Putting the "Dependent" Back into Independent
December 9th 2008 04:08
Anyone remember the days when the phrase 'independent movie' brought to mind the following thoughts: low budget, crude editing, rushed filming dates, etc. Some times, despite all those obstacles, the movies that came from truly independent filmmakers were exceptional and/or skyrocketed the careers of those involved. Quentin Tarintino, Robert Rodriguez, Sam Raimi, and Doug Liman come to mind. In the past few decades, these were the men who either could not get the financial support (or just support in general) they needed from Hollywood to make their films, or just did not care to. So what did they do? They said 'fuck it' and made their movies anyway. And what did we get? Reservoir Dogs, El Mariachi (Desperado), The Evil Dead, and Swingers. Granted, that is only a small list, but you get the picture. Those four films are considered cult classics by many movie enthusiasts, myself included.
These days, the phrase independent movie means something completely different. 'Indy' filmmaker, to me, means nothing anymore. In fact, there's nothing really independent about independent film making anymore. Some of the most critically acclaimed "independent" films to come out in the past decade have all been financially backed by the major film studios here in the US. Not wanting to loose that key demographic (those 18 to 25-year-olds who think they are free thinkers and hate the "corporation" side of America), the major studios decided to play down their status, or just create a new company entirely that would still be run by them, but just have a different name. Here's a list of a few 'indy' studios that are owned and operated by the major players in Hollywood:
Fox Searchlight: Owned by 20th Century Fox
Sony Pictures Classics: Owned by Sony Pictures
Warner Independent Pictures: Owned by AOL-TimeWarner
Paramount Vantage: Owned by Paramount Pictures
You get the idea. Now, I have covered this all before in an earlier rant, but I thought I'd just give you a refresher.
'But, Taylor, so what if they're releasing these movies under different company names? There's nothing wrong with that.' You're right. There is nothing wrong with that. It's so blatantly obvious what they're trying to pull off that I would have thought that most people wouldn't buy into it. But people are buying into it. Audiences around the country actually believe that what they are seeing is truly independent, and that fits in perfectly with their free-thinking, 'I-do-things-my-way' lifestyle. They call these films brilliant and oh-so original. If that's so, then let me pose a question. If these films are so original, then why do they all seem to have to follow the same basic formula, which I like to call the Indy Formula . That is, these movies usually revolve around a dysfunctional who either has an abnormal job or is an artist (unemployed) of some kind. There has to be that one quirky friend/lover/neighbor who only the main character could possibly understand and at some point in the movie, they will go on a random and usually pointless 'adventure' to truly discover who they are.
Does that fit every 'indy' flick that has come out recently? Of course not. But it does fit quite a few. And yet another question I pose to those who claim all these films are so original: why do all the fucking posters look the same? Examples:
Here's the poster from Year of the Dog:
Here's the poster from The Savages:
The posters to these types of movies is just another part of this same sad formula of movie studios trying to dupe these people out of their money. The posters always have to have a minimalistic feel to them, the actors (if shown) must have a completely expressionless look on their face, there must be some kind of artwork involved that looks like something out of a 16-year-olds notebook, and they must show all the praise and awards the film has received from different film festivals, most of which no one has ever even heard of. More examples?
Sideways:
The Darjeeling Limited:
Perseplois:
Juno:
Be Kind Rewind:
Napoleon Dynamite:
Before I end this, just let me add one thing. I don't really have anything against these kinds of movies themselves. It's usually the self-righteous blowhards who flock to these films and praise them for being so deep and original that get to me. So, the next time any of you feel like sharing with us your views on how original Sideways and The Savages were (for the thirty-seventh time), and before you start berating those of us who like movies that are actually good without trying so hard, just ask yourself one question: Is that movie you are so desperately trying to defend as being original and fresh really that new?
These days, the phrase independent movie means something completely different. 'Indy' filmmaker, to me, means nothing anymore. In fact, there's nothing really independent about independent film making anymore. Some of the most critically acclaimed "independent" films to come out in the past decade have all been financially backed by the major film studios here in the US. Not wanting to loose that key demographic (those 18 to 25-year-olds who think they are free thinkers and hate the "corporation" side of America), the major studios decided to play down their status, or just create a new company entirely that would still be run by them, but just have a different name. Here's a list of a few 'indy' studios that are owned and operated by the major players in Hollywood:
Fox Searchlight: Owned by 20th Century Fox
Sony Pictures Classics: Owned by Sony Pictures
Paramount Vantage: Owned by Paramount Pictures
You get the idea. Now, I have covered this all before in an earlier rant, but I thought I'd just give you a refresher.
'But, Taylor, so what if they're releasing these movies under different company names? There's nothing wrong with that.' You're right. There is nothing wrong with that. It's so blatantly obvious what they're trying to pull off that I would have thought that most people wouldn't buy into it. But people are buying into it. Audiences around the country actually believe that what they are seeing is truly independent, and that fits in perfectly with their free-thinking, 'I-do-things-my-way' lifestyle. They call these films brilliant and oh-so original. If that's so, then let me pose a question. If these films are so original, then why do they all seem to have to follow the same basic formula, which I like to call the Indy Formula . That is, these movies usually revolve around a dysfunctional who either has an abnormal job or is an artist (unemployed) of some kind. There has to be that one quirky friend/lover/neighbor who only the main character could possibly understand and at some point in the movie, they will go on a random and usually pointless 'adventure' to truly discover who they are.
Does that fit every 'indy' flick that has come out recently? Of course not. But it does fit quite a few. And yet another question I pose to those who claim all these films are so original: why do all the fucking posters look the same? Examples:
Here's the poster from Year of the Dog:
Take notice of the minimalistic colors and pictures that look like they were drawn by a 12-year-old. Very edgy, right? Wrong.
Here's the poster from The Savages:
Wait a minute. Holy shit, they're exactly the same! But, that can't be.
The posters to these types of movies is just another part of this same sad formula of movie studios trying to dupe these people out of their money. The posters always have to have a minimalistic feel to them, the actors (if shown) must have a completely expressionless look on their face, there must be some kind of artwork involved that looks like something out of a 16-year-olds notebook, and they must show all the praise and awards the film has received from different film festivals, most of which no one has ever even heard of. More examples?
Sideways:
The Darjeeling Limited:
Perseplois:
Juno:
Okay, not the film's poster, but the entire opening credits seemed to follow this formula and I was ready to leave before they were even over. I liked the film a lot, but the cliched 'indy' feel to it made me want to puke.
Be Kind Rewind:
Napoleon Dynamite:
The one that seemed to start it all (at least in my eyes)
Before I end this, just let me add one thing. I don't really have anything against these kinds of movies themselves. It's usually the self-righteous blowhards who flock to these films and praise them for being so deep and original that get to me. So, the next time any of you feel like sharing with us your views on how original Sideways and The Savages were (for the thirty-seventh time), and before you start berating those of us who like movies that are actually good without trying so hard, just ask yourself one question: Is that movie you are so desperately trying to defend as being original and fresh really that new?
| 56 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
