribution and exhibition systems. But for me, independent films may not refer to a large scale production but more individually making by small groups, I would argue that independent films as alternative films outside Hollywood system could express "truth" and what is real happening in the world, while mainstream films are more likely to seek commercial success, thereby reducing the "meaningfulness". Also, independent films can freely express some political/ social issues such as drug abuse, rape etc., which exposes some serious social phenomenon.

What do you think the independent film ? which key words come to you mind when you're thinking about "independent film"? How do you think about the political issues presented in independent films compared to mainstream Hollywood films? Are there any differences or similarities ?
 
This is actually quite interesting, I agree with just about everything that has been said so far, but would the iconoclastic directors of New Hollywood (late 60's and 70's) be considered "independent filmmakers" or not? I think that although they were supported by studios, their films were very independent, they also probably dealt with political ideas more than actual independent filmmakers of the period as well!

I don't like making "independent" film seem like a word defining the quality of the film, or of how "truthful" the film is although most of the time, independent films are more truthful than studio films. Still, there are tons of studio films from Hong Kong, Japan, and Hollywood (Up until the 80's IMO) that are beautiful, honest expressions of filmic art.
 
You guys are pretty close. Sonnyboo posted a quote from Bruce Campbell and maybe he can find it. It was roughly this:

"Indie" is any movie that is produced and doesn't have distribution in place.
Click to expand...

Maybe, someone could post the quote I'm thinking of? Whether it is a $100 budget or 10 million, if the movie doesn't have studio support or a place to go at the time it is being made, it is an indie.
 
Last edited:
The name says what it is..

An independent film, is a film made INDEPENDENT of the studio(s). Really that's it.. period. :)

Yes, they tend to be 'different' and/or 'edgy' and all the rest.. but that's a separate issue, it's not what makes a film an independent film. It may be a feature or characteristic many or even most independent films share, but those characteristics are not what qualifies a film as independent or not.
 
A few years back, I took issue with what people were saying on another forum, when they were tauting THE AVIATOR (100 million dollar Scorcese/DiCaprio movie) and STAR WARS as indies. I didn't care who paid for them, they were produced by industry big boys and their distribution was not in doubt. A gray area for some people.
 
MiniJamesW said:
I don't like making "independent" film seem like a word defining the quality of the film, or of how "truthful" the film is although most of the time, independent films are more truthful than studio films. Still, there are tons of studio films from Hong Kong, Japan, and Hollywood (Up until the 80's IMO) that are beautiful, honest expressions of filmic art.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I can't agree with this.

Can you clarity your meaning of truthful? As in they contain more substance? Do they have more truthful political messages? Do they better represent the world we live in?

I think there are great films coming out of Hollywood now. Wolf of Wall Street was a gluttonous and overwhelming rich portrayal of the extravagant lifestyle of a man's desire money driving him to crime and his house of cards to collapse. 12 Years a Slave was a brutal and honest portrait of slavery, with frightening realism and style. Her was a great commentary on the flaws of human love and growing attachment to society. There were many other mainstream/studio films, but those were my top 3.

I definitely disagree that major studios stopped putting out fantastic content since the 80's. Directors such as P.T. Anderson have crafted masterpieces. The Master, There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights, Hard Eight, and Magnolia are fantastic films with intensity, and an eerily spot on balance of substance and style, making for some incredibly hypnotic, captivating, and Kubrick-esque scenes and overall experiences.

Sofia Coppola has put out masterpieces, such as Lost in Translation and Somewhere. Both are reflective and skillfully made masterpieces that PERFECTLY balance drama, romance, and comedy.

There is horrible movies coming out, but there always has been since the birth of cinema. Most terrible films seep throughout the cracks and fall into obscurity, perhaps never to be found again.
 
Scoopicman said:
A few years back, I took issue with what people were saying on another forum, when they were tauting THE AVIATOR (100 million dollar Scorcese/DiCaprio movie) and STAR WARS as indies. I didn't care who paid for them, they were produced by industry big boys and their distribution was not in doubt. A gray area for some people.
Click to expand...

Yup,same with Wolf of Wallstreet, "independent" production :P
 
Scoopicman said:
You guys are pretty close. Sonnyboo posted a quote from Bruce Campbell and maybe he can find it. It was roughly this:



Maybe, someone could post the quote I'm thinking of? Whether it is a $100 budget or 10 million, if the movie doesn't have studio support or a place to go at the time it is being made, it is an indie.
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely agree !
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
Hmm... I can't agree with this.

Can you clarity your meaning of truthful? As in they contain more substance? Do they have more truthful political messages? Do they better represent the world we live in?
Click to expand...

Oh definitely, I'm not sure my comment was clear. I meant to say that indie films DO NOT automatically represent better and more truthful films. I think truthful films generally have to come from a singular personal vision, what most people refer to as an auteur, in general Hollywood does not produce these kinds of directors anymore. As you mentioned, however, there are exceptions of auteur directors (and I'd argue even some writers) working today in Hollywood.

I definitely believe there are exceptional films coming from Hollywood since the 80's, however I feel like if I pick up a random Hollywood movie from the 20's-70's it is more likely to be a great film than a current Hollywood film. IMO genre pictures of the classic periods were masterpieces, today there are rarely any genre masterpieces coming from Hollywood. Even some more obscure films from back then are great (obscurity does not always equal a lack of quality). With newer Hollywood films, I feel like even some of the "great" ones (particularly most blockbusters) are not nearly as great as the masterpieces of Old Hollywood.

Of course, I believe there are definitely great films of every period, most countries, and in every genre. However, I think that the quality of Old Hollywood and the New Hollywood of the 70's has not been matched in contemporary Hollywood, and I doubt if Hollywood will ever attain that quality again due to the filmmaking methods they use today. My main objection to today's Hollywood cinema, is that for the most part it produces films that merely tell a mediocre (or even bad) story in an un-inventive way, and much of the ideas it explores have been done before and better.

I will say, however, that I am not as familiar with contemporary Hollywood films than with other periods, countries, or styles, and I actually have all of those movies you mentioned on my watchlist because I'd love to give them a shot! From what I have seen however, it is one of the least interesting cinematic periods for me. Fortunately, I love exploring as much cinema as I can (I believe that there's enough great cinema out there to last a lifetime!), so I'll give some of these films a watch soon and let you know what I think!
 
A) The screenplay's story provides "no marketable interest" to the major and mini-major studios, so they pass on it. They can't see how to make bank on it. They don't want it.
So, if it get's made it's by someone literally independent from the major and mini-major studios.

That's the original definition.
Someone's screenplay got rejected because "it didn't conform", then the writer/director/producer found an alternative solution.​



B) Maybe the screenplay does or doesn't follow any traditionally marketable story, but someone wants to get it produced just because they can.
The film might or might not make money.
Doesn't matter. Not a motivating factor.
It's a producer that just wants to do his/her own thing to get a chip at the big boy's table themselves, to satisfy a niche market the studios do not serve, or for plain art.

The producer never even approaches a major or mini-major studio to make their film.
VERY frequently these are low ($2 - $20million) and no (<$2million) budget films.​
 
rayw said:
It's a producer that just wants to do his/her own thing to get a chip at the big boy's table themselves, to satisfy a niche market the studios do not serve, or for plain art.

The producer never even approaches a major or mini-major studio to make their film.
VERY frequently these are low ($2 - $20million) and no (<$2million) budget films.​
Click to expand...

I was just talking to a classmate of mine today who was asking me about average budgets for films, and I told him it was relative. In the USA $2-$20 million is a low budget, but in other countries such as Iran that is a huge budget! Abbas Kiarostami, a widely accepted master of world cinema, never made a film with a budget of over $50,000 in his home country. Of course, his films are artistically motivated though. It kind of encourages me though, because it's incredible how he made such incredible films at such a low budget in the 90's and earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top