Yes, an historical perspective on this debate is useful. The kind of
independent or 'indie' cinema Dargis writes about has, of course, become
more institutionalized than it was in the 1980s, and overlaps a good deal
with Hollywood in the days when the likes of Miramax is owned by Disney and
all the majors have their own in-house art/indie labels. But there's still
plenty of more innovative/radical work going on, and in fiction-feature
production as well as the more experimental/avant-garde/underground margins.
Like the work of Harmony Korine, like him or loathe him - I think Julien
Donkey-Boy is one of the most exciting and innovative examples of recent DV
production, for example. Or JT Petty's Soft for Digging, which made a stir
at Sundance last year. Not movies Hollywood would have made - and then
there's something like Todd Solendz's brilliant Happiness, which pushed the
bounds of content beyond the mainstream to the point that the initial
major-owned distributor pulled out because of complaints from corporate head
office, leaving the production company to distribute. It's always tempting
to sound off about the 'death' of indie movies, or other things, but that's
usually lazy journalism rather than the result of any real analysis.
Defining independence is an approximate business, in terms of industrial
location and matters of form and content. I see it as a matter of
tendencies. 'Indie' movies of the sort Dargis writes about exist in a space
that might be triangulated: somewhere between Hollywood and the arty
avant-garde and 'exploitation' movies. There are a range of different
gravitational pulls within that space, which results in a range of different
and overlapping kinds of indie movies. That's not as neat as a single
definition, but it's way more interesting. That's what I'm arguing, anyway,
in a book I'm currently writing on the subject.
geoff
Geoff King
Brunel University, London
[log in to unmask]
>
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:28:38 -0500
> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Dargis: Death dance for the indie?
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2CD65.EE209960
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Dargis: Death dance for the indie?I enjoyed this essay by Manohla =
> Dargis. These debates about what constitutes an independent film go =
> back virtually as far as American film history. =20
>
> In the 1930s, "independent producers" got their financing and =
> distribution, if not their studio facilities, from the majors. Even =
> then, it was a marketing brand, a way to set certain films apart, =
> produced by filmmakers who might take advantage of greater creative =
> latitude if it came with their contract. "Independence" guaranteed =
> nothing, and these independents made studio-like films much of the time. =
> After all, David O. Selznick, producer of GONE WITH THE WIND, a big =
> studio film if there ever was one, was an "independent producer." But =
> sometimes these "semi-independents," as I like to call them, took major =
> risks as well (in Walter Wanger's case THE PRESIDENT VANISHES, Fritz =
> Lang's YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE, BLOCKADE, and Lang's SECRET BEYOND THE DOOR).
>
> This has been discussed in Janet Staiger's sections of THE CLASSICAL =
> HOLLYWOOD CINEMA, in Tino Balio's books on United Artists, in Thomas =
> Schatz's THE GENIUS OF THE SYSTEM and my WALTER WANGER, HOLLYWOOD =
> INDEPENDENT, if anyone is interested in the historical perspective. =
> "Independence" assumes different forms in different eras, but it is =
> coopted either eventually or from the start.
>
> Matthew Bernstein
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:19 PM
> Subject: Dargis: Death dance for the indie?
>
>
>
> From: "geert lovink" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Manohla Dargis: Death dance for the indie? (LA Times)
>
>
|