What Classifies a Film as Indie These Days?

"Being independent is more about the state of your soul than your budget. I don't really care how a movie is financed or who produces it. An independent film is any movie that uncompromisingly expresses a unique, personal vision." -- Ray Carney, "Fake Independence and Reel Truth"

I've been reading Ray Carney for well over a decade. I originally found him in the brilliant and underrated MovieMaker magazine. His harsh criticism of the ever-present filmmaking yogurt machine combined with his sharp analysis and critical enthusiasm (yes, I said critical enthusiasm) for an entire category of films I'd not been aware of, and for some films I've felt the need to defend to my cube-dwelling brethren, drove me to seek out more of his work, the first of which being the now famous Cassavetes on Cassavetes.

Carney is always a good starting point when discussing indie cinema, but when reading and looking at the films he proselytizes, two things become noticeable: 1.) The rhythm of the films are generally slower (I can't think of a film that doesn't move at a very deliberate pace) and/or 2.) The endings of the films are primarily dour. This doesn't negate any of his well thought-out comments or take away from the films he garners praise on (they usually are great films), but it does categorize him as a supporter of one very specific style of indie film and not, as his quote infers, "any film that uncompromisingly expresses a unique personal vision." I could argue, for a film to be accepted into the Cannon of Carney, the films almost need to have arcs that are primarily negative. There are a lot of films made on a shoe-string budget and others that snuck into the industry that are as driven by a personal and unique vision whose primary intent is not to focus solely on the sorrow or the pity, whether they premiere in a google-plex or more than likely, a film festival, which is currently the spawning ground of all things indie.

The lifeblood of independent cinema, literally and figuratively, for more than twenty years has been film festivals, the gold standard bearer being Sundance. I would say that in the past, film festivals and independent film equaled untested young guns like Spike Lee, the Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, and Wes Anderson. By that I mean filmmakers that couldn't get a return call from Hollywood until they made it via the fest circuit. Truth is, many of them scouted for talent in front of the camera to offset their lack of name recognition behind the camera. Both the Coens and Anderson made a point of searching out a big name actor to fit in a supporting role that they could afford and would mesh well with their auteuristic vision of what their freshman film should be. The Coens pulled in the brilliant M. Emmet Walsh for Blood Simple and Wes Anderson was lucky enough to get James Caan for Bottle Rocket. All of these filmmakers and the ones behind them and in front of them historically, needed some level of success in order to continue a career that is on par in terms of difficulty with the likes of architects, surgeons, professional sportsmen, and military generals.

Even the career of Cassavetes, whether you want to admit it or not, required a level of success for him as an onscreen actor so that he could support his filmmaking antics behind the camera. The refusal to accept the so-called trivial (or less appealing projects) is often times what dooms auteur-minded filmmakers to live lives of tri-county educations and drunken "if only" bar stories. Looking back at James Cameron and Oliver Stone, for example, you will find two lesser known films in their history: Cameron's Piranha Part Two: The Spawning and Stone's The Hand.

So what does the future hold? There are the more recent successes, such as Cabin Fever by Eli Roth, Primer by Shane Carruth, and The Puffy Chair by Jay Duplass. I'm sure there are others not currently recognized, the hidden Scorseses, Tarantinos, and the always-buried Harmony Korines out there, but they all have one thing in common, the need to find an audience and until the Net "tubes" become wide enough to eliminate the choke point we know as the theatergoing experience, the gate keepers at film festivals hold the keys to all the hidden auteurs out there.

Indie is determinate only on your frame of mind as a filmmaker. Be it a tent pole film or a no-budget production -- what counts is your intent. There is no glass ceiling for indie cinema, nor is there any end point in sight, the drive to create content for audiences will always continue to grow. Truthfully, I think I agree with Carney, I know I always enjoy his work, even though I'm probably now considered a heretic that has completely misrepresented his film theories in this brief article. I also know that I will continue to read Carney while standing in line, ready to cheer on the next great auteur.

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us