11 Comments

• 1. Joe Thorn replies at 31st August 2005, 1:49 pm :

  I think of an independant film as one not controlled by outsiders. The director and producer are free to make what they want without interference from suits. This occassionally happens with big budgets and backing from Hollywood, but is more commonly a low budget, poor man’s effort because there is more risk involved. Indies are more likey to experiment and avoid formulaic story-telling because they can. My 2 cents.

• 2. Gale Peppelo replies at 31st August 2005, 2:38 pm :

  I think it’s very difficult to have a crystal clear definition for Independent Film nowadays. In the old days when Studios made all their films inside their studios literally (which doesn’t happen much anymore as “studios” rent their facilities to just about anybody), financed, marketed and owned the theaters and actors (through contracts) and so forth, it was much easier to define those films which were made “outside that system”. Still, I think, certain qualities are necessary. For instance, I went to the Tribeca Film Festival a year and a half ago and saw this very funny and (here’s what’s important) “out of the ordinary” slightly “unusual” and surprisingly fresh “little film” called “Duane Incarnate”. The film had some familiar stars in it, but was made, the filmmaker said, for 1/2 a million by a crew that gave their heart and souls for very little money. It was financed (1)”independently” yes, but it was made with an (2)”independent spirit”. I think the definition of an indy film needs to contain both these qualities as one can try to make a mainstream film by financing it independently and/or a hollywood film can try to be made with an “indy spirit” — which is nice, but still doesn’t make it an “indy film”. They need both.

• 3. Lilly replies at 31st August 2005, 2:46 pm :

  When I think of indy flicks, I think of smart, tight, clever, ingenious, bare bones, and artistic films, not over-the-top crap spewed for the Hollywood machine. Smart Vs. pandering, that’s what it comes down to for me.

  However, that’s not to say all indy films are great. *cough* Gummo *cough* I was sitting in the audience the night of that Toronto Film Fest premiere screening. I don’t know why I was surprised when a film about nothing made zero sense, but the tip-off should have been the freak director standing in front of the cinema telling everyone his approach to making indy flicks is to “fuck genre.”

  I like to think the fake indy director of the fake Queens Boulevard movie featured in the show Entourage is a composite of every indy director Mark Walberg has ever worked with plus this Gummo director. You know, as one big ball of freak, running around the world making movies on their own terms, being reclusive and billigerant to every “suit” in the industry. I get a kick out of the image of the nomadic indy director who is hard to nail down on any details of any given project he or she’s working on, thus infuriating every producer and studio exec alive. I’m twisted like that. :-)

• 4. Triflic replies at 31st August 2005, 3:30 pm :

  THe lines are so blurry these days, the title “indie” has lost all meaning…best to come up with some new words or something…

• 5. Pudie replies at 31st August 2005, 3:34 pm :

  This is the defenition of independent. Makes Clerks look like Star Wars.

  http://www.dikenga.com/films/firecracker/

• 6. bond, james bond replies at 31st August 2005, 3:55 pm :

  whether its called “indie” or something else, for me, those films have the honesty of vision to take artistic risks. they may not always succeed, and even their failures can be quite interesting if not amusing, but they can never be confused with formula. (which by its nature, eliminates all risk.)

• 7. CD replies at 31st August 2005, 6:44 pm :

  I think independent films — these days — has become a buzz word. I think Miramax’s deal with Disney kind of blurred the line between independent films and mainstream films. A think a lot of Miramax films (I’m thinking of Pulp Fiction) were marketed as independent films even though I’m sure they were paid for in part by money from Disney’s coffers.

  Since Pulp Fiction there’s been a lot of films that you could consider to have an indie vibe but they aren’t — strictly speaking — indie films.

  Take a film like Tarnation for instance. The director made the whole thing himself from old home movies and pictures and edited it in iMovie. Total cost $300. That’s no-permission filmmaking for sure. He didn’t have one person looking for his shoulder. But at the same time, something like

  Something like Tarnation (which some dude made in iMovie for $300) sure sounds like an independent film to me. I mean, 300 bucks, who was telling that guy what to do? Nobody. But also something like that movie coming out called Death Tunnel is also an independent film. Probably a big time studio wasn’t involved in either.

  A film like Being John Malkovich takes a lot of artistic risks but it would be weird to call it an indie film.

  Probably the best thing to do is just retire the term “indie film.”

  CD

  I

• 8. Al.x replies at 1st September 2005, 2:05 am :

  “Makes Clerks look like Star Wars” Hmmm… George Lucas is the worlds richest and most influential Indy filmmaker. :)

• 9. farzad replies at 1st September 2005, 8:23 am :

  Hi my friends!

  Please send me some new film

• 10. kare replies at 3rd September 2005, 10:33 am :

  Check out Elijah Woods movies he has made since LOTR….these are Indies.

• 11. beth replies at 6th September 2005, 8:26 am :

  If you wish to see some TRUE independent films, check out the online film festival at:

  http://www.haydenfilms.com