I remember how I felt as a teenager when the untapped market of alternative
music went mainstream in the US w/the "great success" of the grunge
movement.  It was
the first time (at least that I was aware of) that something of abstract
importance could be stolen from me by a faceless entity.  I felt so violated
b/c so much of my
identity was invested in what I chose to listen to (the subculture), b/c I
invested a good
amount of emotional energy fighting, yet savoring the of the "stigma"
associated with it prior to mainstream acceptance, and b/c it did set me
apart from the masses (at least in my head).   At first, my friends and I
mourned the
death of alternative music, but eventually figured out that nothing really
changes except marketing trends and cycles of consumer appreciation.  Real
artists keep doing what they are so inclined to do and the avant garde's
tactics metamorphose into the dialectical opposite of what is "cool."  Viva
Anti-Whatever!

Anyway, I sense a bit of bitterness, as well as a nostalgiac longing for the
indie film of the past in Dargis, and it is perhaps that feeling which
inspires the melodramatic "death dance" question.  I think indie film will
follow the same path as alternative music.  Perhaps it's an issue of an all
too common symptom of post modernism--illusion.  Isn't it really just
about distinguishing between and defining Indie Film versus "Indie Film?"
What's real versus an appropriated label acquired to make cash?

Any lover of film equipped with critical thinking skills doesn't need the
Sundance or IFC label on a film to know whether or not it was an
independently made, or more importantly, just a good film.  Fortunately,
there will always be inspired and innovative artists who will challenge our
sensibilities and push the envelope with their sole, untainted visions.

--Marie M. Martino



----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Death dance for the indie


> 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)
> >
> >