Greetings folks. It’s time yet again. That marvelous time of the week when we all celebrate the return of The Audio Edition. Ok it sucks… but it’s still fun to put it up.
This week, Doug and I disvcuss Doug’s upcoming web project, the triumphant return of Mr. T to the movie world in Rocky 6, Bruce Almighty 2 being changed to Evan Almighty, the continuing troubles over at Disney, a little about A Serise of Unfortunate Events, the fact that Terry Gilliam totally choked on Brother Grimm and the myth that Indie Films are as good as Hollywood films. All this and a whole bunch more.
To gets your hands on this weeks Audio Edition just click here.
Comment with Facebook
Well if we’re using IFC as a source for independent film, then i think that may blur the line a little seeing as films such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are featured on the channel regularily. Maybe IFC is unsure about what independent film is as well? As far as The Last Broadcast, i challenge you to come up with four movies as bad as that one!
Oh come on Jay!
That’s just not true at all and you know it. If you really want to do the math… for every “Duece Bigalow” there are 4 “The Last Broadcast(s)”
And yes Jay… I subscribe to IFC (Independent Film Channel).
However, I still think the bulk of our “debate” is going to come down to a matter of interpretation of the term “Indie”. I have a sneaking feeling that once we settle that issue we’re probably going to find we’re really not that far apart.
Cheers!
~John
Riker, just curious as to what indie movies you were suckered into watching. Maybe you just saw a bad film? A bad film is a bad film, indie or hollywood. For every self-indulgent, ‘artsy fartsy’ indie film there is a Duece Bigalow.
1) Thanks for standing up for the truth about indie movies. Ive been suckered with artsy-fartsy friends to many of these and many times they seem to be praised ONLY because theyre indie. Put the exact same movie in widespread release and the exact same people praising the hidden themes will call the movie shallow and boring.
2) A “what the hell happened to disney” podcast would be interesting.
Couldn’t the argument against those people who saw five indie films and say they’re the best work in the other direction as well? Did you see five indie films and proclaim that indie films suck? I guess i’m interested in which indie films you saw that turned you off so much, cuz i know i can list a ton of hollywood films in the past year that have done the same for me.
Hey Arethusa,
I’m not sure you were listening to me. I never implied “HOLLYWOOD IS DA BEST”. I said flat out a couple of times that 70% (or more) of Hollywood films suck.
My only point is that the percentage of “suckage” is lower than that of Indie films (but then again, that will deepend on how one defines an Indie Film).
It just makes me giggle… because most of the people who weigh in on this topic (and I’m not implying this applies to you Arethusa) maybe see 5 indie films a year… liked 3 of them and then proclaim “Indie films are awesome” when in reality they didn’t lay their eyes on 99% of the indie’s made that year that sucked ass.
All I’m saying… is that when you compare the overall quality of an average Hollywood film… against the overall quality of an average Indie film… Hollywood wins.
However, like I always say. The most beautiful thing about film is the pure subjectivity of it. Cheers mate!
~John
I’m sorry I’m just so bedazzled by your “HOLLYWOOD IS DA BEST” speech that I can’t offer anything constructive. I guess it all comes down to a matter of taste (or somethin’). And I’m not even one of those “Is it an indie? Then it MUST be good” fans either.
Nice new logo.
On the subject of Indie film makers wanting their movies big, during the EIFF I talked with the Director of P and the Director of Antibodies, and they both said that they would leap at the chance of Hollywood buying the movie to remake it.
They’ve made their movie, they’re proud of it, and once you get all that money and go and see the possibly inferior Hollywood remake, they’d love to buy a ticket, go see it, and laugh. After all it’ll make people want to see the original more.
Yet they both wanted to make the movie they wanted to make, and would not want to have gone to Hollywood to start with. Unless they were allowed to make the movie they wanted to and have the same control.
An interesting off-shoot from this discussion is the way in which Hollywood studios seem to picking up indie filmmakers and throwing them at huge blockbusters based on their art house cred alone. For example, was Christopher Nolan really the right guy to direct a Batman movie, based on his previous work on Memento? Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake) quit X-Men 3 just weeks before shooting started… supposedly it was a family issue but many people have said that he clashed with the producers. And this week I read that Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash) has been hired to rewrite the new James Bond movie, Casino Royale. How do his previous movies have any relation whatsoever to a Bond flick??
Either way, just drop us a line and let us know when you’re recording the next audio edition… we’ll be there!
The same argument can be made about people who say that classic movies are the best, or that foreign films are the best. I’d be willing to say that the proportion of good movies to crap winds up being the same across every category. The reason why some would say that any of them are better is simply because we generally only see the best of independent, foreign, and classic films, and we see just about everything that hollywood puts out because they have people working to promote them. I know that there are plenty of films made overseas that will never be released here because they’re too bad to be released. There are also plenty of terrible movies that were made 50 years ago that will never be seen again because they’re that bad.
To sum it up, I agree with John that there are a lot of very bad independent films made every year, but I think that the proportion of shit to gold is about the same in both categories.
BTW, this whole conversation really makes me want to watch Cecil B. Demented. I haven’t seen that in forever.
Hey Jay,
Good analogy with the “Canadian” film. However, I think they way you presented actually strengthens my point.
Here’s what I mean… films like 21 Grams or Sunshine… they’re made with big budgets, distribution deals, major experienced Hollywood regulars both behind and in front of the camera… with the only difference being who the money came from.
Is that it? Is that what differentiates a non-indie film from an indie film? Just where the first source of money comes from?
In my opinion (which isn’t worth much), the socially understoon definition of “indie” has evolved well beyond that.
Perhaps that’s a good conversation to have. What is an “indie film”? I think you and Sean should come up for our next Audio Edition.
Cheers!
This reminds me of the debate about what makes a film Canadian.
For example, Ghostbusters. Canadian writers, Canadian director, shot mostly in Canada with a Canadian crew and a majority of Canadian actors and talent…but was produced by Columbia Pictures, therefore AMERICAN.
Independent Films…self funded through investors/grants/distribution deals, many of the crew work for free or on deferred pay, no creative involvement by major studio, much smaller marketing campaigns, limited release (even the films with big stars), independent distribution companies…BUT features an Oscar winner and a budget over 10 million, therefore studio film?
The debate rages on!
To base independent on budget turns it into a completely different beast. We’re getting further and further away from the actual meaning of being independent, which is to be funding and producing a film outside of the ‘major’ film studios. Is there some budget cap that seperates the independent from major? If movies like Eternal Sunshine or 21 Grams aren’t Independent, then what are they? They aren’t driven by the major studios, so where do they fall? What does being indpendent from major studios really have to do with star power and budget? The budget isn’t being provided by the studio, the studio doesn’t own the stars. I will agree that there are different scales of independent films, but this is mainly due to budget.
Successful indpendent studios have the budget to pay for stars like Jim Carrey to be in their films. And luckily, stars like Jim Carrey, Sean Penn, Bill Murray, Adrian Brody, etc. see the value in working outside of the studios, and even take MAJOR pay cuts to get the chance to perform in roles that studios may not think they’re right for, and to shape their characters and performances without studio execs giving notes to the director about the main character being too depressing.
Smaller independent films work exactly the same way, but with less money. They come up with the funding on their own through investors and grants and they maintain total control over the creative aspect of the film. The only difference is they have less money to pay for stars and marketing. If this is the type of film that you’re referring to, then i would say we’re talking about an argument between low-budget and big-budget productions. Even though the biggest budget on an indie film is nothing compared to the smallest budget on a studio picture.
Hey John, I can see your point about how it is silly to call certain movies “independent” (even though a $20 million budget isn’t much by Hollywood standards nowadays). However, with that established, I’m not sure I understand the original point you were trying to make on the “audio edition”.
Is it that 98% of movies with low budgets and no Hollywood stars tend to suck? While that’s still a pretty huge generalization that I disagree with, when was the last time you even saw a movie in the theatre that falls into that category?
First, I just want to agree with the previous posters, defining terms is essential. If we don’t first come up with a definition of of ‘independant film’ its hard to get anywhere.
That said, I’m going to run with the rough defintion suggested by John: a film made outside the hollywood sphere (which I don’t take to exclude films with actors that are recognizable from mainstream projects. Budget probably is relevent as big funding generally comes from big studios I take it, and such films are likely not independant)
What I want to suggest is not that indie films are better than hollywood films, but that a reason one might prefer indie films is that they are often the source fresh ideas in both technique and story, while hollywood films are not (not that there is necessaryily anything wrong with that). I would think that on average a big studio just wants to make money and is not really concerned with film as art. Art and money are not necessary exclusive, but the bottom line is that big studios just want a return on their rather large investments. As such, studios are in general not willing to take risks on new ideas which might flop, but would prefer to go with movies that follow a proven formula. Thus you get n incarnations (where n is large) of Rob Schneider movies (made fun of in a wonderful way on south park), or minor variations on comedies with Owen/Luke Wilson/Will Ferral/the other dude who essentially play the same characters (throw in any other relevent trends you can think of). People find them funny (including me) and so studios will happily make these films. Hollywood films are basically made for pop consumption.
On the other hand Independant films can take risks, and in fact the point of idependant films is in some sense to preserve and develop film as art. (Consider, Following and Momento as good candiates or Pie, and so on and so on). Sometimes this leads to sucess (Blair Witch). But that is not necessarily the point. Independent film makers can take risks and try new things because they aren’t gererally under the thumb of a studio that has poured millions into the movie. Sometimes the ideas that come from smaller films catch on and become part of hollywood films (for example, non-linear story telling).
I personally find that most Hollywood films are really really dull because they rely on old ideas that I have seen played out over and over again. Have you ever sat in a theatre knowing the following pattern will unfold: after some intitial sucess the hero is going to face a real challenge from which he/she might not escape, but then against the odds he/she will. And then tie up loose ends, movie over. It doesn’t matter the genre, it always happens. Half the time I say to myself, “dear God I never want to see that again”. Sometimes this, and other repetitive patterns, is done well or you like the characters etc., but most movies that come out in a year are mediocre at best. This is why its refreshing to go see independant films and documentaries. Its differnt. Its new. Its a breath of freakin fresh air.
To close I want to say that hollywood films can be great. Sometimes all that money goes to good use. The main problem is that there are far too many hollywood films that I know will leave no trace or impression with me when I walk out of the theatre because they simply blend in with all the other mediocre films I’ve seen in my life.
cheers
Hey Jay,
I think the term “Indie” is being given far too broad a reach here. For example, I don’t think it’s accurate to categorize films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Major Stars, huge budget of over $20 million) and 21 Grams (Also over $20 million budget with Oscar winners in the cast), under the same umbrella with Shaun of the Dead (budget of $4 million and no veterain Hollywood names other than perhaps Bill Nighy), The Blair Witch Project (with a budget of $35,000 and no Hollywood names associated with it) and Napolean Dynamite ($400,000 budget and no established Hollywoodites).
What I’m trying to say is, that to categories those 5 films all together under one umbrella of “Indie” seems to be far to braod a definition. The first two are huge budgets with well established Hollwood people… the last 3 are not. I don’t think it’s accuarate to call them by the same label.
Good discussion.
Cheers!
I’ve got to say though that the photo of you two enjoying your bickering is classic! *winks*
John, by your definition any movie with actors or directors who have experience from Hollywood productions cannot be defined as “independent”. This means you’re mostly limited to first time directors (except for the few who shun Hollywood throughout their whole careers). Obviously if the people involved are less experienced, the quality of the movies is going to suffer.
I think the other problem with your argument is that you’re assuming that any worthwhile independent movie doesn’t really *want* to be independent… it just got passed up by the major studios so the filmmaker had no other options. Some filmmakers do prefer to finance their own movies and not have the movie be controlled by marketing concerns. That is the difference between art and commerce, and while sometimes they intersect, I don’t think I’d call the majority of Hollywood movies “art”. Just more food for thought…
Is it possible that ‘Independent Film’ is being confused with “Amateur Film”??
Well to use The Pianist as an example, aside from Adrian Brody starring, it’s pretty far from a Hollywood film seeing as Roman Polanski is a fugitive and isn’t allowed to set foot in the United States. But there are lots of factors. Some ‘indie studios’ are subsidiaries of majors, but usually this is for distribution purposes. Mirimax is a good example of an indie that’s very involved in ‘hollywood’, but many of their earlier films are truely independent. I think the ‘sphere of hollywood’ is probably even harder, if not impossible, to define then independent film.
Jay brings up a really good question. What is it was actually mean when we say “Independant Film”?
Different people has different deninitions. The most litteral application would be any film not made by one of the major studios.
However, other people, like myself, would define it as film done outside of the sphere of Hollywood.
For example, if we look at one of the films on Jay’s list, The Pianist, it may have not been backed by one of the major studios… but it’s littered with Hollywood people. A budget of over $35 million and directed by Roman Polanski. It may not be a “studio” film… but it IS a Hollywood film.
So yeah… I think Jay is right. A large portion of this debate will hinge on what one consideres an “Indie Film”.
Cheers!
Hey Ben.
It is a podcast. The link for the feed on at the bottom of the side bar in the “Movie Blog Feeds” box.
Cheers!
Hello,
Why don’t you make this a podcast thing? Good idea or…
Just one more thing, i’m not an indie snob. My favourite movie of last year was Spiderman 2.
Hello friends. Jay from Spacejunk.
Just a commment on the independent film topic. What exactly are you referring to as being an ‘Independent Film’? Star Wars Episodes 1-3 are technically independent films, and i know John was a big fan of Episode 3. Actually, here’s a pretty good list of some significant independent films taken from Wikipedia.com:
Pink Flamingos (John Waters, 1972)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Milos Forman, 1975)
Eraserhead (David Lynch, 1977)
Return of the Secaucus 7 (John Sayles, 1980)
She’s Gotta Have It (Spike Lee, 1986)
Sex, Lies and Videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989)
Slacker (Richard Linklater, 1991)
El Mariachi (Robert Rodriguez, 1992)
Clerks (Kevin Smith, 1994)
Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino , 1994)
The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez, 1999)
Garden State (Zach Braff, 2004)
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Open Water (2004)
Might want to glance over this list of only a handful of significant Independent Films Studios as well:
Lions Gate:
Saw
Saw 2
Crash
Grizzly Man
Beyond the Sea
Devil’s Rejects
House of 1000 Corpses
Open Water
Dogma
American Psycho
Faranheit 9/11
Focus Features:
The Pianist
Far from Heaven
Swimming Pool
Lost in Translation
21 Grams
Ned Kelly
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Gosford Park
Shaun of the Dead
Seed of Chucky
The Motorcycle Diaries
The Door in the Floor
Brokeback Mountain
The Constant Gardener
My Summer of Love
Sony Classics:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
The Fog of War
The Triplets of Belleville
The Statement
Dogtown and Z-Boys
House of Flying Daggers
2046
Memoirs of a Geisha
Kung Fu Hustle
Fine Line:
American Splendor
Dancer in the Dark
Gummo
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
Spanking the Monkey
ThinkFilm:
Murderball
Primer
The Assassinatin of Richard Nixon
As far as independent films not having the best resources (mainly crew) at their disposal, this isn’t always the case. Many high profile cinematographers, actors etc. work on indie films simply based on the quality of the scripts or directors. Also, indpendently produced films are more likely to find their way to the finish line without as much interference as they may find with a studio. It’s not uncommon that films are made or distributed independently by choice based on contreversial content that studios won’t touch (Dogma, Faranheit 9/11, American Psycho), not simply because the filmmakers aren’t talented enough to be a part of a major studio environment.
There’s a reason why Spiderman 2 is made by a major studio and Lost in Translation isn’t. It’s all practicality, relevance and business. You use a hand saw to cut branches and a power saw to cut down the entire tree.
My two cents.
Jay