Has the term "independent film" lost its meaning?

[Guestx]

@Reyesnuthugr and I were just talking about indie films and it got to me thinking: Has the term "independent film" lost its meaning? I don't mean its technical meaning, but more so its meaning in the popular sense that the phrase is often used.

To quote Wikipedia:

An independent film or indie film is a feature film that is produced outside of the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment agencies.

Okay, got it. Right?

But I think that when many filmgoers talk about "indie films," especially those not well-versed in the technicalities of the film industry, they're more so talking about films that were made outside of ANY studio system, not just the major studios.

For instance, Foxcatcher is considered an independent film, despite its $24 million budget, cast of well-known actors, and production by Annapurna Pictures, who also produced (usually in conjunction with other studios, in some cases the majors) films like American Hustle and Zero Dark Thirty.

Or to offer another example, take something like 2014's Nightcrawler. It's regarded as an independent film, despite its $8.5 million budget, cast of big names like Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Russo, and production by Bold Films, who also produced other high-profile movies like Drive and Whiplash.

Contrast those films with films that have sub-$1 million budgets, no known stars and the "production company" consists of a few people who have some gear and enough filmmaking knowledge to, by sheer force of will and ability, pull the project together.

I'm talking about films like Sound of My Voice, which was made for a reported $135,000 by writer/director Zal Batmanglij, who studied film at Georgetown University and then just hustled to pull some money together and make his movie. Or Primer, made with a non-union cast and crew for $7,000 down in Dallas by local filmmaker Shane Carruth. Or perhaps the most famous example of independent filmmaking, The Blair Witch Project, made for $60,000 by a couple of guys with Hi-8 video cameras and an imaginative idea.

So to return to my original question, has the term "independent film" lost its meaning in this age when the major studios are working so closely with "independent" production companies on movies like Foxcatcher, Room and Looper? And do we need some new way of referring to projects that have no ties at all, in any form, to the Hollywood machine and that are made by truly independent filmmaking teams?

To be clear, I'm not disputing that a film like Foxcatcher is in fact an independent film by the technical definition of the term. I suppose what I am doing is asking if the term is too broad, and whether or not we need some more specific way to refer to films like Primer and The Blair Witch Project, when there is a wider gulf on a multitude of levels between films those and a film like Foxcatcher, than there is between Foxcatcher and a film like, oh, I dunno, let's say Sully.

 

[Guestx]

Allow me to muddy the waters a little bit more and show exactly how Hollywood is fucking with us with this term "independent film." Again, quoting Wiki:

The 1990s saw the rise and success of independent films not only through the film festival circuit but at the box office as well while established actors, such as Bruce Willis, John Travolta, and Tim Robbins, found success themselves both in independent films and Hollywood studio films. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 1990 from New Line Cinema grossed over $100 million in the United States making it the most successful indie film in box-office history to that point. Miramax Films had a string of hits with Sex, Lies, and Videotape, My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown, and Clerks, putting Miramax and New Line Cinema in the sights of big companies looking to cash in on the success of independent studios. In 1993, Disney bought Miramax for $60 million. Turner Broadcasting, in a billion-dollar deal, acquired New Line Cinema, Fine Line Features, and Castle Rock Entertainment in 1994. The acquisitions proved to be a good move for Turner Broadcasting as New Line released The Mask and Dumb & Dumber, Castle Rock released The Shawshank Redemption, and Miramax released Pulp Fiction, all in 1994.

The acquisitions of the smaller studios by conglomerate Hollywood was a plan in part to take over the independent film industry and at the same time start independent studios of their own. The following are all indie studios owned by conglomerate Hollywood:

• Sony Pictures Classics (1992-)
• Fox Searchlight Pictures (1995-)
• Paramount Vantage (1998-2013)
• Focus Features (2002-)
• Warner Independent Pictures (2003-2008) [20]

By the early 2000s, Hollywood was producing three different classes of films: 1) big-budget blockbusters, 2) art films, specialty films and niche-market films produced by the conglomerate-owned indies and 3) genre and specialty films coming from true indie studios and producers. The third category comprised over half the features released in the United States and usually cost between $5 and $10 million to produce.

So the major studios spun off smaller so-called "independent" studios to make "independent" films . . . but these studios were/are still owned and controlled by their major parent studios.

Makes sense.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

A true independent film is like a 5 hour movie about a Palestinian girls coming of age story and her first period.


With subtitles

Count me out

 

[mb23100]

Yep just like "based on a true story" or "from the director who brought you the sixth sense"

 

[Thai Domi]

A true independent film is like a 5 hour movie about a Palestinian girls coming of age story and her first period.


With subtitles

Count me out

 

[BEER]

Allow me to muddy the waters a little bit more and show exactly how Hollywood is fucking with us with this term "independent film." Again, quoting Wiki:



So the major studios spun off smaller so-called "independent" studios to make "independent" films . . . but these studios were/are still owned and controlled by their major parent studios.

Makes sense.

Yeah, I was going to say that most mainstream "independent films" are produced by the major studios under different names.

 

[Organic Damage]

I wouldn't say a film has to star a nobody to be truely independent... Hobo with a Shotguy starred Rutger Hauer but that was not IIRC made with any studio backing.

But yeah, the whole "indie" label has become just another marketing tactic for films with non-traditional subject matter and non-existent budgets. Isn't "arthouse" a better descriptor nowadays?

 

[milliniar]

The phantom menace is considered an independent film...

 

[minute bull]

No it hasn't.

 

[Leonard Haid]

The key here is in the word "independent". In the past, "independent" as in "independent film" had a definite cinematic definition. But because the word "independent" not only means different things to different people, but is a very important word and concept in American culture overall, it caused the term "independent film" to explode out of its confined cinematic definition. People take the term very personally now, whether they're in the industry or just film aficionados. I even have my own take on what an independent film is - a film that has had zero pressure from producers, advertisers, anyone outside the core vision of the creative artists responsible for it, to conform in any way.

 

[GORETAURO]

You don't care this Palestinian girl is counting on a sequel to make a living???

 

[Matt M]

I know a couple of people who have recently made what I'd call genuine independent films.

A guy called Liam Regan made a film called 'Banjo'. He's balls deep in cult horror, stuff like Troma, so not really my thing but he's talented.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Independent film means that it was financed by resources not necessarily connected to the industry. If the movie becomes successful the studios pick it up for distribution.

 

[orangecuse]

In regards to the channel IFC yes. I see big budget movies like Speed on there all the time.

Same with AMC. Does it still stand for American Movie Classics. Because I've seen some straight garbage movies played on there.

 

[I Am Legion]

To me Independent is a small budget with unknown actors.

 

[Pliny Pete]

Allow me to muddy the waters a little bit more and show exactly how Hollywood is fucking with us with this term "independent film." Again, quoting Wiki:



So the major studios spun off smaller so-called "independent" studios to make "independent" films . . . but these studios were/are still owned and controlled by their major parent studios.

Makes sense.

Sounds like whats going on in the craft beer industry right now

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

what do you consider to be an Independent film?

for me, it would have be very low budget, no major movie studio bank rolling it...with newbie actors..

I would consider a film like Clerks to be an indie film.

 

[LOST CAUSE]

Whenever a film is labeled as an Indie I look for the budget to make sure...

Truth lies in the numbers as big corporations try to take over every aspect of Hollyweird.

 

[freaky]

Yea it's a sham. It used to mean independent. A small company. The problem is these major hollywood studios see how much support they get, so they make a small fake indie studio to produce films. Don't fall for it.

 

[Guestx]

I wouldn't say a film has to star a nobody to be truely independent... Hobo with a Shotguy starred Rutger Hauer but that was not IIRC made with any studio backing.

No, I wouldn't say a film HAS to star a nobody to be independent at all, but when you see a cast with major stars it's a red flag that the film had some kind of connection to the big studios that you wouldn't expect from a truly independent operation.

But yeah, the whole "indie" label has become just another marketing tactic for films with non-traditional subject matter and non-existent budgets. Isn't "arthouse" a better descriptor nowadays?

Yeah, I think arthouse is better as it's focused solely on the style of film and subject matter therein, and makes no implicit claims regarding the films ties to major Hollywood studios.