American Independent Cinema - Hollywood vs the Independent - Essay Example

of the pper: mericn Independent Cinem - Hollywood vs. the Independent Beginning s group of smll-time entrepreneurs in the voltile domestic mrket, U.S. film compnies, fter World Wr I, quickly blossomed into one of the world's foremost culturl industries. Despite the bitter resistnce of foreign governments, elites, nd filmmkers, mericn movies hve estblished stronghold in myrid of foreign mrkets, enthrlling millions of movie-goers cross the globe. The remrkble success of this entertinment enterprise hs mde it subject worthy of serious inquiry. Wht ccounted for Hollywood's populrity, the compny tht ws tycoon in its industry yers go nd tht got ttcked by the competition of independent compnies in this industry, is subject if present pper. Prticulrly, the discussion will be mde on the blurring of Independent nd Hollywood films fter 1990th. n insight into this importnt theme is mde through the discussion of few books where this subject is well developed nd hs gined considerble scholrly ttention mong film experts, diplomtic historins, nd culturl critics. When speking of independent cinem, it is needed to sy tht these re independent compnies supplemented with independent productions, mde with smll budgets nd often independently of the studio corportion. Movies mde in this mnner typiclly emphsize high professionl qulity in terms of cting, directing, screenwriting, nd other elements ssocited with production, nd lso upon cretivity nd innovtion. These movies usully rely upon criticl prise or niche mrketing to grner n udience. Becuse of n independent film's low budgets, successful independent film cn hve high profit-to-cost rtio, while filure will incur miniml losses, llowing for studios to sponsor dozens of such productions in ddition to their high-stkes releses (Glncy, 1999) While most of the world thinks of "independent cinem" (if the world thinks of it t ll) s being synonymous with tony imports or nything with the sobriquet "Trntino- esque," industry types know the truth is more elusive. Once upon time, when John Cssvetes moonlit from his studio dy jobs by mking msterpieces like Womn Under the Influence, independent cinem signified work tht ws estheticlly nd finncilly t remove from Hollywood. Indeed, independent film t its best is still ggressively, pssiontely, cretively driven nd originl. Films such s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Drgon; Requiem for Drem; Before Night Flls; You Cn Count on Me; or Chuck & Buck hve ll becme populr nd wide-spred mong udience. None of the Independent Spirit nominees re derivtive of commercil product. None re formulic or minstrem in their ppel. Low-budget works like George Wshington, Everything Put Together, Our Song or Urbni, ll Spirit wrd nominees, hve even less resemblnce to minstrem studio filmmking. Ech of these films ws produced for less thn $500,000 (Shuoguang 1999)hey del with subjects tht include homophobi, SIDS, poverty nd issues of socil clss, rce nd mrginlity. They focus on fricn-mericn, Ltin nd gy protgonists. nlysts of the doom- nd-gloom persusion would undoubtedly mke the point tht these films ll hd or will hve limited thetricl relese, tht the bigger, more commercil independent films hve been crowding out the rchetypl low-budget, "truly" independent films. It's true tht indie works re relesed on hundreds, even thousnds of screens, thus relegting smller films to just few theters. But tht ws lwys true. Pessimists would lso sy tht the competitiveness in the thetricl mrketplce, the number of releses fighting for exhibition, forces most low-budget films to go directly to video--but ctully there re twice s mny independent distribution compnies now s there were five yers go, which mkes it more likely tht greter number of films will find thetricl relese, however brief. The trnsformtion of independent cinem into mrketing strtegy known s "indie film" during the pst decde hs been widely noted, but even insiders wonder wht it ll mens. One thing is cler: The blurring of lines between the studios nd their indie nlogues ffects both cmps. t worst, the indies hve become frm tem from which Hollywood cn cull tlent. (rmgeddon producer Jerry Bruckheimer regulrly rounds out his csts with indie ctors.) t best, t lest for the studios, they hve become ctlyst for chnge, which my ccount for the best crop of Hollywood movies in yers, including Prmount's Simple Pln nd Universl's Out of Sight. (Wytt 2004) But while the indies hve been good for Hollywood, it's nother question whether Hollywood hs been good for the indies. Disney now owns Mirmx, Universl owns October, nd Time Wrner owns New Line Cinem. lthough ech of these formerly independent compnies hs smrtly, nd strtegiclly, retined its indie cred, the costs of this peculir form of synergy re mnifold. The most egregious nd recent exmple occurred lst fll, when Universl (which, in turn, is owned by Segrm) disssocited itself from the movie Hppiness, which ws distributed by October. Freked by the film's slcious content (Gilroy, 2003 ), Universl once gin proved tht Hollywood cn teeter t the edge only so long, especilly when there re theme prks nd multintionl profits t stke. October survived the imbroglio, but the episode went long wy towrd explining the contrdictions of the modern movie business. Given the convoluted nd often confusing stte of contemporry filmmking, selecting noteworthy group of independent mericn films is tsk tht must be done with mximum of extreme prejudice. Here, then, re ten of the most tlked bout independent nd qusi-independent films of 1998-the good, the mediocre nd the rotten. Just remember, uthentic independence isn't only some kid with digitl cmer nd fistful of mxed-out credit crds; it's politicl idel, n esthetic drem, stte of mind. Which is why, sometimes, it's s likely to be discovered seeping through the studio crcks s holed up t Sundnce. The U.S. industry's commnd over interwr Europe hs been the subject of severl rticles nd monogrphs. Selling Hollywood to the World is unique study becuse it cptures the cross-culturl exchnge from truly multintionl perspective. Using rich lode of sources gthered in U.S., British, French, nd Belgin rchives, the uthor elucidtes the "culture wrs" surrounding the mericn film trde in close detil, through n in-depth portrit of the four societies nd their principl ctors. The most fscinting chpters cover Europe's response. The discussions of British rections--for exmple, those of Grierson, Kord, nd Rnk--re prticulrly informtive. n expnded tretment of the interntionl Ctholic movement would hve better illustrted the complexity nd mgnitude of Europen resistnce stemming from this modest film mrket. Overll, Trumpbour hs produced well-reserched synthesis of Hollywood history tht dds useful insight to the vibrnt field of trnstlntic studies, recently expnded by such diverse scholrs s Pul Gilroy, Dniel Rogers, nd ln Tylor (Tylor, 2001). Globl Hollywood, co-uthored by Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurri, nd Richrd Mxwell, is nother recent study tht nlyzes the interntionl success of mericn cinem. chronologicl gp seprtes Trumpbour's from this collbortive work; the ltter minly focuses on the pst decde nd hlf, during which Hollywood's proportion of the globl mrket hs doubled nd the "trend to US dominnce ... [hs become] indubitble" (Tylor, 2001; Poiger et l., 2000). The study is cretive, provoctive, nd interdisciplinry. Chllenging conventionl pproches tht rest on "uncriticl celebrtion," "neo-clssicl economic conservtism," nd "politicl rchivism" (Vlenti, 2003), the four uthors provide fresh nlysis tht seeks to integrte the disprte fields of theory nd empiricism, socio-economic nd representtionl nlysis, nd criticl politicl economy nd culturl studies. By exmining the cmpigns of globl Hollywood, the book sets forth to present model of cross-disciplinry study to show "how screen studies goes bout its business" (Nele, Smith, 1998:58). Scholrs hve ttributed Hollywood's overses dominnce to vriety of fctors: studio consolidtion, stremlined nrrtive production, stte-industril coopertion, nd wek locl resistnce. While respecting these forces, Miller et l. offer n lterntive perspective, rguing tht the U.S. film industry's "culturl imperilism" ws ultimtely enbled by its control over the conditions of globlized lbor, dubbed the New Interntionl Division of Culturl Lbor (NICL, pronounced "nickel") (Wytt, 2004). dpting to the trnsntionl sprwl of industril production, the enhncement of communiction technologies, nd the concentrtion of cpitl round multintionl corportions, Hollywood cpitlized on the NICL, the uthors show, in prt by importing filmmking tlent from cross the world. nother strtegy ws to spred out the sites of film production. Relying on the inexpensive lbor costs overses nd fvorble government policies towrds offshore filmmking, mericn studios incresingly invested in "runwy production" nd interntionl co-production with Europe, the Western Hemisphere, nd other prts of the globe. (Wytt, 2004). ccording to the uthors, the mstery of the globl ren lso required commnd over post-production. While benefiting from the cost nd wge differentils creted under the NICL model, U.S. studios hve exposed their vulnerbility to medi pircy brod. Responding to the growth of illegl reproduction in Chin, Indi, nd other less controllble mrkets, Hollywood hs pproched the globl community, pressing for the enforcement of intellectul property lws. Led by Vlenti nd the Motion Picture ssocition, the industry vigorously lbored to estblish copyright protection nd nti-pircy cmpigns in s mny s seventy countries (Vlenti, 2003). Help hs lso come from the U.S. government, which, eger to fcilitte the exploittion of foreign mrkets by U.S. cpitl, combted copyright infringement nd medi pircy vi dt compiltion, diplomtic negotition, nd multintionl trety-mking. The industry lso invested vst sums of money into mrketing. Professionl mrketers, the "textul gtekeepers" (Vlenti, 2003) of the industry, "positioned" the nrrtive product for different niche mrkets, rrnged vrious tie-ins to enhnce the ppel of given product, nd engineered "dvoccy mrketing" to crete fvorble self-imge nd to undermine interntionl pircy (Vlenti, 2003). key to this multifceted tsk ws to estblish control over the udiences themselves. The mrketing bureucrcy thus generted lrge-scle efforts to guge consumer tste nd response through field reserch, test screenings, nd dt nlysis--efforts tht the uthors cll consumer "surveillnce" (Vlenti, 2003). Relying on interntionl mrketing firms such s the Dutch owned United Dutch Publishers, which operte widely cross North meric nd Europe, Hollywood sought to "mnge" its worldwide udiences. In comprison with Hollywood cinem, there ws never golden ge for independent films. The reltive success of low-budget works like Clerks, The Brothers McMullen or El Mrichi sys more bout their freshness nd distinctiveness s feture releses thn it does bout n idel pst when independent film ws more fully pprecited. t the sme time, the chnging mrketplce nd evolving gends of mjor independent distributors hve much greter impct on the vilbility of low-budget work thn whether independent filmmking hs gone "minstrem." Most mjor independent compnies used to pride themselves on finding udiences for difficult-to-mrket films--tht is, distinctive, interesting independent work. Now, hving seen how much money cn be mde from the more "commercil" independent films, most of these compnies re loth to tke on pictures tht don't hve reltively esy mrketing hndles. Sundnce, we usully showcse brod rnge of independent cinem--trditionl rt-house fre, n eclectic mix of films from the rchetypl independent filmmkers nd some indie-studio productions. Becuse the ltter re more visible nd often most nticipted, they hve become lightning rods for the press, which ignores the other films, leding some critics to chrge tht Sundnce itself hs gone minstrem. This is perhps understndble, but it's misconception. gin, look t the films. The budgets of the indie-studio productions, lthough sometimes firly substntil, don't begin to pproch the $50 million-plus tht the verge studio feture costs. Their content is lmost lwys riskier, less generic or formulic thn studio productions, nd their ppel is lmost lwys judged to be out of the minstrem. When Crouching Tiger, Hidden Drgon or Trffic crosses over, it hs more to do with the udience's desire for qulity nd originlity thn it does with mrketble premise. Even the influx of Hollywood gents nd executives serching out tlent or product isn't necessrily bd thing. One of the best things festivl cn do for filmmker is get him or her out of debt. The fct tht the Sundnce Film Festivl hs evolved into significnt mrket for independent cinem is ctully positive development, so long s the progrmming doesn't specificlly cter to the commercil, something we hve never done. The cse of British movie-mking is studied in Tony Shw's British Cinem nd the Cold Wr: The Stte, Propgnd nd Consensus. This book exmines the nexus of British motion pictures nd interntionl ffirs during the first two decdes of the Cold Wr--in rgubly its most dngerous phse. The scholrship on this tension-ridden er hs recently witnessed "culturl turn." Building on the scholrship of the politicl, strtegic, nd economic spects of the superpower conflict, host of new studies hve explored the medi enterprises nd culturl products of this er s well s their reltionship to the broder interntionl climte (Hixson, 2000). Relying on wide rnge of newsreels, documentries, feture films, s well s rchivl mterils of the British Film Institute nd the Public Records Office, Shw's elegntly written book demonstrtes the British studios' ctive efforts to construct n nti-Soviet consensus through film production nd stte-level coopertion. Like Trumpbour's study, British Cinem nd the Cold Wr is trnstlntic story. While underscoring British gency, Shw lso demonstrtes how cinem helped construct the nglo-mericn "specil reltionship" by drwing humn nd finncil resources from the other side of the tlntic (Hixson, 2000). The British skepticism towrds communism, rgues Shw, emerged in the wke of the Bolshevik Revolution. During the 1920s nd '30s, filmmkers in Britin rected to the newly founded stte, in smll but recognizble group of pictures tht portryed the Soviet Union s n oppressive nd dysfunctionl regime. This filmic hostility towrd the communist stte incresed fter World Wr II. Following brekthrough productions like The Third Mn nd Conspirtor--"Britin's first identifible Cold Wr feture film" (Rogers 1998)--the struggles with communist spies, sboteurs, nd militry forces surfced in wide vriety of documentries, newsreels, nd feture films. British udiences witnessed the Red Mence spreding worldwide on its big screens, s the Mnichen struggle unfolded in Britin (e.g. High Treson), its colonies (Opertion Mly), nd the communist bloc (The Mn Between). By the erly 1960s, the cinemtic Cold Wr in Britin hd reched its "pogee" (Rogers 1998). "consistent ... theme [of] communist subversion" (Rogers 1998) pervded mny of these films during the first two decdes of the superpower conflict. Shw's contributions trnscend his shrp nlysis of these nticommunist texts. British Cinem nd the Cold Wr lso uncovers the looming presence of the United Sttes in the shdow of British nrrtive production. The trnstlntic interply is prtly evident in Britin's modifiction nd dpttion of Hollywood stories. The involvement of U.S. film producers, ctors, finnciers, nd government officils ws lso quite frequent. Perhps the most telling cses re discussed in chpter titled "Screening Orwell," in which Shw trces the production of the nimted feture, niml Frm-- project secretly finnced by the U.S. Office of Policy Coordintion, monitored by the Psychologicl Strtegy Bord, nd egerly promoted by the mericn Committee for Culturl Freedom (CCF). mericn cold wrriors lso prticipted in the production of 1984, film bsed on nother Orwell clssic. Led by the former RKO president Peter Rthvon, this movie project evolved through consulttion with the CCF nd the U.S. Informtion gency, which lso subsidized the film. In dpting the novels for the screens, the originl stories were crefully tilored to fit the "Western Cold Wr orthodoxy" (Ulff-Moller, 2001). nother strength of the book is nunce. While showing the role culture plyed in cultivting nti-Soviet htred in Gret Britin, Shw ptly demonstrtes tht its Cold Wr film genre ws not lwys blck or white. Films with nucler themes, such s Dr. Strngelove nd The Wr Gme (originlly BBC television documentry), often displyed more nxiety thn confidence bout the future course of the techno-scientific rms rce. Representtions of industril reltions, s in The Mn in the White Suit nd The ngry Silence, underlined clss tensions nd lbor struggles in the mills nd fctories, lthough they were seldom celebrtory of trde unionism. mbivlence lso surfced in the films produced by Hollywood blcklistees in Britin. In 1961, the Wisconsin-born Joseph Losey critiqued the culturl Cold Wr in The Dmned, n eerie science fiction film bout group of rdioctive children confined in n underground shelter, overseen by surveillnce cmers. Even though such films never dominted the screens, they show the complexity of the genre, s "Cold Wr orthodoxy mingled with cynicl sides bout the lmentble dimensions of n incresingly clustrophobic nd uthoritrin conflict" (Ulff-Moller, 2001). Hollywood's impct on filmmkers throughout the world is quite mzing. For instnce, those filmmkers who hve won wrds in Mexico similr or identicl to the cdemy wrds in the United Sttes cnnot find theters in Mexico to relese their films. Even though they re the top filmmkers in their country--nd their films, in Spnish, don't require subtitles--they cnnot find theters. It is much too profitble for the theters to continue showing films from Hollywood. This fct hs hd grve impct on independent filmmking. If people re not ble to distribute their films, eventully they re not ble to mke them. This hs been the result, to gret degree, in Ltin meric. Directors in these countries re still mking fntstic films, but they re not ble to produce nything ner their cpbilities becuse of Hollywood's finncil strnglehold on the industry. Menwhile, independent filmmking s politicl/socil force is fr from monolithic, nd even to spek of it s movement is to imply uniformity or coherence tht it ctully does not possess. But the models (from business perspective) nd the distinctiveness of the new modes of storytelling nd trnsgressive esthetics tht it offers promise chievements during the next decde tht hve rel significnce. In n er where the dominnt vlues of our culture re defined nd delivered (or t lest medited) by powerful corporte entities, the diverse humn sensibilities of individul rtists hve rel politicl import, nd cinem retins remrkble ideologicl potency. The generl oversight to reception nd movie-going is not unique to the production-oriented studies by Richie nd Shw. Populr reception occupies mrginl role in the first two studies s well. Trumpbour's discussion of Europen response centers round filmmkers, film producers, government personnel, nd elites. Globl Hollywood does explore the industry's "udiences," but the uthors tret it s discursive ctegory invented by the industry, stte, nd criticism (Ulff-Moller, 2001). None of the four books provide full ttention to the movie-going cultures tht emerged outside the studios nd high-level policymking. This bsence reflects broder tendency in the field itself. Since most existing works hve studied the mking of globl Hollywood from the top down, we know much less bout the "ground-level" cinemtic cultures of which mny of us hve been prt. But one should lso note tht efforts to fill in this scholrly void re underwy. Recently, growing number of cinem scholrs hve turned to the study of film reception nd udience behvior. lthough mny of their works concentrte on the U.S., some hve begn to explore the dynmics of mericn-movie consumption in the interntionl ren. Some of their findings hve been presented t two seminl conferences: "Hollywood nd Its Specttors: The Reception of mericn Films, 1895-1995" (Februry 1998) nd "mericn Cinem nd Everydy Life" (June 2003), both held t the University College London. Orgnized by Robert C. llen, Richrd Mltby, nd Melvyn Stokes, the two conferences hve ttrcted constelltion of scholrs from Europe, the U.S., nd other prts of the world. Prticipnts hve scrutinized the reception of mericn cinem in wide rnge of ntions, including Turkey, Frnce, Britin, Jpn, ustrli, s well s the U.S. portion of the presenttions hve been complied in Mltby nd Stokes, eds., Hollywood brod: udience nd Culturl Exchnge (London: British Film Institute, 2004). The presenttions nd lively exchnges t these scholrly events nticipte the further growth of "bottom-up" pproch to Hollywood studies in the yers to come. In conclusion, Hollywood's films hve plyed leding role not only in blurring culturl boundries throughout the world but in promoting mericn vlues, ttitudes, nd priorities s well. The fct tht Hollywood cn spend $64 million on films like Mission: Impossible or more thn $100 million on others--greter thn the film budgets for some countries--ssures tht mericn movies will continue to dominte the interntionl mrket into the foreseeble future. The study of Hollywood's globliztion provided by current pper hs produced mny importnt findings. The rticles reviewed in this essy contribute to our understnding of this truly worldwide phenomenon, through their exmintions of industril policy, stte-level interction, locl resistnce, nd the celluloid itself. Bibliogrphy: 1. ln Tylor (2001). mericn Colonies, New York: Viking Press. 2. Dniel Rogers (1998). tlntic Crossings: Socil Politics in Progressive ge Cmbridge: Hrvrd University Press. 3. H. Mrk Glncy, (1999). When Hollywood Loved Britin: The Hollywood "British" Film, 1939-1945, Mnchester: Mnchester University Press. 4. Jck Vlenti (17 September 2003). "The Perils of Movie Pircy nd Its Drk Effects on Consumers, the Million People Who Work in the Movie Industry, nd the Ntion's Economy,", http://www.mp.org/jck/2003/2003_09_17b.htm (visited September 4, 2006). 5. Jnet Wsko (1995). Hollywood in the Informtion ge (ustin: University of Texs Press. 6. Jens Ulff-Moller (2001). Hollywood's Film Wrs with Frnce: Film-Trde Diplomcy nd the Emergency of the French Film Quot Policy (Rochester: University of Rochester Press. 7. Justin Wytt (2004). High Concept: Movies nd Mrketing in Hollywood. ustin: University of Texs Press. 8. Pul Gilroy (2003). The Blck tlntic: Modernity nd Double Consciousness Cmbridge: Hrvrd University Press. 9. Steve Nele, Murry Smith (1998). Contemporry Hollywood Cinem. London nd New York: Routledge, 58-73 10. Ut G. Poiger, Jzz, Rock, nd Rebels (2000). Cold Wr Politics nd mericn Culture in Divided Germny (Berkeley: University of Cliforni Press. 11. Wlter L. Hixson (2000). Prting the Curtin: Propgnd, Culture, nd the Cold Wr, 1945-1961. New York: St. Mrtin's Press. 12. Shuoguang Yao, "On the Trend of Film Thought in Last Ten Years" (Lun xinshiqi houshinian dianying sichao di yanjin) Contemporary Cinema, no.6 (1999), p. 67. Read More