The Relevance of Independent Films in Modern Culture - Coursework Example

?The Relevance of Independent Films in Modern Culture Although these do not get as much attention or hype from the mass media, independent films manage to gain some following, especially among the members of the academe and from certain sectors in society to which the subjects of such cultural forms are addressed. Otherwise called as ‘indie’ films, these are almost always made beyond the control or influence of the major film studios in any country. In the United States, indie films are those movies produced by individuals or small production outfits that are not under the manipulation of the big players in Hollywood. The most common impression about independent films though is that such projects are not usually funded by the major motion picture producers. Because of this there have concepts that “films made by smaller studios or give a guarantee of distribution by one of the majors before production are classified as ‘semi-indie’.” (King 9) Limiting the definition of independence in film-making to questions of financing may result to inaccurate conclusions about indie movies though. What makes a film truly independent basically depends on the freedom of the film-makers themselves in expressing their ideas through their craft. With this concept, it is only clear that a major studio may create an independent arm which could produce films which contents and artistic directions are to be freed from intervention. However, it is true that that indie films produced by subsidiaries of major studios may not be as free as those that are made by non-corporate and non-business entities. Although these may have serious disadvantages in terms of budget, the producers, directors, writers, and all other artists involved relatively enjoy greater freedoms in expressing or in putting their creativity in film. With the shoestring budget though, independent film-makers certainly have problems in distribution. They may be able to innovate or to adapt their techniques to whatever logistical and equipment inadequacies that they experience but they may not be able to market the film as much as they would want to. This is the reason why most indie films are addressed only to a niche market. Only audiences to whom the subject of the film is relevant are able to see and understand the messages relayed by the film-makers and the artists. Conscious that their products are not meant to be enjoyed by a wider audience, after all, many indie film-makers also do not attempt to apply forms that are supposed to entice more people to watch. Indie films are considered as the alternative to the commercial fares often produced by Hollywood’s major studios. For both film critics and the audiences, this is cinema that provides more focus on the story and artistic expression rather than commercial success. Therefore, this may fall under the category of popular culture, one that may not be as attractive to the masses as Hollywood films are nevertheless interesting because these depict situations that may be reflective of the audiences’ real-life situations and because these are aesthetically delightful. However, it must be pointed out also that such productions, because of budgetary constraints, may not be packaged well when it comes to advertising. Hence, their advantages over Hollywood fares may not get full potential because of inadequate promotions. Hollywood film-making is obviously controlled by media and film-making moguls, people who have made and are still making huge fortunes out of producing films for commercial purposes. Since these are big entertainment business is essentially at the core of every film produced in Hollywood, it is only expected that profits are the objectives. Every movie produced could cost millions of dollars. However, the producers do not hesitate spending for these because they knew that with a star-studded cast, amazing visual effects, effective promotion, and widespread distribution, millions more could be earned from the box office. With profits as the objective, the importance of story and artistic elements is no longer deemed as important. These movies fall under the category of Thomas Storck’s definition of mass culture; a culture that “consists of the (low) cultural or artistic products which are manufactured in studios and factories and mass-marketed over entire nations, or now, over entire continents or over the whole world.” (Mass Culture or Popular Culture) Hollywood films could have very trivial, if not, formulaic plots but could still manage to attract audiences and raise the earnings at the box office because these manage to satisfy the desires of the public to see their favorite stars’ latest appearances or to provide a visual escape from the problems of current-day realities. The prevalence of a certain culture often supports dominant economic and political structures in society. Hollywood mainstream film-making, therefore, buttresses the perpetuation of the capitalist economic system in the United States and, at the same time, promotes the political agenda of the American elite. There are arguments Hollywood leans towards the liberals in American politics. However, this may not be completely true since in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration was very popular; many films actually encouraged the government’s Rightist agenda in the domestic and international fronts. On the other hand, in the mid-2000s, when the Republican Bush administration became very unpopular, many Hollywood producers and studios came up with films that took liberal positions. Daniel Franklin correctly points out that “it would probably make more sense to assume that because the film industry is a business - that Hollywood movies are largely product, not art.” (57) These are movies made to sell entertainment, products, and even ideas that would influence people according to the desires businesses and dominant political forces. With its main objective anchored on the receipts from the box office, it is only natural for Hollywood’s major studios to ensure that their films are packaged in a manner that would really encourage the movie-going public to watch. The packaging must be appealing enough to the masses so that films can become effective tools of mind-setting. This is essentially the reason why these can be considered as products of mass culture. Through these films, the “mass of the people are corrupted by the blandishments of mass culture and may be governed more by their impulses than by any rational convictions.” (Bennet et al. 208) At a quick glance, Hollywood films merely offer means of escape from the harsh realities of American society. On the other hand, when these films are exported to relatively backward countries, the impression developed among the masses is that the US is indeed the greatest nation on earth. All these misconceptions being promoted by the Hollywood’s mainstream film industry definitely have an effect on the aspirations of the people both in the US and abroad. These encourage passivity and subservience to the dominant system of politics and the economy. Although he used the term ‘popular culture’ in describing such practice, this is what John Storey actually meant when he points that these products are “mass-produced for mass consumption” while, on the part of the masses, are “consumed with brain-numbed and brain-numbing passivity.” (264) It is apparent that Hollywood films may not highlight the truth if this threatens the status quo. Independent films, on the other hand, are absolutely not or relatively far less-influenced by dominant economic and political forces. These are not under the control of capitalists or any other entity that has an objective of producing a film for the purpose of gaining profits or of selling ideas in support of the status quo. The only intention of the producers, directors, and other artists involved in the projects is to showcase their beliefs and concepts, whether these are personal, political, or social. Independent films are, therefore, first and foremost products of the exercise of the freedom of expression; venues for those whose ideas may not be given support by the mainstream film industry. These actually have the potential of being considered products of popular culture. In less-developed countries in which the local film industry’s growth is stunted by the free entry of too many Hollywood-produced movies, these serve as attractive alternatives. Independent films in countries that accept and show US-made movies have to be in touch with the local cultural traditions as well as other social realities. It is only by doing so that they can remain relevant and attractive to the local audience. Thomas Storck describes popular culture as one whose “canons of the arts are based largely on tradition.” (Mass Culture or Popular Culture) In this regard, if independent film-makers free themselves from the dictates of the mainstream profit-oriented studios and production outfits and instead base their creativity on what they deem as reflective of the traditions and interests of the people, then they could be making movies that can be considered as works of popular culture. One of the most pressing problems that independent film-makers usually encounter is the lack of the funding and, consequently, the inadequate equipment for producing movies. However, many ace directors have been able to overcome such issues by the creatively coming up with the right framing to enhance the visuals. Because the output may not be as visually appealing as most Hollywood or mainstream films are, ‘indie’ film-makers have to provide important focus on the text. This means that dialogues or lines made by the characters in the movie have to be written well. These should clear and concise and their delivery by the characters themselves should be effective. Some scriptwriters would have the tendency of making long dialog lines that, although effective in conveying the message, would also sound monotonous and preachy. There are film-makers, however, that manage to combine shots with minimal visual effects with short lines mentioned by the characters to produce a scene that would profoundly convey the message to the audience. For example, a violent scene need not be filled with the usual gore and explosions that Hollywood films usually provide. With creativity, an independent film can produce the same effect of shock and awe on the audience with just a combination of symbols and script. Besides, overly relying on the script alone tends to dwell more on the text. Norman Fairclough expounds that “texts constitute a major source of evidence for grounding claims about social, structures, relations and processes.” (209) Hollywood film-makers would have to use text in order to impress on the audience concepts in support of the status quo. This is an important task because, apparently, the audience are the masses and do not belong to the minority section of the population that benefitted from the dominant political and economic systems. A truly independent film, however, does not force the audience to grasp and promote the concepts that the film-maker wants to express. Just as he exercises his freedom while making the film, the film-maker would also see to it that the freedom of the audience to react on his movie is respected. The reason why the independent film-maker would rather use symbolisms is because he wishes to avoid giving the impression that he is forcing his ideas on others. It is audience response that is more important in a genuinely indie film and not message that it conveys. Therefore, an independent film can be audience-centered rather than text-centered. It does not make the audience submit to ideas being provided to them through film. Instead, it aims to make them react to it. The reaction, however, can be varied depending on the background of the audiences themselves. Douglas Kellner points out that “members of distinct genders, classes, races, nations, regions, sexual preferences, and political ideologies are going to read texts differently, and a media/cultural studies can illuminate why diverse audiences interpret texts in various, sometimes conflicting, ways.” (15) Because of this reality, it is understandable why many independent films are considered as niche movies, ones that may be interesting for a particular group of audience but not for others. Independent film-makers who, for example, produce movies regarding the plight of the America’s unions in the face of rampant retrenchments or layoffs may find support from audiences who are themselves organized workers but definitely not the owners of the big business establishments. This is the reason why a number of independent films have very limited distribution or releases. The relevance of independent films largely depends on two aspects; its being a part of popular culture, and its being audience-centered. Their being free from the control of the major studios is positive condition in which they can have more leeway in dealing with a wider array of social issues without the constraints that commercial interests may provide them. The film-makers, on the other hand, can have greater potential in displaying their artistic creativity without fear of being censured by the movie companies. These two aspects, however, must serve the truth in order for indie films to become real alternatives to those produced by Hollywood. This must not aim to merely entertain or to provide a momentary escape from realities to audiences but, instead, it must deal with the truth even if it means exposing further the ugly sides of society and the status quo. The main reason why most big-budgeted Hollywood films are not independent is that these are not free from the decadent and profit-driven interests. For indie film-makers to be different, they have to produce a counter-cultural trend. As a counter-cultural tool of the people, independent films should not just expose the bitter truths of society. These should also give hope to the people who desire to see changes taking place. Therefore, these should convey messages that despite the seemingly hopeless situation in society beset with problems like joblessness, corruption, lack of housing opportunities, growing debts, shrinking incomes, and government incompetence, change can still be achieved and that there are still solutions. It is through this manner that independent films can expect positive responses from the audiences. After all, it gives more importance to audience response than to the movie itself. In an independent film, the medium and the message are secondary to reception. If reception is poor, then there could be no doubt that both the medium and the message are ineffectual. Reception can be measured on how the audiences have been moved by the film. If the audiences begin to talk about effecting the necessary changes in society, then it can be concluded that the independent film has achieved its objective. In a society where change is a necessity, the relevance of an independent film as a product of popular culture does not just depend on its being a promoter of local customs and traditions. Instead, its importance lies on its ability to make people think about their situations, motivate them to talk about their plight among themselves, and inspire them to unite in order to effect social change. Works Cited Bennet,Tony; Grossberg, Lawrence;Morris,Meaghan and Raymond Williams. New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Malden. MA: Blackwell, 2005. Fairclough, Norman. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London, UK: Longman, 1995. Franklin, Daniel. Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Kellner, Douglas. Media/Cultural Studies: Critical Approaches. Ed. Rhonda Hammer and Douglas Kellner New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2009. King, Geoff. American Independent Cinema. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005. Storck, Thomas. “Mass Culture or Popular Culture.” Caelum et Terra, Vol. 6 No. 1, Winter/Spring 1996. 20 Jan. 2011 . Storey, John. “Popular.” New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Ed. Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, Meaghan Morris, Raymond Williams. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Read More