Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.

com

rA D I CA LLY d I FFE RE N T OR A sU B -SE CT I ON OF h OLLY W OOD - A lOOK A T

T H E ‘I N D E P E N D E N T ’ sE CT OR OF a M E RI CA N f I LM .

Here I will be looking at the ‘independent’ sector of American cinema, and

looking at its relation to Hollywood mainstream cinema. I will be discussing the
similarities and differences between the two in order to establish whether these
two categories of cinema are indeed radically different or more examples of the
Hollywood mainstream being presented in a slightly different package.
It is firstly pertinent to define the term ‘radically different’ so as to ensure
clarity within the arguments presented. “Radical” is defined in the Cambridge
English Dictionary as “relating to the most important parts of something or
someone; complete or extreme“ and, as a result, we shall take “radically different”
on this case to mean films which are extremely different to those produced by the
Hollywood mainstream in its most important and fundamental aspects of form and
convention.
Before I can attempt to compare the two however, it is important to
establish what can actually be considered to be Hollywood mainstream and
American Independent Cinema. This is of particular importance as the term
Independent is something of a bone of contention amongst scholars and critics
with both a more literal and a more liberal definition being proposed from different
sources.
Firstly, the “Hollywood mainstream” can be considered to be a film
produced and distributed by the “New Hollywood… conglomerates and
multinational corporations” (Lane, 2000, p.29) that make up the “major studios”
(McCrisken and Pepper, 2005, p.166) who produce “high concept films” (Berra,
2008, p.58) according to “traditional, audience-pleasing formulae”. (Quart and
Auster, 2002, p.170)
Somewhat more simply, the country of origin for a film is decided by the
International Federation of Film Archives using “the country of the principal offices
of the Production Company or individual by whom the moving image work was
made” (anon, 1999) and as a result a film is American if its director and/or the
company financing it are based in the United States.

1
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

As for defining the term “Independent Cinema”, it is less clear-cut. Greg

Merritt for example, in his book ‘Celluloid Mavericks: A History of American
Independent Film’ takes the former approach to defining the term, stating that an
independent film is ‘any motion picture financed and produced completely
autonomous of all studios, regardless of size’. (2000, p.xii)
Others however describe American Independent Cinema using a more
liberal definition that Merritt dismisses as ‘too slippery’, the “belief that
independence is determined not by financing but… by professing an alternative
vision”, an idea that he concedes is “widely held”. (2000, p.xii) It is this “widely
held” definition of American Independent Cinema that will be considered here, with
some consideration being given to texts having different amounts of independence
from the studios and the mainstream.
As Geoff King says when defining independent cinema, “independent… is a
space that exists between the more familiar-conventional mainstream and the
more radical departures of the avant-garde or the underground”. (2005, p.10)
Therefore, whilst consideration must be given to the avant-garde and underground
cinema complete autonomy from the system sometimes produces; the focus of the
here shall be on the middle ground for the most part.
As their names suggest, and the above definitions outline, American
Independent Cinema is something which operates outside of the mainstream and
most common route of film production. Yet, despite this, its ability to occupy the
aforementioned “space” comes through its ability to offer something different
whilst retaining enough similarity to mainstream conventions to ensure audiences
aren’t alienated. In fact, even this space is squeezed with Geoff King noting that
mainstream Hollywood cinema also tries to offer “difference-within-similarity” with
“the distinguishing feature of the independent sector being the greater potential
scope for difference”. (2005, p. 166)
Points of comparison can be found prominently within the narrative
structure and cinematic conventions that are shared by many films from within
both the independent sector of cinema and the Hollywood mainstream.
When discussing narrative himself John Berra notes how in Hollywood
mainstream cinema “narratives are largely interchangeable… audiences keep

2
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

paying to see films they have already seen”. (2008, p.57) It makes sense therefore
to say one of the appeals of independent cinema is that it provides a “greater
potential scope” for some new narratives which the audience can follow.
However, if Christopher Brooker (2004) is right in saying that there are only
seven basic plots, there is only a limited amount of variation independent cinema
can provide in that respect. We must therefore consider what “difference-within-
similarity” that independent cinema can offer, bearing in mind that it has the
“greater potential scope for difference” it is perhaps unsurprising that Berra states
“independent cinema expects films that possess a certain level of novelty” (2008,
p.201) as this ability to offer something radical and different seems to be what
separates it from the mainstream.
This novelty can come in many different forms. ‘Napoleon Dynamite’ (2004)
for example is different from the mainstream with regards to the way the narrative
progresses from scene to scene and how some elements are never explained. The
scene in the dojo appears a little strange being there at all, even when the dojo
guru later reappears. Similarly, the fact there is a llama in the garden is something
the audience just has to accept, despite its unconventionality as it’s from this
different style much of the comedy derives.
In a similar manner, Harmony Korine’s ‘Gummo’ (1997) appears to jump
from one scene to the next in a somewhat ad-hoc manner, although it does so in a
far more extreme way which leads it to appear aimless and thrown together at
times. However, the director was doing this in an express effort “to invent a new
film… [that] hasn't been seen in a real commercial context”, (Kelley, 1997)
something which would be radically different.
Similarly different, ‘Palindromes’ (2004) has a novelty by virtue of the fact
that numerous different actors portray its main protagonist Aviva over the course of
the film. Her character remains the same throughout the text, yet her
representation on screen shifts wildly with her age, race and gender all fluctuating
during the course of the movie. These latter two films provide a far less accessible
watch to the audience than that found within the narrative structure of ‘Napoleon
Dynamite’, let alone anything within the Hollywood mainstream. This does
however go some way toward demonstrating the capabilities of independent

3
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

cinema to provide an alternative to traditional narrative structures and

representations of them as opposed to just the stories themselves, ranging in from
more mainstream methods to more radical ones.
Still, many of the most recent high profile independent films, including the
aforementioned ‘Napoleon Dynamite’, would certainly not be considered
independent by Greg Merritt’s definition but fall into the grey area that is termed
‘Indiewood’ cinema; cinema in which “markers of indie-style distinction are often
combined with relatively more marketable dimensions” (Cook, 2007, p.58) and
“marketed to… film buffs whose expected pleasures are more dependent upon
notions of artistry, style, wit, and intellectually engaging themes.” (Connard, 2007,
p.154)
The Indiewood cinema model can be demonstrated through films such as
‘Garden State’, ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ and ‘Juno’ which were all distributed by Fox
Searchlight Pictures, a division of the 20th Century Fox studio that specialises in
Independent Cinema.
As independent films they were all made on relatively small budgets and all
received plaudits and nominations at film festivals and awards from various critics
lists, film societies and the like. This independent pedigree in combination with
their fairly conventional (and therefore accessible) use of cinematic techniques and
narrative led them to be picked up by the larger ‘New Hollywood’ studio for
distribution who spend time “seeking unusual movies with profit potential”
(Bordwell, 2006, p.18).
Once the title is picked up by the studio it then markets the qualities of the
film traditionally associated with independents to the intended audience whilst also
demonstrating how the film is still accessible to the mainstream, using their awards
as a signifier of quality to help persuade the wider audience.
Due to these films receiving a great deal more marketing and a much wider
release than most independent features, they not only make the studio more
money for their investment, but the public also begin to associate these titles with
being what independent cinema has to offer.
As a result of this, it is more often than not in the margins of the mainstream
that American Independent Cinema is most recognisable, where it most heavily

4
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

marketed and gathers its greatest financial successes. However, where it is less
visible independent cinema is often at its most powerful, important and culturally
valuable - away from what is most easily marketed and financially successful, in
the margins of society. As Chris Rojek says, “if independent filmmakers break
from the corporation… their films are likely to be confined to the margins of
popular culture”. (2001, p.141)
American Independent Cinema has had great cultural resonance through the
years as a result of its position as a platform for filmmakers who possess differing
views to those accepted and presented by Hollywood mainstream cinema.
Independent features have provided an outlet for the story of numerous minorities
over the years that would have been otherwise grossly underrepresented on
screen.
These numbers include directors such as Hailie Gerima who, with the LA
School sought to “create… a more politically radical version of independent
cinema” (King, 2005, p.204) in order to highlight the problems faced by black
Americans and provide the black audience with more immediately accessible and
relevant movies.
Along similar lines, the New Queer Cinema movement worked within
American Independent Cinema during the 1990’s, making films which appealed
less to the mainstream tastes but instead cared about catering to the gay
audience; providing them with characters and aesthetics which would otherwise
not make it on the cinema screen with the movement not being overly considerate
of what those outside its target audience would make of the texts.
The changing cost of filmmaking as a result of digital technologies for
example has had an effect upon the production of American Independent Cinema.
Studio funding is no longer as important as it used to be, and it is easier for more
personal, niche projects such as these to be undertaken through self-financing
than it has ever been. Russell Evans noted that “DV film is going to cost far less
than its conventional analogue or celluloid forerunner” (2006, p.72) and this
obviously provides scope for new ways to use funds that would have otherwise
been tied up elsewhere.

5
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

In some cases independent filmmakers may use the money to enable their
film to have a more conventional Hollywood look, as opposed to having to thing
more creatively and laterally during the filmmaking process as has traditionally
been associated with independent cinema. Others would be more inclined to
make their decisions in this regard based upon the independent spirit with which
American Independent Cinema is associated at its heart.
Those associated within the “loose community” (Yamato, 2009) that make
up the ‘Mumblecore’ movement take advantage of this ability to make micro-
budget films in order to make movies that are extremely personal just as those
making cinema for the marginalised did. Their movies are described as “ultra-
casual, low-fi… severely naturalistic portraits of the life and loves of artistic
twentysomethings” (Van Couvering, 2007) and as filmmakers they are prolific, as
Andrea Hubert noted in 2007, “In five years, they have produced a total of 14 self-
financed films between them… a group whose oldest member is a mere 34.”
Perhaps even more radically in terms of the film industry than the ability to
make micro-budget features could be the manner in which independent cinema
explores new distribution methods. Coupled with the abilities to make films at a
lower cost than ever before, they can now be made available online to anyone with
an Internet connection alongside fare from established studios on streaming sites
such as YouTube or Hulu, or for download via the iTunes store. Such examples of
media convergence being used by independent filmmakers may allow for real
radical alternatives to the mainstream to emerge with huge potential audiences.
In conclusion, it has to be said that American Independent Cinema can both
function as a sub-section of the mainstream, yet also offer a radical alternative to
that which is a product of the Hollywood mainstream system. The “space” in
which American Independent Cinema lies allows for its poles to be similar to the
Hollywood mainstream through Indiewood at one end, whilst at the other still being
a term that encompasses the avant-garde and innovative filmmaking which is
independent cinema by it’s strictest definition.
The rise of Indiewood and the idea of American Independent Cinema as a
sub-section of the Hollywood mainstream is reflective of the fact that independent
studios have grown or been purchased by the larger studios. That, coupled with

6
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

the fact that mainstream cinematic techniques can now be used with more ease,
has meant that some filmmakers have been able to work within the definitions of
independent cinema whilst making movies that are far more conventional to
audiences through choice or studio pressure. They may be considered “a betrayal
of the true spirit of independence” (Cook, 2007, p. 58) by some, but due to their
greater exposure and marketing power, they are what a large proportion of the
cinema audience consider American Independent Cinema to be, and they must
therefore be included in any contemplation on the state of it.
Their existence however does not stop movies from being made in this “true
spirit”, away from the studio system and the worries about profit margins,
deadlines and audience appeal that brings. It is still within independent cinema
that the most radically different techniques, structures and representations are
likely to be found due to the extra freedom filmmakers working there possess. Yet
many of these films will never find success, and some will sink without trace. They
are however still being made, and could outnumber those more mainstream and
well known examples of independent cinema considerably.
American Independent Cinema is therefore both of the above, at the same
time and does not have to stick to one or the other. It can operate as a sub-
section of mainstream Hollywood, distributing more mainstream independent film
to greater success and acting as a proving ground for aspiring filmmakers whilst it
also provides the variety traditionally associated with independents, allowing for
those with little funds or opportunity to begin making a name for themselves or get
their voice heard whilst other filmmakers can innovate and create is a less-
pressured environment.
Yet saying it is mostly one or the other is something that is increasingly
difficult to do. In terms of successes, money made and wider public perception it
does seem as if American Independent Cinema is increasingly more of a sub-
section of the Hollywood mainstream.
However, in terms of actual quantity of movies made, in comparison to those
undertaking micro-budget projects, it could be very much the least prolific side of
the independent sector – it is difficult to ascertain due to the lack of distribution.
Similarly, how can the spirit of independent filmmakers overall be judged and to

7
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

what extent do they intend to make something different, even if not radically so? It
is only when looking at independent cinema with an implausibly narrow definition
that you can really give a confident answer, and to do so in the face of general
public perception as to what independent cinema is would be foolish.

8
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. (1999). Choice of Original Release Title in Country of Origin as Main Entry.
Available: http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/arch0898.htm. Last accessed 11 Nov 2009.

Anon. (2010). Definition of radical (adjective) from Cambridge Dictionary Online.

Available: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65142&dict=CALD. Last
accessed 6 Jan 2010.

Berra, John (2008). Declarations of Independence: American Cinema and the

Partiality of Independent Production. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Bordwell, David (2006). The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style In Modern
Movies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brooker, Christopher (2004). The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group

Chapman, Jane (2007). Documentary In Practice: Filmmakers and Production

Choices. Stafford: Polity.

Connard, Mark T. (2007). The Philosophy of Neo-Noir. Lexington: University Press

of Kentucky.

Cook, Pam (2007). The Cinema Book, 3rd Edition. London: BFI.

Evans, Russell (2006). Practical DV Filmmaking. Oxford: Focal Press.

Garden State (2004) [Film] Directed by: Zach Braff [DVD] Fox Searchlight.

Gummo (1997) [Film] Directed by: Harmony Korine [DVD] Fine Line Features.

Hubert, Andrea (2007). Speak Up! Available:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/may/19/culture.features. Last accessed 6 Jan
2010.

Juno (2007) [Film] Directed by: Jason Reitman [DVD] Fox Searchlight.

Kelley, Mike (1997). Mike Kelley Interviews Harmony Korine. Available:

http://www.harmony-korine.com/paper/int/hk/kelley.html. Last accessed 6 Jan
2010.

King, Geoff (2005). American Independent Cinema. London: I.B. Tauris.

Lane, Christina (2000). Feminist Hollywood: From Born In Flames to Point Break.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

9
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

Leary, Mike (2005). Napoleon Dynamite. Available:

http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/napoleon_dynamite/. Last accessed 6 Jan
2010.

Little Miss Sunshine (2004) [Film] Directed by: Jonathan Dayton and Valarie Faris
[DVD] Fox Searchlight.

McCrisken, Trevor and Pepper, Andrew (2005). American History and

Contemporary Hollywood Film. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Merritt, Greg (2000). Celluloid Mavericks: The History of American Independent

Film. New York City: Thunder's Mouth Press.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004) [Film] Directed by: Jared Hess [DVD] MTV Films.

Palindromes (2004) [Film] Directed by: Todd Solondz [DVD] Wellspring Media.

Quart, Leonard and Auster, Albert (2002). American Film and Society Since 1945.
Oxford: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Rojak, Chris (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books.

Van Couvering, Alicia (2007). What I Meant to Say. Available:

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/spring2007/features/mumblecore.php. Last
accessed 6 Jan 2010.

Yamato, Jen (2009). Is Mumblecore a Dirty Word? Available:

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/12/14/is-mumblecore-a-dirty-word/. Last
accessed 6 Jan 2010.

10