Adding to Geoff's comments, from a historical perspective this debate about
independent filmmakers does indeed go back decades, certainly in American
film history. My work on the "independent producer" Walter Wanger, like
that of Tino Balio on United Artists, looked at how totally integrated such
producers were into the Hollywood production and distribution machinery (I
suggested calling such filmmakers "semi-independent").
What I found was that the term "independent" was defined negatively, as "not
studio," and hence it was incredibly elastic. And using an industrial basis
for defining the concept, I found, in Wanger's case, that such industrial
semi-independence could enable filmmakers to make aesthetically innovative
or topically provocative films (Lang's YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE, SECRET BEYOND THE
DOOR, Ford's THE LONG VOYAGE HOME, or Dieterle's BLOCKADE, Wellman's THE
PRESIDENT VANISHES, Hitchcock's FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, Wise's I WANT TO
LIVE!, LaCava's GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE), but it certainly could not
guarantee such films would be made. So many other factors, including the
predilections of the above the line talents, the current political climate,
and the strength of industry self-regulation all shaped the films
themselves.
It seems as though these kinds of considerations apply to defining
"independence" now, even though we see narrative fiction films that stretch
formal and stylistic conventions (MEMENTO) and political views beyond what
was possible in the studio era.
Matthew Bernstein
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|