Independent films tend to be thought of as the films that cost very little to make, don't make a huge rumbling at the box office, and may be labeled as "weird" by the uninitiated who think that Transformers 3 was the best film of 2011. I tend to consider a film independent if it was financed by the filmmakers themselves, without the backing of a studio, but this is not the only definition. Independent features are the ones that comprise the major film festivals such as Sundance, Tribeca, and South by Southwest. As Ebert says, independent films are made because they "express the director's personal vision rather than someone's notion of box office success." Independent features can be thought of in two ways: one is based on financing, and the other on content or "spirit of vision." Indie films tend to be involve themes or issues that the big budget picture's consider taboo; everything from rape, to violence to defining one's personal identity. It's completely possible for a studio backed major motion picture to be considered independent; my favorite filmmakers working today, the Coen Brothers, have been fortunate enough to have studio financing for most of their films, yet they are still considered very much independent. In this case, it's the content and the unique voice behind the film that categorizes itself as "indie." Indie films have gotten more and more popular most recently, but films like David Lynch's ERASEREHEAD have existed since the 70s. Nowadays, the very nature of society has allowed independent filmmaking to flourish; our cell phones come equipped with high quality cameras and our computers often come standard with what was once expensive editing software. Independent films have come to be so prevalent for a number of reasons, including the need for self expression, increased financing opportunities since the market is widening, the proliferation of film schools across the country, the emergence of festivals and also the industry's overall commercial success. Personally, I'd rather go to the local art house and see a challenging film rather than go to the general multiplex a see a big blockbuster.
Levy's ideas on independent cinema were very interesting in regards to Asian American cinema and other American minority cinema. He mentions how independent films are intended to differ from Hollywood mainstream films because independent films reflect a personal vision instead of a financially motivated production. He goes further into analyzing the role independent cinema plays in society by noting how independent films often inevitably become mainstream, yet are still regarded as independent even if they are funded by large production companies. Certain filmmakers who begin their careers with independent films are then paid to take their visions even further and they eventually become mainstream. The socially-marginal and cultural underbelly that often goes unseen or misunderstood is not only expressed through film, it has the potential to be expressed on a very large scale, according to Levy, if recognized and financed by large studios. This then becomes the way we view our culture and society because films and the media have such a profound influence on us, which reflects the basic idea of deconstruction, postmodernism, and the blurry lines between high and low culture. In regards to minority independent films, this can be both good and bad. It can be good because it can bring to light some experiences that are not understood by others. For example, The Joy Luck Club and Better Luck Tomorrow, films we've watched in class, reflect different Asian American experiences, have different tones, feature different characters under different settings and contexts, and have different effects on the viewers. Personally, I feel that The Joy Luck Club reflects more mainstream, possibly even stereotypical ideas of what an Asian American experience is, while Better Luck Tomorrow is more of what Levy defines as "independent" in its divergence from themes that are seen in mainstream films like The Joy Luck Club. Better Luck Tomorrow is in a sense "closer to home," and this is what it seems Levy feels like is a success that independent cinema can bring. It is also good because independent cinema has the potential to give minority filmmakers a voice in a society where large productions are dominated primarily by white Americans. However, independent cinema can also be questioned in its capacity to become mainstream and perpetuate minority stereotypes that will be viewed by people as "honest," and "real," and "deep" simply because the film is deemed as "independent," giving it a connotation of "intellectual" and "artistic," which reflects ideas behind literary theories such as semiotics. I personally believe in the integrity of independent cinema and its potential for creating voices for those who are not often represented in society, and I think that this is a genre especially important and relevant to minority cultures.
What I found really interesting about the Levy article is the growing ambiguity of independent films. The most common view of independent films is that they are low budget films, and this is one view that the Levy article discusses even saying that the formal expression of this view is that a film made for 5 million or less can be considered an independent film. The growing success of independent films however have made it so that some independent films can be made for much more and still be considered independent. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was made for 17 million but is still considered an independent film. Another view is that the amount of money put into the film does not matter as much as the vision does. The vision of the film as described by Levy can go in several directions such as showing a an alternative or counterculture as opposed to mainstream culture, or vision in the degree to which the director has power over their film versus how much sway studio executives have in the film such as how the Joy Luck Club had male characters in the book made White or Asian in the film when they were the other in the book. Levy attributes this growing ambiguity to several causes such as the growing proliferation of film studios and the growing prominence of film schools. Film studios have started to notice the appeal of independent films and as such beginning in the 1990s began buying more independent film studios. For example Miramax was bought by Disney and Orion was bought by Sony and made into Sony Classics. Film schools have become a way for directors to break into the industry more easily while giving them creative freedom to create more experimental and independent films without money being the major motivating factor.
3 comments:
This comment is from BRETT A.:
Independent films tend to be thought of as the films that cost very little to make, don't make a huge rumbling at the box office, and may be labeled as "weird" by the uninitiated who think that Transformers 3 was the best film of 2011. I tend to consider a film independent if it was financed by the filmmakers themselves, without the backing of a studio, but this is not the only definition. Independent features are the ones that comprise the major film festivals such as Sundance, Tribeca, and South by Southwest. As Ebert says, independent films are made because they "express the director's personal vision rather than someone's notion of box office success." Independent features can be thought of in two ways: one is based on financing, and the other on content or "spirit of vision." Indie films tend to be involve themes or issues that the big budget picture's consider taboo; everything from rape, to violence to defining one's personal identity. It's completely possible for a studio backed major motion picture to be considered independent; my favorite filmmakers working today, the Coen Brothers, have been fortunate enough to have studio financing for most of their films, yet they are still considered very much independent. In this case, it's the content and the unique voice behind the film that categorizes itself as "indie." Indie films have gotten more and more popular most recently, but films like David Lynch's ERASEREHEAD have existed since the 70s. Nowadays, the very nature of society has allowed independent filmmaking to flourish; our cell phones come equipped with high quality cameras and our computers often come standard with what was once expensive editing software. Independent films have come to be so prevalent for a number of reasons, including the need for self expression, increased financing opportunities since the market is widening, the proliferation of film schools across the country, the emergence of festivals and also the industry's overall commercial success. Personally, I'd rather go to the local art house and see a challenging film rather than go to the general multiplex a see a big blockbuster.
Levy's ideas on independent cinema were very interesting in regards to Asian American cinema and other American minority cinema. He mentions how independent films are intended to differ from Hollywood mainstream films because independent films reflect a personal vision instead of a financially motivated production. He goes further into analyzing the role independent cinema plays in society by noting how independent films often inevitably become mainstream, yet are still regarded as independent even if they are funded by large production companies. Certain filmmakers who begin their careers with independent films are then paid to take their visions even further and they eventually become mainstream. The socially-marginal and cultural underbelly that often goes unseen or misunderstood is not only expressed through film, it has the potential to be expressed on a very large scale, according to Levy, if recognized and financed by large studios. This then becomes the way we view our culture and society because films and the media have such a profound influence on us, which reflects the basic idea of deconstruction, postmodernism, and the blurry lines between high and low culture. In regards to minority independent films, this can be both good and bad. It can be good because it can bring to light some experiences that are not understood by others. For example, The Joy Luck Club and Better Luck Tomorrow, films we've watched in class, reflect different Asian American experiences, have different tones, feature different characters under different settings and contexts, and have different effects on the viewers. Personally, I feel that The Joy Luck Club reflects more mainstream, possibly even stereotypical ideas of what an Asian American experience is, while Better Luck Tomorrow is more of what Levy defines as "independent" in its divergence from themes that are seen in mainstream films like The Joy Luck Club. Better Luck Tomorrow is in a sense "closer to home," and this is what it seems Levy feels like is a success that independent cinema can bring. It is also good because independent cinema has the potential to give minority filmmakers a voice in a society where large productions are dominated primarily by white Americans. However, independent cinema can also be questioned in its capacity to become mainstream and perpetuate minority stereotypes that will be viewed by people as "honest," and "real," and "deep" simply because the film is deemed as "independent," giving it a connotation of "intellectual" and "artistic," which reflects ideas behind literary theories such as semiotics. I personally believe in the integrity of independent cinema and its potential for creating voices for those who are not often represented in society, and I think that this is a genre especially important and relevant to minority cultures.
What I found really interesting about the Levy article is the growing ambiguity of independent films. The most common view of independent films is that they are low budget films, and this is one view that the Levy article discusses even saying that the formal expression of this view is that a film made for 5 million or less can be considered an independent film. The growing success of independent films however have made it so that some independent films can be made for much more and still be considered independent. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was made for 17 million but is still considered an independent film. Another view is that the amount of money put into the film does not matter as much as the vision does. The vision of the film as described by Levy can go in several directions such as showing a an alternative or counterculture as opposed to mainstream culture, or vision in the degree to which the director has power over their film versus how much sway studio executives have in the film such as how the Joy Luck Club had male characters in the book made White or Asian in the film when they were the other in the book. Levy attributes this growing ambiguity to several causes such as the growing proliferation of film studios and the growing prominence of film schools. Film studios have started to notice the appeal of independent films and as such beginning in the 1990s began buying more independent film studios. For example Miramax was bought by Disney and Orion was bought by Sony and made into Sony Classics. Film schools have become a way for directors to break into the industry more easily while giving them creative freedom to create more experimental and independent films without money being the major motivating factor.
Post a Comment