Independent Films

What is "Independent Film"?

The answer to that question today in 2007 is certainly a different prospect than it was in the 1970's when pioneers such as John Cassavetes burst onto the American cinematic landscape and certainly anything written here is not the definitive definition of "Independent Film", merely a guide as to the types of "independent films" we support at IndependentFilms.org

Today, the terms "Independent Film" and "Indie Film" have been co-opted by the major studios in much the same way that the Rap music movement of the late 70's - early 80's which originally was meant as an expressive voice to those that had none in the mainstream media, has today been hijacked by Madison Avenue and the big music labels.

Today, virtually every major studio has lept onto the independent film bandwagon with their own boutique indie film divisions. Disney with Mirimax, 20th Century Fox has Fox Searchlight, Warner Brothers and Warner Independent etc.

The fundamental question then becomes; does the fact that some "independent films" which are actually emanating from the major studios, in some way disqualify them for lack of a better word from being able to use the moniker- Indie Films?

As with anything else, the answer depends on how you define the question.

For some, independent film is defined as just that... an "independent film"- written and produced with autonomy from any major studio's interference. For others, the overall budget and content is given more weight- e.g. a personal, character driven film versus an action blockbuster.

In our opinion the primary deciding factor in discerning whether a film is independent in nature or not is whether the filmmaker is unencumbered by interference from an external force, namely studio executives and the like. This does not mean that cooperation with a studio is a bad thing, just that within the framework of that cooperation, the directors vision is not distilled.

In the example of Hotel Rwanda which was distributed eventually by MGM/United Artists, Director Terry George initially struggled with financing in part because of his insistance on Don Cheadle starring in the lead role and was only able to be produced with funds from various other sources.

This is why the answer to our question is so complex and why to a large degree the answer depends not so much on whether a independent film was "distributed" eventually by a major studio, but whether it was "produced" independently, and the writer/directors original intent maintained.

This is a differentiation that the average film viewer may not fully understand but is well understood by filmmakers. Most people think that the studio that eventually puts it's name on the finished product and distributes it is the one who actually "produced" the film which, while true 50 years ago in the old studio system is rarely the case today.

This is also true for virtually all independent films that are discovered at film festivals that were produced independently but later picked up and distributed by a major studio or one of thier boutique labels.

Some have noted the co-mingling of independent film with the major studios as a harbinger of the death of indie film; however with the advent of the internet and online movies combined with digital video so commonplace to the average person now we can only echo the very first words ever spoken in a full length feature film nearly 80 years ago: "You ain't heard nothin' yet!"