Independence in American Cinema - Essay Example

Independence in American Cinema Hollywood has become synonymous with world-class quality cinema. Because of marketing and promotional dominance and state-of the-art technology in film production, any film produced here will afterwards become global cinematic masterpieces, with millions of viewers scrimmaging for front seats in cinema houses just to watch Hollywood celebrities. According to Shaw (2002) since the advent of major studios and film sound in the early half of the 20th century, cinema production houses on the national scale around the world have been unified in the threat of Hollywood global dominance. By holding the crown of global cinema studio leadership, movie aficionados all over the world closely relates Hollywood to the American movie industry to a point that they consider this as the only movie producing venue in the United States. But its lavish concentration on its business marketing efforts has escalated the concern of film critics and artists that Hollywood films portray an identity very different from the Americans. This “identity loss” has been addressed only during the 1980’s and early 1990’s by the “independent directors” who revive American identity in US independent film industry. Wikipedia defines an independent movie as a ‘film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio.’ In the popular sense, any film that receives less than 50% of budgeting from major studios is already considered “independent.” Its creative approach in movie production enabled them to garner as much as 15% of US domestic box office revenue within the period of January to March 2005. In order to further discuss the current status of American Independent Cinema, there should be a distinction between a “national” cinema and the mainstream Hollywood. There are four defining approaches where one can distinguish “national” cinema as presented by various studies on the subject (Shaw 2002). First of the approaches is the cinema’s economic aspect, how the cinema producers provide financing. The movie’s subject and style constitutes the second approach. While the third and fourth pertains to the appeal of the movies to the public in terms of its popular and critical acceptance. It is the shift from the studio system of shooting movies in the 1950’s to 1960’s that paved the way to the birth of what we know today as modern American independent cinema. The consistent production of movies that are modestly sized in budget and features was preferred instead of larger yet fewer films. In the previous decades, 1930’s to 1940’s, cinema performers were tied with their contracts in a major Hollywood studio that they were employed in. Both the directors and actors had long-term contract with 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Columbia Pictures, and Warner Brothers, the major Hollywood studios in those days. Just to be temporarily employed, ‘one studio will be “loaned” by one studio to another for a particular project with the expectation that such offers would be reimbursed in kind. (Yahnke n.d.)’ This monopolistic approach in American cinema industry was only ended when television was introduced in 1950’s, together with the improved capacity of directors to decide over their creations and the actors’ capacity to become “free agents” ushered the death of studio system. (Chapter 2: Classic Films n.d.). The 1970’s became the start of huge productions in terms of financing. The world lauded the unprecedented cinematic performances of success. The releases of Jaws in 1975 and Star Wars in 1977, which were highly appreciated by cinema audiences the world over, became pioneers in big-budgeted yet higher grossing movies. This ambitious dream requires the help of foreign movie producers and financiers by studio executives. French, Australian, Canadian, Italian, and Japanese companies grabbed this opportunity in partaking this huge endeavour. Some of them became either co-owners or controllers of major American cinema studios. The transition from “nationalistic” pride in producing movies by sourcing out funds entirely from Americans by major studios to their partial dependence in foreign financing for increasing the saleability of their creations has opened the avenue for new and maverick moviemakers, which are more concerned on producing films on socially relevant themes and, from the financial perspective, mid-budgeted. The Cohn Brothers, Spike Lee, Kevin Smith, and Matty Rich were some of the filmmakers who dared to make films that reflect this ideal. Financial procurement became their leading problem. Fortunately enough their zeal for producing their art, via the inspiration of the avant-garde and underground American moviemakers, such as Jonas Mekas, Kenneth Anger, and Andy Warhol; and the available alternative methods in financing solved their money shortages. Self-financing was obviously the most popular strategy, as what they have learned from John Cassavetes, the proponent of the ‘independent’ movement. Matty Rich, who was just 19 years old then, took $12,000 of his money to from his own pocket to self-finance his first movie Straight Out of Brooklyn in 1991. Kevin Smith, on the other hand, was able to avail $27,600 from student loan in 1994 for his movie Clerks. The Cohn Brothers initially produced three-minute trailers for presentation to local entrepreneurs accompanied with the assurance of shared profits had provided them enough funding for the production of Blood Simple in 1984. Spike Lee’s 1996 creation Get on the Bus was heavily supported and financed by a few African-American capitalists, collectively known as the 15 Black Men. Because of a measly budget compared to their Hollywood counterparts, there is a little pressure for American independent moviemakers to gain gargantuan profits from their endeavours. With just a relatively small fraction of money funded by private investors for the movie, independent moviemakers can be more creative in the sense that they are not expected to earn gigantic profits. In this respect, American independent cinema collectively can be can be considered to be America’s national cinema, as opposed to the mainstream Hollywood, which sometimes relies on foreign funding. Most of American independent movies are funded by subsidies granted by American interests groups and the local government in exchange for providing a medium to push their ideology in the movie. A good example of this is the funding of the 15 Black Men to Spike Lee’s Get on the Bus knowing that this film can employ African-American personnel and can portray the conditions and concerns of the African-American community. In 1986, a decade before the launching of the above movie, Spike Lee’s cinema debut, She’s Gotta Have It, was partially funded by the New York State Council on the Arts for the enhancement and upgrading city’s artistic achievement. Lee, on the other hand, accepted this offer to use the ‘city’s film-making resources’ (Shaw 2002). The economic dimension of American independent cinema is reflective to the moviemaker’s concept and style of the film. As noted above, pressures from financers who supply huge amount of money for the production of the project results into the undermining of the liberty of the auteur to infuse his own artistic preference to the movie. Pop and foreign culture has seeped into Hollywood bloodstream. Instead of focusing more on a film’s social and moral responsibilities portraying and analysing the current situation of the United States, Hollywood lightly demonstrates these relevant issues by softening its impact to the popular crowd. Though made by small budget, independent films complement Hollywood’s financial and marketing capacity with extra emphasis on higher degree of professionalism. Acting, directing, scriptwriting, and other elements all contribute to the escalation of kind of cinema to a more artistic level. Creativity and innovation is greatly reflected in this art form. Independent cinema tries to open the eyes of its viewers to a new dimension, unique to the mainstream impressions and opinions suggested or portrayed by Hollywood. Most Hollywood films view America in an idealised state, which is immensely different from the realities of American life. Revitalised heavily in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s by a group of innovative moviemakers that reflects the confusion and tension of these period, American audience were able to watch their world in a very creative light through this new generation of moviemakers, which includes Spike Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Kevin Smith, and Quentin Tarantino. Thanks to the application of digital technology to the film and broadcasting that decreases the production costs and improve productivity, the American independent cinema industry has moulded its own identity in the entire American cinema industry and became more influential all over the world. At present, movie investors and financers have noticed the commercial viability of this sub-industry of American cinema. They even established subsidiaries of major movie studios to concentrate on producing this line of artistic production (e.g. Fox Searchlight Pictures of 20th Century Fox) (Independent film n.d.). For Keith Boykin (2002), Spike Lee’s She’s Gotta Have It portrays ‘a world where blacks were no longer one-dimensional but instead multi-layered characters with feelings, relationships and sexual desires.’ Though generally filmed in black and white, colour is used in certain parts of the movie for emphasis. The auteur uses aspects that are unique to African-Americans such as Jazz music as sound beds, which make him the foremost African-American filmmaker in his generation. Another movie under this kind is Soderbergh’s Sex, lies and videotape. The movie uses a stranger who interviews, on camera, a group of friends about their love/sex live to reveal the sexual orientation of Americans. It also smartly questions the subjective and objective view of voyeurism in a world where photographic images and representation abound (Daly n.d.). A ‘one wild ride,’ Tarantino’s 1994 film Pulp Fiction deviates from the traditional chronological order of film sequence to a very complicated plot, which features the ultra-realistic world of gangs and criminals that is ‘too graphic, too obscene and makes no sense (Ebert 1995)’ From these three films, the deviations by its creators from the pop Hollywood movie culture are very apparent. Instead of exhibiting the pomp of America in a macrocosm, as a superpower with humans living in a senseless, confused life that was convinced to believe that Hollywood’s fictional ‘Superman’ landed from fictional planet Krypton, American independent cinema displays what anyone can see if they look in the microcosmic view, that no real Superman exists and no real Krypton exists in the solar system. The question on whether Hollywood really represents American culture in cinematic form is another relevant issue at hand. With their focus set on the moneymaking side of the movie making equation, gigantic movie studios in Hollywood have embraced international culture to a point where Hollywood failed to reflect the American culture. As Charlie Keil, quoted by Shaw (2002), said: "By internationalising culture to the extent that it has done so, the U.S. [mainstream film industry] has loosened its claim to defining that culture. ... The U.S. is now in the business of making international movies, and the question becomes, at what point does 'inter' overwhelm 'national'?" On one level, the economic aspect of American cinema industry contributes to the decline of Hollywood’s portrayal of American culture. The lesser financial cost in producing Hollywood movies within US boundary that resulted into the start of shifting their production location outside their homeland is another noteworthy dimension in the economic aspect of American independent cinema. On the other side, cultural exchange with foreign countries helped the internationalisation as well as the gradual loss of American culture in Hollywood. American independent films tries to preserve American culture in the eyes of foreigners. As mentioned above, it depicts, through different styles and forms, the part of American culture that exposes its superficiality and depth to foreign countries. Robert Redford’s establishment of the Sundance Film Institute for aspiring yet untried, independent directors paved the way to the birth of Sundance Film Festival, an award giving body for independent auteurs. From its foundation, movie producers have gradually set their eyes on the popular as well as commercial capacity of these independent films. Subsidiaries of major movie studios were formed to cater the needs of this sub-industry. Since then Miramax, New Line, Cinecom, Fox Searchlight, and other minor film production houses have now been in the limelight to deliver quality films despite tighter budget. Corresponding to this success of independent movies is the growing concern of the loss of the maverick spirit of its auteurs. Will they remain in the ideals of being independent despite the increasing commercialisation of their craft? Will they still be reluctant in welcoming pop, sugarcoated culture to show the powerful side of America to the globalised world? Only the rapidly fleeting time of the movie industry will tell. As for the current status of American independent cinema, its major personalities and advocates have already attained popularity and received relevant attention from among financers, critics and moviegoers. Though they were blemished with commercialised mentality of Hollywood, still they have, until now, remained independent. . References Boykin, K 2002, She’s Gotta Have It, Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/2002/12/20/shes_gotta_have Cinema of the United States n.d. Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States#Independent_film Daly, A n.d. Stephen Soderbergh Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/soderbergh.html Ebert, R 1995, Secrets of ‘Pulp Fiction’ Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://www.godamongdirectors.com/tarantino/faq/secrets.html Independent film n.d. Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film Shaw, R 2002, Are the U.S.A.’s Independent Films a Distinct National Cinema? Retrieved August 19, 2006 from http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue6/americancinema.html Yahnke, R E n.d. Cinema History, Chapter 2, Classic Films from the Hollywood Studios, 1934-1946 Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ryahnke/film/cinema2.htm Read More