Yes, y'all at home watching IFC, checking out parker posey/chris eigemann fansites, closet Sundance appearances allthewhile suspectly buying other genres to boost your ILF cred... you are among the first to bash "Indie-Films: The Genre"?
Peer pressure? Diseased with cinematic fashion? is this a po-mo "ironic" move like the fleeting american pie/braveheart fixations of yesteryear?
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)
Indie film to me is John Cassavetes.
Indie film to me is not yet another film about a 20- (or 30-) something who doesn't know what to do with his/her life, love, career, etc.
Don't get me wrong -- I honestly believe the indie spirit is alive and well. It's just been co-opted by Miramax, Sundance and pals.
Right now, most indie filmmakers are still in their soapbox mode -- everybody's got a story to tell about their particular 'group' and gosh darn it, they're gonna do it. Perhaps one day they'll get back to actually making films.
And I do love Parker Posey. However, having her in your film might bring you some indie-cred, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've made a decent film.
― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)
At the same time, I don't resist them at all, and truth be told, they still constitute a fairly sizable portion of my total viewing.
But is it just me, or was there a heyday for indie films about 5 years ago that seems to have dropped off dramatically? I mean, during the summer of 1998 alone I saw and enjoyed The Opposite of Sex, The Spanish Prisoner, Buffalo '66, Love and Death on Long Island, High Art, Your Friends and Neighbors, and Pecker.
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)
i guess i view "indie" film as having the same fall as punk rock did(or, more recently, indie rock)--it was commercially and socially assimilated (i.e. grandmas with mohawks in tv commercials) to the point that it lost all meaning. and even more importantly, it failed to evolve, thus the "punk" movement became exactly the opposite of what it's name portrays--where it should have been dynamic it became stagnant, where it should have found the status quo, it became the status quo. Today's "punks" are in the IDM scene, or (dare i say) new emo.
The same thing happened with independent film. Jem Cohen had some really good comments about the state of independent film when something like "The English Patient" is described as "indie"--huge budget, cliched storyline, but it grew from outside the studio structure.
I think I started a post on this site about trying to find a new genre name for "indie" film, and i still think were in desperate need. dogme95 has been the closest thing to it that i can remember.
― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)
RG: It’s interesting that the idea of ‘independent’ filmmaking has become a genre in itself.
JC: Well, it’s one of those terms that has been made meaningless like ‘alternative’ music. It’s a nauseatingly meaningless term now that people talk about The English Patient (1996) as an independent film. That is a really bad joke to me. But there is ‘independent’ film. Just not in the way that it is usually referred to. And there always has been and there always will be. Filmmaking is many different things and there is no reason why it should be so identified with ‘big’ movies or narrative movies. And ‘independence’, to some degree, is really just a state of mind. People like John Cassavetes made the most fiercely independent movies of all time and not just because he was working outside of the Hollywood system in many respects but, really, because of what he was after.
― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)
Gygax I will get you for this.
― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)
― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Thursday, 22 January 2004 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)
The problem isn't "indie film" per se but its application to films that only actually offer a low-gloss version of classic, protagonist-centric Hollywood narrative conventions. I mean... hey, let's start with the most boring aspect of most Hollywood films and reject formalist pleasures = ?!
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 22 January 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)
Maybe some of the faint hostility comes from those who use the term "indie film" as a none-too-veiled slam at studio films.
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 22 January 2004 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)
I think that's exactly what the problem is, Eric. The term "indie" has lost all meaning, other than being an alternative to Hollywood-style filmmaking. And a lot of it truly has become Hollywood garbage minus the budget and glossy imagery. It's pretty disappointing, given what American independent filmaking was during the late '50's and early '60's, and again during the late '80's and early '90s. Apparently we'll have to wait until 2029 for another strong American independent film movement....
― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Thursday, 22 January 2004 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)
Miramax to shutter
http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/rip-miramax-13606
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 January 2010 19:36 (sixteen years ago)
New Yorker Films catalog picked up:
http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/indie-film-distributor-gets-new-life/
― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 12:39 (sixteen years ago)