Scott and Dargis on the Indie Death Rattle
The state of independent cinema has been on the minds and lips of everyone who follows the business of making movies this year. The cry of “independent cinema is dead” has superseded the one of a year or two back that went “box office is down, the movie business is doomed.” Next year it will probably be something else, but for now it’s all about the indies.
With a casual glance at the headlines, it’s not hard to see why. This year has seen a dramatic deflation of the once seemingly booming sector. Picturehouse and Warner Independent are gone. New Line was gutted and folded into the Warner Bros. Paramount Vantage was folded into Paramount first and then gutted. Indie producer Sidney Kimmel drastically scaled back his yearly slate. Trouble continues to brew at THINKFilm where bills aren’t being paid and production on David O. Russell’s Nailed was repeatedly shut down.
Meanwhile on the sales front for films that are being made, business has been slow at Sundance and Cannes with few if any high profile pick-ups or bidding wars. It’s a buyer’s market and few are buying. Distributor IFC has been busy, but it sounds like they’re picking things up on the cheap; so cheap that filmmaker Lance Hammer ultimately decided to reject IFC’s offer for his Sundance success Ballast and release it himself.
Finally this June at the LA Film Festival, former Miramax president Mark Gill looked at all the omens surrounding indie film and famously declared “Yes, the sky really is falling” in a much quoted address before the Film Financing Conference. His take was that there were too many movies and too many of them were bad.
This morning, the NY Times’ two top critics, A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis, weigh in on the situation. Scott begins by pointing out the interesting contradiction that this year’s Academy Awards featured almost a complete shut out of major studio product. Most if it came from one of the studio’s specialty divisions: Miramax, Fox Searchlight, Paramount Vantage and the like. However, the Oscar ceremony seemed to be a high water mark for indie film and within a few months, the wave had rolled back leaving nothing but doom and gloom in its wake.
What happened? Scott basically says the specialty films were victims of their own success. There were too many movies supported by too many marketing dollars without enough of an audience to support them. Though disputed - even Gill says there’s still an audience for quality - it’s a valid argument, but not an especially deep or interesting one. By focusing on the studio specialty divisions, Scott is only looking at one segment of the indie market. 20 years ago, this segment didn’t even exist. The major studios involvement in the indie sector through their specialty divisions is a relatively recent phenomenon based on the Miramax model of picking up festival product, mounting a huge Oscar campaign and ultimately reaping the box office benefits.
It’s an interesting business model that has led to some amazing artistic riches - last year’s There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men instantly spring to mind - but does it lead to truly vibrant independent cinema? Put another way, does a retrenchment in the high end of the independent film segment mean anything to audiences or to independent filmmakers themselves? That’s the far more interesting question asked and answered by Scott’s paper mate Manohla Dargis.
“Certainly it is bad news for those who have lost their jobs, but I’m not persuaded that it means all that much for true independents, those who have never worked inside the studios, never wanted to and probably couldn’t if they tried. I don’t think it means much for Kelly Reichardt, who made the lovely independent film Wendy and Lucy, and is unlikely to direct the next comic book blowout, because her aesthetic sensibility and worldview are of no economic use and interest to the studios or to most audiences either. That’s not a bad thing, not even remotely, especially for those who think films have worth beyond their box office returns.”
Dargis looks back at the indie movement of the ’80s rich with names like Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch, the Coen Brothers and Wayne Wang and she remembers an edgy, exciting time bursting with promise and possibility - all on a low budget. Then Miramax came along and made a brand out of indie cinema. The spirit became a marketing device. In her mind, the result has been a crop of enjoyable but bland product.
“Most of these niche films are nice, polite films of the sort you hear about on National Public Radio in between sob stories and pledge drives. Some are indelible works of art. Most are disposable, and many look, sound and play out, beat for beat, like Hollywood movies with lower budgets. Their provocations are superficial, tiny jabs against putative political correctness, like those of the pregnant teenager in Juno. These are not films that will ever create a new wave; they barely make a ripple, and intentionally so, since each ripple might threaten possible revenue. Better to make audiences smile than make them squirm, better to reassure them than shake them up, better to stay safe than say, ‘Sorry, Mr. Murdoch.’ “
The emphasis in the quote is mine because it hits on the important idea that, from my perspective, the important thing is the art form and not how much money it makes. Many times, the two factors are at odds so perhaps taking money out of the equation will be in the best interest of movies as an art.
Ultimately, it’s too early to tell how it’s all going to shake out, but Dargis seems to be hopeful that Hollywood’s retreat could be independent cinema’s gain and I agree.
While it’s true that the way we see movies might be changing, this might simply be an opportunity for more people to see more good movies, not just the big studio tentpole product that is rammed down our throats every year. It’s also true that it seems to be getting harder for movies to find attention in a marketplace crowded with more entertainment options, but the means of making and distributing those movies is getting cheaper and easier. Netflix alone has revolutionized people’s access to a whole world of movies both old and new. This ease leads to a lot of YouTube level garbage, but I’m optimistic the cream will rise to the top and the infrastructure will be there for the next Spike Lee or Jim Jarmusch or Coen Brother to find an audience.
It may be a dark time for the bean counters, but I think it’s a great time to be a movie lover.
Filed under: Analysis, Opinion
Tags: A.O. Scott, Independent Cinema, Manohla Dargis
Related Posts: - A Film Festival on a Couch in Your Underwear
- So Many Movies, So Little Time
- Got $50 Million?
- Lights Out at Warner Specialty Units
- WGA Contract Expires Tonight
dargis fondly looks back at the 80s? Really? Maybe it’s just me, but everything went downhill because of the 80’s, a decade where mass entertainment and mainstream interest overwhelmed the market post Star Wars success and post Heaven’s Gate bombing. People like Spike Lee and Jarmusch and Lynch were keeping the independent mentality alive, but I would hardly say that decade was bursting with potential and excitement and possibility. Most of the great 80s movies, at least for me, were made by people established in the 70s or earlier.
That said, I agree that films like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine give “indie” film a bad name. For one, they’re not independent, and secondly, they’re mainstream movies. Nothing provocative, orignal or daring.
The 80s were a very exciting time for indie film in my opinion. Add Soderbergh’s name to that list. Mainstream Hollywood product was mostly crap, but this was the punk alternative to it and it was exciting.
Ooh, the death rattle. Such a powerful image.
I agree about the 80’s ‘indies’ - they were a pleasant change from what was churned out at the time, consisting mostly of teen-exploitation crap and over-the-top action/blow things up movies. There were a few exceptions, like Spielberg’s stuff of the early 80’s.
The early 80’s is also about the time when Ebert really started to bring people’s attention to the less mainstream gems. And he and Siskel were going at each other full-steam. :-)
The problem as I see it is marketing, that thing which is responsible for 75% of the world’s problems. Sure, indie movies are available to people via Netflix or eventually, online, but will people see movies if they’ve never heard of them?
The ’80s do get beaten up quite a bit these days, mainly because of the homogenization of the bulk of “mainstream” Hollywood cinema, as Ari notes (though truthfully, it seems a number of those films today inspire more nostalgia than most of the “mainstream” product, especially of the blockbuster variety) but the next generation of “movie brats” like the filmmakers brought up by Dargis and Craig was bubbling to the surface. They and non-American directors like Cronenberg and Frears made artful contributions to world cinema at that time.
Things do look rather bleak at this time for “indie” cinema, but as you often say here, Craig, hope springs eternal.
As I’ve said before Jeff, I think that’s where bloggers come in. I’m but a drop in the bucket, but my dream is to become a viable community that draws attention to the little guys, especially for people outside of New York and LA who might not get the benefit of a theatrical screening.
The trick I hope is offering a mix of smarter mainstream fare, indie titles and the occasional mass entertainment.
It is perhaps a pipe dream, but it gets me up in the morning.
Apropos of nothing Alison, but speaking of the 80s, Jarmusch and Stranger Than Paradise, I saw a movie last night called Momma’s Man that had a small part for Richard Edson the guy who played the friend in STP.
Better to make audiences smile than make them squirm, better to reassure them than shake them up, better to stay safe than say, ‘Sorry, Mr. Murdoch.’ “
hmm what did you say earlier craig about movies as pacifiers ???
jeff marketing ?? hmm in the 80’90’s if you lived in a non media capital and like indie film/music you had to put alot of effort/time and have blind faith. no you couldn’t download a sample/song. you could pull up 20 reviews in less than 2 seconds….
it’s so much easier now days and most don’t use it. just want whatever put down their throat.
so f**k marketing if i could discover stuff with no comp and no else guidance (just reading reveiws/buying mags and taking a chance) people have the net and still want to be sooo passive and so unadventurous. let them eat juno or whatever…ha ha…
and what was a precursor to the netflix (and no i don’t have a netflix account. no i don’t have a cell phone. i don’t use you tube/i don’t even have pc speakers. i’ve got a torn up suit/i’ve got a hole in my boot…i don’t have nor want an ipodor ipod like device)
that never gets mentioned/ever. uh readers of film commnet may know what i’m refing since they always placed ads.
and this netflix thing. how about the beloved internet giving alot more access. ha ha…
and remember ‘alternative music’(which i guess like ‘indie’ cinema) couldn’t break out to the masses until sound pretty much like the normal rock it was supposed to replace.(so yeah people being happy to see ‘indie’ has a farm league for the majors could apply to film too)
and *please* don’t any one complain that you gave a damn about that when it would have counted…
so as you had bigger alternative bought to you buy the same forces/company that control the outlets that that ‘alternative’ was supposed to rep something different to…
meant that ‘alternative’ had to appeal to the same people/audience that they (clear channel/mtv whatever) already had….
so instead of something different you got….
so let branches of big studuios push ‘indie’ and guess you’ll get more pushing of lms/juno…
so evryone get to be ‘indie’ without having to run into anything different and they get cool points and they think they’re so cool.and get to to be ‘indie’/alternative without even having an alternative thought in their body. cool….
even better no one thinks this is slighly starnge and deserves questioning. well you know what i mean…
craig… the punk rock alternative…what about those of us that got into alternative because we wanted to get away from punk/metal. (but still had an interest in pop oriented guitar stuff that wasn’t trad based ???)
what about those of us that want something from indie that neither no country nor juno. guess we were out gunned/numbered/outshined again /all 23 or so us.
‘amd the music was crap/except one’
I don’t think indie will go away as long as there’s a means to make a profit in indie film. People are always going to want to be in the film making business (or at least, I think this medium will survive through our lifetimes).
The reason that Spike Lee, David Lynch, the Coens, Soderbergh, et al were making small indie films in the 80’s is that they couldn’t make those movies for the studios. But when they got their chance to make bigger budget fare, they all took it. And most of them stayed with the majors, because going back to the indie world wasn’t really where they wanted to be.
(Jarmusch never really lept over to the majors. He’s definitely different from his peers in that respect.)
The indie world is tough. It’s hard to make a movie on a shoe string and even tougher to get anyone to see it without any marketing behind it. Yes, Jeff, marketing must exist on some level, as problematic as it may be.
Just ask Francis Ford Coppola about Youth Without Youth or David Lynch about Inland Empire or Terry Gilliam about Tideland. Regardless of the subject matter, all of these are indie productions made by A-list directors with well-known stars and most of them were near impossible to see in a theater, even if you live in a big city.
But indie will always be here. It may be in trouble right now because these subsidiary studios have bloated a shrinking marketplace with too much new product, but that’s a temporary issue that will correct itself one way or another. Hollywood continues to survive, and where Hollywood continues to perpetuate the dream machine of stardom and artistic legends so tomorrow’s indies will follow.
And this is why I love MANOHLA…
She knows where it’s at…
Yeah, I was furnishing my Barbie dream house in the 80s. But, as Craig so eloquently states, it was a time of fascinating possiblities - and SEX LIES & VIDEOTAPE winning the PALM D’OR at CANNES (deservedly, I might add) was the very apex of that.
No wonder an indie movement came to the forefront during that particular moment in time. After the magnificent golden days of the 70s (certainly NOT an awesome time for female actors in terms of wonderful roles - but so many masterpieces and great films came out of the 70s - I guess all that coke, madness and supreme decadence did make a difference after all), the bean counters took over for the next decade.
The 80s were all about package deals, soulless blockbusters and formula. Much of the mainstream stuff is really disappointing. If you look at a lot of the Oscar nominees, you can see it all there.
Though there were still great motion pictures that were meaningful, cutting edge, risky or marvelously entertaining.
Films like:
1980: THE STUNT MAN, ORDINARY PEOPLE, TESS
1981: BODY HEAT, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, REDS, THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN, PRINCE OF THE CITY
1982: TOOTSIE, THE VERDICT, VICTOR/VICTORIA, MY FAVORITE YEAR, FRANCES
1983: THE RIGHT STUFF, THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY, REUBEN, REUBEN, SCARFACE
1984: THE KILLING FIELDS, CHOOSE ME
1985: OUT OF AFRICA, PRIZZI’S HONOR, BRAZIL
1986: MONA LISA, THE COLOR OF MONEY, HANNAH & HER SISTERS, A ROOM WITH A VIEW, SOMETHING WILD
1987: MOONSTRUCK, THE UNTOUCHABLES
1988: DANGEROUS LIAISONS, THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, MARRIED TO THE MOB, BULL DURHAM,
1989: SCANDAL, THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS, DO THE RIGHT THING, MY LEFT FOOT
Fantastic list, right? Well, not quite so superlative when you consider that this input was spread out over TEN YEARS. Though I do think some of those pictures could rightly be called independent features.
Oh, Christ…
WAYNE WANG. I haven’t heard that name in a million years. He directed a movie in 87 called SLAM DANCE that was just sublime. Any film that has VIRGINIA MADSEN as a femme fatale (as she was one of the most fabulous modern ones) gets my attention immediately.
Whenever I think of that flick, I think of MILLIE PERKINS sitting imperiously across a table from TOM HULCE (she’s dressed beautifully and with the most gorgeous ruby jewellery) where she coldly states, “You don’t know what love is, Mr. Drood.”
Yeah…
In this decade, WAYNE WANG directed MAID IN MANHATTAN (with JENNIFER LOPEZ) and FOR THE LOVE OF WINN-DIXIE.
I not only think the point has been made efficiently. It’s been pounded right into the ground.
Thanks for the article, Craig.
Great food for thought.
You may be happy to learn that Wayne Wang has another indie coming soon MIranda called A Thousand Years of Good Prayers.
Glimmer, there are plenty of indie alternatives to Juno and No Country. I saw one this weekend called Momma’s Man.
I suppose Joel when the 80’s indies sold out, there were a few that took their place in the 90s, but they were quickly absorbed by the Miramaxes of the world. I’m tinking of Tarantino and Linklater here mostly.
I feel it would be remiss not to mention that Smoke is a pretty good Wayne Wang film and that the follow-up/sequel/extended montage of deleted scenes, Blue in the Face, has some hilarious stuff with Jim Jarmusch in it.
Wow, see how I brought all that back around to Jim Jarmusch? OK, don’t be impressed.
Craig, you know I love Stranger Than Paradise.
Joel, I’m glad you brought up Smoke. That was a good movie. And Blue in the Face was definitely worthwhile, just for the appearances by Lou Reed and Jim Jarmusch alone. Plus we had an interesting turn by Lily Tomlin. :-)
You’re good, joel.
*shimmering wave of applause from the balcony*
The problem with indies is not marketing IMO. It’s a lack of talent and adventurousness. Look at the names associated with it over the past 20 years.
circa 1990: Jarmusch, Lee, Van Sant, Soderbergh
circa 1995: Linklater, Tarantino, Rodriguez
circa 2000: Anderson, Anderson, Coppola, Aronofsky, David Gordon Green
Now: ?????
I know there are others that my sleepy head can’t think of right this second.
I went with a woman to see The Visitor. At the end, she said, “Typical indie. No happy ending.” I think that captures a bit of the problem. Why don’t indies have happy endings? Is that any less formulaic than mainstream films?
Watching In Search of a Midnight Kiss, derivative of LInklater as it is, gave me some hope that indie films can still be made with energy and verve and a think on your feet quality.
Is it just hindsight that keeps us from seeing what’s good right now?
I’d put Ramin Bahrani (sp) on the list, but nothing is quite jumping out at me in the here and now. The kid that did The Wackness has potential though that film was flawed.
Hmm….interesting question.
Smoke and Blue were indeed fun movies. I know exactly nothing about A Thousand Years of Good Prayers, but I’m hoping to catch a screening of it soon.