What do you consider Independent

Forum Moderator Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 4

Movies that just aren't Hollywood? Movies that have a less than $1,000,000 budget? Movies that aren't in theaters? What?

I'm just curious what people consider Independent.

Independent isn't a subjective term. It's not a matter of 'consideration' - it's a fact. Anything that isn't produced in the major Hollywood studio system is independent. Stephen Spielberg can self finance his own film and it'd be independent. This is the definition of the term. Any other definitions are wrong.

Day Walker Joined: 21 Jun 2008 Posts: 22 Location: USA

That's absolutely true.

However...it is becoming increasingly difficult to define studios. The "major Hollywood studio system" doesn't exist as it once did. It's fragmented into numerous subsidiary companies and operates on a global scale (ie. not just within the confines of L.A.). The definition of "independent" remains accurate, but it isn't always so easy to tell.

We're learning Independent Cinema in Film Studies. The plain answer is that there isn't a complete definition of what makes a film independent, so what i consider to be independent, may not necessarily be correct.

I feel though that a truly independent film is a director filming the kind of film they want to film, without being watched over by the studios too closely. Some directors within studios seem to make independent films (Quentin Tarantino for one).

Jay is right. Independent simply means made independently of studios. The Coen Brothers have been great independent filmmakers,eg. Blood Simple.

They keep producing quality pictures that cost little and turn a profit so the studios wisely keep giving them money to make the films that they want to make how they want to make it. This is a simple business move on the studios behalf and though they are independently minded, the films themselves are not independent if a studio is behind it.

Given that they write, direct, produce and edit their films they are auteurs, but they are too successful and talented to have to work independently.

If given the option, would you spend years chasing funding, risk your own money, probably lose money, beg, borrow, steal, lobby for funding or be paid handsomely, get to direct a studio film, but have to deal with a number of producers that cloud your 'genius creativity' and do not 'share your unique vision'?

The Coen Brothers, Spielberg, Nolan, Tim Burton (please don't bring up Planet of the Apes), Hitchcock and Rodriguez are so talented and unique that they get to make the films they want the way they want to make it. (again, please don't bring up Planet of the Apes).

Day Walker Joined: 09 May 2009 Posts: 7 Location: USA

I believe that the main characteristic in an Independent film is the fact that it didn't need a big studio to be made. But also the films that aren't so commercial and the director is free to do what s/he wants.

Day Walker Joined: 26 Feb 2008 Posts: 14 Location: USA

I always though an independent film is one that is completely financed and created away from any studio involvement then sold as a whole film to a studio/distributor for release.

Isnt that what 'Independent' is?