American Independent Cinema: Defining the Great Line
Defining Independent Cinema.
What exactly is independent cinema? How can such a broad topic be narrowed down to a simple definition? Truthfully, it can’t. Any one person can have their own unique definition of independent film and chances are, they’re correct in some way or another. Independent cinema has been around for generations and has been presented in many forms ranging from the experimental to the micro budget features. It has evolved over the past century, which may contribute to the lack of a sound definition, and has gone from being an actual industry to being just another genre in the flow of mainstream Hollywood.
The First Indepedents.
Originally, independent cinema was not an attempt at creating stylistically different films. The creation of the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC), or The Trust, in 1909 was an attempt by Edison to monopolize the film industry. Along with The Trust came its own distributing company, the General Film Company. Fearing that they would be overrun and destroyed by The Trust, many filmmakers continued their practices, which were then considered to be illegal. To battle the MPPC, an independent distributing company was created, the Sales Company. It is obvious from these accounts that early independent films were not meant to be stylistically different but rather were “a reaction to any attempt towards monopolization of the film industry” (Tzioumakis 23).
Just because independents of those days were called so merely because they were outside the mainstream market does not mean that they didn’t do different things with their films. These independent companies gained public favor by giving the public what they wanted. If the people wanted to see more of a certain “movie star,” independents like Carl Laemmle showed more of that star. It can be argued that the MPPC adopted the star system in response to “practices initiated by independents and not to the signs of the times” (Tzioumakis 23). Independents were also the first to take advantage of producing the first feature length films. Multi-reel films were able to entertain audiences, but Adolph Zukor’s film Queen Elizabeth paved the way for the eventual triumph of the feature length film format as the mainstay in American cinema (Tzioumakis 24).
Dealing With the Studio System.
The death of The Trust left an open door, which was filled by Adolph Zucker, looking to capitalize on the wounded market. Zukor took his product, made through his Famous Players Company, and distributed it through Paramount, owned by W. W. Hodkinson. Zukor took advantage of this new distribution system and soon found himself taking over Paramount along with his business partner, Jesse Laskey. It was under the ownership of Zukor and Laskey that the practice of block booking was born. This practice was looked upon with skepticism and actually aided independent films in being distributed to first-run theaters. This opposition of certain theaters helped to define independent cinema of this time as, once again, an opposition to studio bullies trying to dominate the market. The next decade would be “defined by endless corporate battles, mergers and takeovers as other companies, in all three branches of the film business, tried to emulate Zukor’s example to stay in the game” (Tzioumakis 26).
Following a period of cutthroat deals and massive oligopolies came the second period of Studio Era films, the era of Poverty Row. Although there were some high-end independent companies during this time, most, usually small-scale, were dead almost as fast as they came alive. Two innovations helped keep many companies alive during the Great Depression, the advent of sound and the introduction of the double bill scheme. Both became popular and increased the demand for films exponentially. Between 1929 and 1934, “the number of (low-end) independents almost doubled” (Tzioumakis 66).
Following the Great Depression, independent companies of Poverty Row flourished and experienced a ‘golden era’ of sorts. Monogram and Republic, in particular, had become big players in the independent scene and, although they weren’t matching profits like the Big 5, (Paramount, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and RKO) they were coming close to matching the Little 3 (Columbia, Universal, and United Artists). The reason for this increased success, at least in the late-1930s and 1940s was their use of the double bill scheme and block booking. These companies would continue to flourish until, in 1948, the Supreme Court would declare many practices employed by the Big 5, Paramount in particular, illegal. Although many independent companies supported this case, only the high-end companies would make it out alive. The companies of Poverty Row were all but dead.
Goodbye Studio System, Hello Studio Independents.
The decline of the Studio System opened the door for independent individuals like Ed Wood and John Cassavetes, but as well for new independent studios like American International Pictures (AIP). AIP produced films that catered specifically to youths, referred to as the newly coined term ‘teenagers.’ Because these youths now had cars, AIP would produce a multitude of independent films to send out to drive-ins all around the country. The most popular of AIP’s filmmakers would be Roger Corman. By making films aimed directly at the youth, “independent filmmaking of the 1950s and 1960s can claim to be performing the social function that low-end independents during the studio era performed, catering for the audiences excluded by mainstream cinema” (Tzioumakis 148).
Roger Corman would continue to make films in record time for AIP for years. His mark was left in many different ways, the first being the creation of the biker movie. The Wild Angels, released in 1966, started a craze that would continue for a decade. Second, he can be viewed as the poster child for exploitation film, having made more than half of them during the 60s, and third, Roger Corman is responsible for such filmmakers as Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather), Martin Scorsese (Mean Streets), and James Cameron (Terminator). Although his films were aimed at a specific audience, Roger Corman sent a wave through the film industry, affecting all it hit, that would be felt for years to come.
From Experimental to Personal.
During the 1930s and extending into the 1950s, Avant-Garde films were all about experimenting. Whatever the filmmaker thought to do that would make interesting viewing material, they would throw it into a semi-structured short film. Beginning in the mid-1950s and certainly in the 1960s, these films changed from being experimental, “which implied that the films were only tentative attempts, and became personal films, individual films, and independent films” (Holmlund 35). Unfortunately, using these terms to define Avant-Garde cinema didn’t hold up when placed next to the ‘personal films’ of auteurs like Alfred Hitchcock. Replacing terms like ‘individual’ and ‘independent’ came terms like ‘New American Cinema’ and ‘underground.’
For the next decade, independent filmmakers were not looked at as outsiders, but rather they were viewed as living within the margins. Filmmakers like Coppola and Scorsese, having developed into their own style after Roger Corman, began making their own product. Scorsese came out with his independent hit Mean Streets in 1973 and joined the likes of mainstream heavy hitters that would come to include Steven Spielberg and George Lucas.
The 1970s.
Independent films lost some thunder in the 70s as “the majors turned their attentions toward milking bigger profits out of fewer films, focusing on the ‘blockbusters’ that came to symbolize Hollywood in the 1970s” (Holmlund 42). The birth of blockbuster films with the release of Jaws once again marked a change in the film industry. The popularity of blockbusters was cemented in 1977 when Star Wars hit theaters. Even though the majors were producing fewer films during this era, their product still accounted for ninety percent of annual film releases. With the remaining ten percent still up in the air, independents competed to keep their audiences. These trends have become responsible “for what has been termed ‘the notorious product shortage of the mid-70s, which left exhibitors with fewer films than ever to show, and tended as never before to delineate ‘specialized audiences as the province of the independent companies” (Holmlund 42).
Not all was grim for independents, however, as Dimension Pictures, formed in 1971, somehow flourished during this harsh time. The company would experience better returns with each passing year until suffering from a barrage of lawsuits from multiple sources. The company filed for bankruptcy in 1981 and with its demise ‘marks the end of one of the most interesting sub-chapters of film history: the one involving the exploitation film as a kind of alternative system flourishing in the gaps left open by the Hollywood majors” (Holmlund 50).
A Trendy New Cinema.
The 1980s are monumental for a number of reasons, one being the disappearance of Avant-Garde cinema, another being the appearance of a new, trendy independent cinema. But the most prevalent reason is that independent films finally began to develop into what viewers know them as today: gritty, alternative, and aesthetic critiques on the world around them. These new, alternative films put heavy emphasis on the ordinary rather than the extraordinary. Many independent films were based on regular, middle-class people going along with their everyday lives. Films like Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger Than Paradise (1984) and Richard Linklater’s Slakcer (1991) became big hits with the ‘underground’ crowd, what viewers of the mainstream would call a ‘cult hit.’
Independent film of this time made a huge impact by questioning the validity of the myth known as the American Dream, “You can do anything you want to if you put your mind to it and try hard enough.” Many films of this time, rather than showing the protagonist, or some troubled character, going through a realization and becoming a better person, showed the character leaving just the same as when they came. Some films even went as far as to outright say that “life is half hard work and half luck; and even if you’ve gotten straight As in school that’s no guarantee of success. The best you can do is just try to do what you can…” (DeMott Seventeen).
Filmmakers of this era would shoot their films with low-class equipment, giving them a grainy look and feel, not only because they had low budget constraints but also because they actually wanted to use that film stock. Pulling from many sources, including the Italian Neorealist movement, the French New Wave, and even zombie master George A. Romero, independent flicks of the 1980s told a story not only through their plot, but also through their style and picture quality.
Sundance, Miramax, and the Golden Child.
Formed in 1980, the Sundance Institute was the product of hotshot actor Robert Redford. The Institute was meant to help budding independent filmmakers get off the ground and held and annual workshop, the June Laboratory, which was meant to bring independent filmmakers together in a big conference. In 1984, Redford acted and assimilated the failing United States Film Festival, thereby renaming the Sundance Film Festival, or Sundance for short. From then on, independent films of all sorts, from all walks of life, were screened at the annual film festival in Park City, Utah. Such icons as the Coen Bros. got their big break at Sundance.
It wasn’t until five years after the inception of Sundance that it became solidified as the premiere film festival in the Western Hemisphere. Steven Soderbergh’s sex, lies and videotape screened at Sundance in 1989 and forever changed the landscape of the modern ‘American Indie.’ This film inspired two realizations in Hollywood; the first was among everyday people seeing this film and developing an “I can do that” attitude, causing a rise in truly independent production. The second realization was among major producers seeing the popularity of these independent hits and shifting their practices to capitalize on them.
The success of sex, lies and videotape also propelled other struggling independent films into a wave of popularity. Linklater’s Slacker is among the films in discussion. Other independents on the rise would include Hal Hartley (The Unbelievable Truth) and Whit Stillman (Metropolitan). Other doors were opened for filmmakers after sex, lies and videotape, including the rise in gay and lesbian films. Many films of the New Queer Cinema made appearances at Sundance including: Jennie Livingston’s Paris in Burning, Todd Hayne’s Poison, and Greg Araki’s The Living End.
The next time that a new generation of filmmakers would be influenced to get their product to screen would come in 1992 when Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs left a mark on independent film history that can still be seen today. This film would showcase scenes of intense violence juxtaposed with comedic spins and gangsters who were portrayed as normal people per their conversations about general popular culture. “Tarantino once asked a full room of people what his influence had been. The guy responded, ‘I’ll tell you exactly what’s going on. In Bad Boys, there’s a scene were two gangsters are talking about an I Love Lucy episode. That would not have happened if you had never been born’” (Mottram 30).
Two years after the critical success of Reservoir Dogs, Quentin Tarantino would ensure his status as the next big thing with Pulp Fiction, an adrenaline fueled, non-linear epic that would forever redefine ‘independent cinema.’ Distributed by Miramax, formerly owned by Bob and Harvey Weinstein, Pulp Fiction would be the birth of independent-spirited films. What makes Tarantino’s masterpiece such a universal hit is its appeal to all audiences, “combining elements that appealed to a diverse range of filmgoers. With its art house narrative structure, B-movie subject matter and Hollywood cast, the film is the axis for three distinct cinematic traditions to intersect” (Mottram 75). With the help of Miramax, now owned by Disney, Pulp Fiction was released on a wide scale to an already buzzing community and pulled in an astonishing $200 million return, quite a feat for an ‘independent film.’
Although the Weinstein’s started their company with the purpose of helping independent filmmakers, they soon became a powerhouse and essentially turned into a major studio. With some help from Disney, being that they purchased the company, and Tarantino, Miramax became the ‘go-to’ company for independent filmmakers on the rise. Miramax helped Tarantino and Tarantino helped Miramax. They released his film and his film gave them returns beyond their wildest dreams, which then got Miramax the nickname “The House That Quentin Built.”
Independence for the Future.
Following Tarantino-mania, the New Queer Cinema dominated independent film of the nineties along with the short-lived Dogma95 films. The 21st century welcomed independent film with open arms, especially 2002, in which independent films dominated awards season. In 2002 alone “Chicago (Marshall), Gangs of New York (Scorsese), Far From Heaven (Haynes), The Pianist (Polanski), Frida (Taymor), My Big Fat Greek Wedding (Zwick), and Bolwing for Columbine (Moore) dominated nominations and awards at the 2003 Oscars” (Holmlund 1).
The line between major production and independent production has become very fine and very blurred over the past half century. Even though Gangs of New York had a budget greater than $100 million and was headed up by heavyweight Martin Scorsese, it is still considered an independent film, easily attributable to its connection with Miramax, “the largest distributor of independent film” as they like to refer to themselves as.
Despite such popular flicks, there are still underground independent filmmakers struggling to get their films to screen. So what does this mean for the future of independent cinema? Currently on the verge of a new New Wave, Hollywood’s independents, or Indiewood, look to remain the same. Since the 1980s there have been independent filmmakers who have stayed true to their roots, John Sayles and Jim Jarmusch, and those who have integrated themselves into mainstream Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. Despite the blurred lines, there are still forms of independence that continue to exist “that remain separate from Hollywood, resisting its pull either by choice or because Hollywood is willing to embrace only a limited quota of genuine novelty, and then only often when underwritten by the guarantee provided by a ‘star’ director’s name, or by the stars attracted by the presence of such figures” (King 262).
Works Cited
Holmlund, Chris, and Justin Wyatt. Contemporary American Independent Film:
From the Margins to the Mainstream. New York: Routledge, 2005.
King, Geoff. American Independent Cinema. Indiana: Indiana Universtiy Press,
2005.
Mottram, James. The Sundance Kids: How the Mavericks Took Back Hollywood.
New York: Faber and Faber, Inc., 2006.
Tzioumakis, Yannis. American Independent Cinema: An Introduction. New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press, 2006.
