American Independent Cinema - Essay Example

Cinema Running Head: Independent Cinema American Independent Cinema In APA Style Cinema 2 Abstract This paper deals with American Independent Cinema and what makes it independent. It distinguishes it from mainstream Hollywood Cinema and the various shades in between. It then defines what a cult movie is and then answers the question as to what factors give the independent cinema the status of a cult movie. Main Body An independent film has been defined by Greg Merritt as “any motion picture financed and produced completely autonomous of all studios, regardless of size” (Merritt 2002, p.2). King further expanded this definition by referring to an independent film as that which departs “from mainstream convention….. either in making greater claims to verisimilitude or realism, or in the use of more complex, stylized, expressive, showy or self-conscious forms” (King 2005, p.10). Tzioumakis is more definitive in his definition as he describes it as one of those “low-budget projects made by mostly young filmmakers with a strong personal vision away from the influence and pressures of the major conglomerates that control tightly the American film industry” (Tzioumakis 2006, p.1). Emmanuel Levy, a noted film critic, on the other hand, contributes his definition of it as he calls it “a fresh, low budget movie with a gritty style and offbeat subject matter that express the filmmaker’s personal vision” (Levy 2001, p.1). This definition brings to mind such movies as Easy Rider, Blair Witch Project, Night of the Living Dead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory etc. All were alternatives to the Hollywood blockbuster movies which were superbly glossy, highly budgeted and shot inside vast, sophisticated company-owned studios and produced along mainstream, conservative themes Cinema 3 and shot with special effects that intend to net gargantuan profits from TV rights and DVD sales rather than from theatre admissions. These indie films are designed to be contrapuntal to those spectacular movies produced and distributed by the so-called ‘ Big Six’ which includes Sony Columbia, Viacom Paramount, AOL Time Warner, ABC Disney, MGM/UA, and NBC Universal. There’s a rub, however, to all the definitions aforestated. Several movie companies had claimed that what they’re producing are independent films despite the fact that these are highly budgeted and extravagantly made that even compete with Hollywood blockbusters produced by the Big Six. In fact the producer the Howard Hughes, Leonardo de Caprio-starred biopic, The Aviator, exults that “this movie is the biggest independent movie ever made” (Tzioumakis 2006, p.2). and rightly so because it was produced at a staggering cost of $115 million. And not only this movie made such bold claim. Even The Lord Of The Rings series of films, the Austin Powers movies, Rush Hour 1 and 2 all claimed to be indie films despite their colossal budgets. Therefore, there would be a problem of distinguishing an indie cinema company from a major studio company. Many movie historians affirmed that a highly successful indie cinema company cannot stay for long as ‘indie’ because chances are it will suffer the same way as Orion Films, the maker of Dances With Wolves and Silence of the Lambs and which fell into bankruptcy in 1991 because it refused to go with the tide of major companies, meaning, go into takeovers, mergers Cinema 4 and other company strategies to monopolise distribution windows (Tzioumakis 2006, p. 238). Orion was adamant and stuck to being ‘independent’. Thus a successful indie company is expected to join the ranks of the other major studios and, thus making it difficult for us to really distinguish between mainstream and independent cinema. A good example of an indie company which shifted to the traditional major Hollywood studio was Miramax Films. Another good example of an indie film company which has attained unprecedented success despite the absence of any corporate parent is Lion’s Gate. But everybody’s focusing their eyes on this movie company and awaiting the time that it will join the major studios. If it does, then it will prove that American independent cinema is a mere springboardt o joining the “Big League’ status. Indie film then should only be a “euphemism for a small-studio production” (Tzioumakis 2006, p. 247). How then can we distinguish mainstream from indie cinema if it’s not the film budget nor the identity of the producer that delineate the margin between the two. We must also take note that the Big Six now has added 3 more filmmakers to its fold i.e Miramax, Dreamworks SKG and News Corp. Fox and more are expected to join its ranks. Perhaps the answer lies in the theme of the movie , how the story line is developed and handled and whether the producer sticks to the formula themes and trends that the big Hollywood studios pander to the public’s taste. If the producer follows his own distinctive style of filmmaking, which is mainly offbeat in character and stamps his own personal vision and thus veers away from the usual conventional Cinema 5 mode of theme and filmmaking dished by the big Hollywood moguls, then such producer could be considered as an indie filmmaker. In an indie film, the producer has a personal freedom of expression where he can choose the content, the form and the motif of his movie while in the conventional mainstream movie, the producer is limited to what is formulaic, trendy and acceptable to the moviegoing public and the critics. Thus an indie film has a wider scope that ranges from a low-budgeted, home-based movie, maybe shot in spare time and probably financed on loans or credit, and deals with the whole gamut of emotions and activities and the world of those who occupy the acme of success, such as in the movie The Aviator as well as the edge of the genre which is the avant-garde cinema, which basically deals with the creation or application of “new or experimental ideas and techniques” (Merriam Webster Dictionary 1997, p.66) such as Tarantino’s Kill Bill series. The size of the budget definitely draws the line of demarcation between an indie film and a mainstream Hollywood film. While the latter has all the financial resources at its disposal and thus can afford the hiring of named box-office stars and the utilisation of high-tech gadgets, in an indie film the budget can be as ridiculously low as $7,000, as in the case of El Mariachi (King 2005, p.14), which was photographed single handedly by its director-producer Robert Rodriguez and edited on equipment derived from a friend. Despite the fact that the cast were alien names in Hollywood and the gossip milieu rang with stories of how these committed actors only obtained compensation after the movie attained success at the tills (King 2005, p. 13), the movie reached unbelievable success and thus opened the tide for more indie films of the same kind. Cinema 6 The mainstream Hollywood movie-making, on the other hand, spends millions more on publicity and the establishment of star adulation and fanatic loyalty to their prized stars. Thus, everyone has to bow down to the studio and star system and has to accept the reality that the theme to be tackled will be restricted and predictable and routine and the ending will have to follow the adage “all’s well that ends well”. The movie Blair Witch Project exemplifies an indie film that met unexpected success via tremendous return on investment. Made with a ludicrous budget of between $22,000 and $60,000, it grossed around $140 million in USA alone and $248 million globally (King 2005, p.12). The producers’ sources of funds were their savings and credit cards and sale of a segment of the movie to Pierson’s Split Scream for $10,000. This was then publicised on Pierson’s website. Because that was about the mysterious disappearance of the three main characters, it caught fire in the imagination of moviegoers (Box Office MOJO 2006). The producers then submitted it to the Sundance Film Festival where it was crowned as the most successful indie movie ever. In sharp contrast to this is the Sony/Columbia movie Spiderman which was budgeted for $139 million and grossed a whopping $403,706,375 in USA alone and $821,708,551 internationally. Based on a popular comic strip, it showcased high-tech, fantastic sequences that boggles the senses and mind. This film is truly representative of what a mainstream Hollywood movie is (Box Office MOJO, LLC). Cinema 7 The American Independent Film As A Cult Movie A cult movie is a film that has attracted a fanatical horde of rabid devotees. However, usually this fan base is limited to a few mostly young obsessed fans. The cult film Easy Rider was an independent alternative film produced by experimental producer Peter Fonda on a shoestring budget of $340,000. It broke conventions by fearlessly dealing with the search for freedom as two anti-hero bikers, high on drugs, make an apocalyptic journey to find America and cannot search it anywhere. The film attracted a cult of youthful audiences who were mesmerised with its non-conformist, pop culture, revolutionary theme. It contained not only drugs experience but also sex, violence and rock and roll background music. Very clearly, Easy Rider is an indie film because it is a low-budgeted film, produced by an artistic but inexperienced producer and tackles a controversial and daring theme featuring drugs and sex and veers away from the conventional, traditional themes of mainstream Hollywood films. What gives it the status of a cult movie is that young audiences were hooked by its theme and all that the movie represents. The film captured zealous devotees which made up a segment of American society in that era. Easy Rider is an example of an indie film that is at the same time also a cult movie. In a Venn diagram type of graph, independent film fully overlaps cult film (Dirks 2008). The Rocky Horror Picture Show was heralded as the most popular and the longest-running cult film in America. But, first and foremost, it is an independent film despite the fact it Cinema 8 isn’t exactly a low-budget film. It was produced for $1.2 million which is not exactly a pittance unlike The Blair Witch Project (Box Office For The Rocky Horror Show). It also found acceptance among the mainstream audience mainly because it was originally a London stage play with lavish costumes, sets and props and starred esteemed actors like Susan Sarandon and Tim Curry. Yet despite the aforesaid, it is still an indie film, because it was produced not by mainstream Hollywood studio but by independent producers and the movie’s theme is not only unconventional but refuses to follow the usual run-of-the-mill Hollywood topics and is outrageous. It is essentially a parody and spoof of sexuality as it features incest, transvestism, bisexuality . It is also a satire of horror films as it mocks the Frankestein character of Mary Shelley and ridicules science fiction in general. It is a cult movie because its uniqueness, eccentricity and inventiveness, are shrouded in a background of rock music and it enraptured a ready portion of the populace. This movie illustrates that a cult movie may not be an entirely independent film as there are aspects of it that belong to the mainstream cinema. Thus again in a Venn diagram, its being a cult movie doesn’t fully overlap its being an independent movie as it partially overlaps to a minor degree mainstream cinema. Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is The Rocky Horror Picture Show’s rival for the title of the best cult movie of all time. That is the consensus of so many movie afficionados. That it is a cult movie is moot ands academicas it is a futuristic, campy and controversial movie that deals with violence in a Dystopian society. Because it rivets on the subject matter of Cinema 9 fetishism and sexual perversion, it turns off many who finds its theme of perversion , rape and violence immersed in a background of classical and pop music as well as its slangy dialogues as offensive. But it draws in moviegoers who found adulation in its eccentricity and intellectual treatment of the subject matter not to mention the excellent direction of Kubrick and inspired acting of its cast. Sardonic, paranoid and satirical, it mocks the crime and punishment system of society. For the above reasons and the fact that it was produced by Kubrick himself, it is undoubtedly an indie film which has the ability to draw in some of the mainstream audience because of Kubrick’s reputation. More viewed it after it won New York Critics Award for best picture and director and got 4 OSCAR nominations. The Night of The Living Dead was produced by George Romero on a measly budget of $114,000 with a cast of relatively unknown actors. This horror movie was filmed in black and white. Despite the fact that mainstream Hollywood cinema churn out horror flicks in large numbers, this just cannot be considered as one of them because of its budget and because it doesn’t belong to the big Hollywood studios. It may be gory and gruesome as it presents cannibalistic zombies but so are the Dracula films. What sets it apart is its mixture of horror and science fiction and its satiric mocking of American society of the 1960’s, its critique of USA’s involvement in Vietnam and its derision of Cold War rivalry. So many critics see the grotesque horror as representing the horrors of the Vietnam War. One critic even “points to aspects of the Vietnam War paralelled in the film: grainy black and white newsreels, search and destroy operations, helicopters and graphic carnage (Higashi 1990, p.181). Because the movie treatment Cinema 10 is unconventional and controversial and it refuses to tread the path of mainstream cinema, it is undoubtedly an independent film. It is a cult movie because it terrified teenyboppers and the not so young, who not unwittingly come to be terrorised and thus compose the frightened horror fanatics. We have to be reminded at this stage that an independent film has a wide range and may be science fiction, satire or irony, may tackle drugs and sex or horror. Thus, it being a cult movie by way of grotesque horror is only one of the possibilities of an indie film. American independent film is an alternative and antithesis of bland, boring and crassly commercial mainstream Hollywood cinema. While the latter refuses to be ingenious and innovative for fear that it may turn off the majority of cinema audiences, indie filmmakers are crafty, daring, uncompromising and fearless . Thus, the likes of Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino and the Coen Brothers seem to bring redemption and promise to Hollywood mediocrity and predictability. While Hollywood productions are controlled by producers with box-office success in mind, independent producers who also double as the films’ directors, take charge to express themselves via the medium of cinema. This is called the auteur theory because the director is the auteur and has complete artistic control over his film production and the finished product (Homepage). While mainstream films from the giant studios stagnate because they keep on reworking on the same formulas, independent filmmakers busy themselves injecting emotional poignancy, Cinema 11 originality of ideas, social commentaries to the finished product while stamping them with their artistic vision. If these independent filmmakers choose to deal with themes that strike a rhythmic note on certain segments of society and thus imparts cultism, they create an innovative product while capturing an enthralled audience that is driven to fanaticism. Thus, being an independent film and a cult film at the same time is a double victory for such indie producers. Cinema 12 REFERENCES Box Office Business For The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975). http:// www.imdb.com/title/ttoo73629/business. Box office MOJO, LLC (2007). Spider Man. www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=sony.htm-24k. Box Office MOJO (2006). The Blair Witch Project http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blairwitchproject.htm. Dirks, Tim (2008). Easy Rider (1969). http://www.filmsite.org/easy.html. Higashi, Sumiko (1990). Night of the Living Dead: A horror film about the horrors of the Vietnam era. New Brunswick: NJ: Rutgers University Press, p.182. Homepage. The genesis and formulation of the auteur theory. www.89.homepage.villanova/edu/elana.stan/pages/genesis_and_formulation_of_the_ a.htm-13k. King, Geoff (2005). American independent cinema. I.B. Tauris Levy, Emmanuel (2001). Cinema of outsiders: The rise of American independent film. New York: New York University Press. Merritt, Greg (2000). Mavericks: a history of American independent film. Thunder’s Mouth Press. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997). Avant-garde. Springfield, Mass: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Tzioumakis, Yannis (2006). American independent cinema: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Read More