[evollove]

Never saw "Paris is Burning." We have a winner.

---

I think it's a spectrum. One side is studio financed, produced, and distributed films. The other is what Cassavettes did with Woman Under the Influence, which is pony up the cash to produce it (along with Peter Falk chipping in) and then actually book the theaters himself to distribute it. The only way to get more indie is to build the theater yourself.

I think a lot of films fall inbetween. Something that cost fifty bucks to make in someone's backyard might get picked up by Warner Bros. Studios, for example. There are a bunch of ways to combine financing, production and distribution.

I'm guessing here, but I think depending on the film or filmmaker, the "indie" part of the ratio might be emphasized in the press release. A street cred thing. Maybe another film will try to ignore the film's ignoble beginnings and emphasize the major backing that eventually arrived. A "Hey, I can be a big player too" thing.

---

Finally occurred to me to just look up a list of Sundance winners and runner-ups. Watched PARTING GLANCES (1986). Steve Buschemi plays a gay. Deals with AIDS long before PHILADELPHIA. A bit boring.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I hate when someone wants me to watch an "indie movie". My definition of "indie movie" is a movie with too much talking, not enough money for interesting plot points, boring sets borrowed from a relative, and dealing with the very specific and tedious concerns of whatever was up the filmmakers ass that day he wrote the "screenplay."

I won't necessarily disagree with this, and I'm sure this phase of mine will end soon. After all, indie films have their own cliches and all cliches get old after awhile.

It's just that when I see a low-budget, character-driven film (actually shot on film), I know some people worked really hard against some tough odds to get the thing made. The amount of effort they put into something they care about is touching, inspiring and punk. Even if I do fast-forward through most of it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I hate when someone wants me to watch an "indie movie". My definition of "indie movie" is a movie with too much talking, not enough money for interesting plot points, boring sets borrowed from a relative, and dealing with the very specific and tedious concerns of whatever was up the filmmakers ass that day he wrote the "screenplay."

oh yeah! like hardware, the terminator, repo man, moon, pi [moon pie] (sets definitely borrowed from a relative), a scanner darkly... platoon... sin city... fucking indies!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen..._for_Best_Film

[tw2113]

I've been watching a lot of various "A Christmas Carol" versions. A holiday tradition of sorts for me.

[HenryHill51]

Originally Posted by evollove

That lizard scene is classic.

Edge of Tomorrow- fucking idiotic and I'll probably never watch it again, but I wasn't bored one second.


Looking for mid-80s to early 90s indie classics, preferably American. (Let's pretend I've already seen Clerks and Slackers.) Suggestions?

Already some great films mentioned, but here's a few I'd add to the list (if they can be found, some of these are not on DVD but can be found if one looks hard enuf online.....)


1. "Laws of Gravity" (1992) directed by the great Nick Gomez, one of my very favorite films of all time
2. "Zebrahead" (1992) directed by Anthony Drazan
3. "City of Hope" (1991) directed by John Sayles
4. "Nadja" (1994) directed by Micheal Almereyda (awesome moody B&W vampire film)
5. any Jon Jost but especially "All the Vermeers in NY" (1991) and "The Bed You Sleep In" (1993)
6. "Imaginary Crimes" (1994) another Drazan film with Harvey Keitel
7. "Clean, Shaven" (1994) directed by Lodge Kerrigan
8. "Smoke" (1995) and "Blue In the Face" (1995) by Wayne Wang
9. "Daughters of the Dust" (1991) by Julie Dash
10. any Victor Nunez but especially "Rubi In Paradise" (1993) and "A Flash of Green (1984)

[demonrail666]

The industrial definition of indie (especially American indie movies) is a distraction. most people looking for those movies are just looking for a certain type of film, in terms of feel and theme: something not overtly genre based (or if it is, a tendency to deal with it ironically, ie Tarantino: Coens, etc) and leaning towards contemporary 'realist' subject matters. It's probably better just to think of a lot of it as American youth-oriented arthouse cinema. There are obvious examples that contradict that but generally, when I think of an American Indie movie, that's what I'm thinking of. Sofia Coppola would make 'indie' movies regardless of who financed them, IMO.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The industrial definition of indie (especially American indie movies) is a distraction. most people looking for those movies are just looking for a certain type of film, in terms of feel and theme: something not overtly genre based (or if it is, a tendency to deal with it ironically, ie Tarantino: Coens, etc) and leaning towards contemporary 'realist' subject matters. It's probably better just to think of a lot of it as American youth-oriented arthouse cinema. There are obvious examples that contradict that but generally, when I think of an American Indie movie, that's what I'm thinking of. Sofia Coppola would make 'indie' movies regardless of who financed them, IMO.

the funding aspect is all about creative control

take for example "hardware" -- in the dvd issue there is extensive commentary about the liberties richard stanley was able to take because of the structure of the production and his relation with palace pictures which wa sbasically born of this undergound movie theatre where all the weirdos hanged out. with the picture done, it took forever to get dvds made because of clusterfucks in the distribution deal (much like "el topo" was for so long in distribution limbo).

see, robert rodríguez to me is the definition of an independent-- fucker shoots whatever he wants, doesn't bother to go to hollywood and shoots in his own backyard.

now if people are mixing up the terms arthouse and independent then we're losing vocabulary.

part of the problem is that arthouse films were always independent but when the big studios saw the earning potential (mid-90s) they either snapped up companies like miramax and fine line or started spinning off their own independent/arthouse subsidiaries (fox searchlight, sony classics). arthouse still looked like arthouse, and terminator got slicker.

but economics do matter-- a lot. the superstructure is determined by the base, ha ha ha. buts seriously. big studio pictures are done by committee. independents, at least in theory, are truer to a director's vision.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh yeah! like hardware, the terminator, repo man, moon, pi [moon pie] (sets definitely borrowed from a relative), a scanner darkly... platoon... sin city... fucking indies!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen..._for_Best_Film

Please note I put "indie" in quotes. By this I refer not to films made independent olf the studio system, but to films marketed as "indie" so that people will see them. Like when food is labeled "organic"

The term "indie" used to refer to the shit movies I mentioned earlier is fairly recent and did not exist nor apply to movies like Repo Man, Terminator, Platoon, etc...


Like "indie" rock. it USED to mean bands released by small independent labels. and now it means softy, acoustic instrumentation and some pussy fuck whining about his bullshit emotions with as little ROCK in it as possible.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Please note I put "indie" in quotes. By this I refer not to films made independent olf the studio system, but to films marketed as "indie" so that people will see them. Like when food is labeled "organic"

ha ha ha. very true.

added later: but part of the problem is that with the advent of "big indies" (e.g. tarantino) indies themselves have become a lot more mainstream in their requirements.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

The term "indie" used to refer to the shit movies I mentioned earlier is fairly recent and did not exist nor apply to movies like Repo Man, Terminator, Platoon, etc...

if you're talking about the marketing label then you're probably right, though (real) independent movies have existed since the dawn of time (e.g., united artists was founded in 1919). fucking marketers!

ps- i just found out that "gone with the wind" was an independent movie.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Like "indie" rock. it USED to mean bands released by small independent labels. and now it means softy, acoustic instrumentation and some pussy fuck whining about his bullshit emotions with as little ROCK in it as possible.

i still think of independent in terms of economics, but the word that gets on my last nut is "alternative"-- alternative to what, when it's all the same old recycled shit? e.g., coldplay. ha ha ha ha. fuuuck.

[evollove]

Originally Posted by HenryHill51

1. "Laws of Gravity" (1992) directed by the great Nick Gomez, one of my very favorite films of all time
2. "Zebrahead" (1992) directed by Anthony Drazan
5. any Jon Jost but especially "All the Vermeers in NY" (1991) and "The Bed You Sleep In" (1993)
10. any Victor Nunez but especially "Rubi In Paradise" (1993) and "A Flash of Green (1984)

LAWS OF GRAVITY downloading a good clip, as is PARIS IS BURNING.

ZEBRAHEAD and ALL THE VERMEERS not so much.

Both RUBI and FLASH are on youtube.

Local library has IMAGINARY CRIMES.

Thanks. Now I couldn't be happier that it's a wet, miserable day.

[!@#$%!]

^^

another movie i remember from that era was "go fish." i remember liking it a lot when in was new but on rewatch i found it kind of laughable in its didacticity. eh, if you're in the mood for lesbian theory in st mark's place circa 1994 check it out (but if you hate it you've been warned).

you've probably already seen hardware which is british and not american but otherwise fits your definition. if you haven't-- on the one hand it's a very derivative cyberpunk film (plagiarizes a lot from its predecessors) but on the other hand it manages to give its own particular kind of finger to the world.

the year punk broke! you've heard of that? ha ha

anyway here's an obscure short from new zealand from around 80s/90s which can serve as an appetizer for your features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMD41cHN1oo

--

ETA: my favorite hangover film. so soothing. use it as palate cleanser.

http://vimeo.com/66720845

ETAA: while not american or "indie" greenaway from that era is pretty great... belly of an architect / cook thief wife etc / pillow book (some people hate pillow book but the sight of vivian wu in that film is enough for me to induce altered states). also: since you got recommended the wayne wang/paul auster films (those are more late-90s) that reminded me of an auster-based film from 1993, "the music of chance," which was pretty good-- imdb says its directed by one philip haas--who also did angels and insects (can't be the composer, can it?). also (free association) noam chomsky's "manufacturing consent" is from that era if you wanna look @ another docu.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The industrial definition of indie (especially American indie movies) is a distraction. most people looking for those movies are just looking for a certain type of film, in terms of feel and theme: something not overtly genre based (or if it is, a tendency to deal with it ironically, ie Tarantino: Coens, etc) and leaning towards contemporary 'realist' subject matters. It's probably better just to think of a lot of it as American youth-oriented arthouse cinema. There are obvious examples that contradict that but generally, when I think of an American Indie movie, that's what I'm thinking of. Sofia Coppola would make 'indie' movies regardless of who financed them, IMO.

I can't tell if you mean they aren't/weren't indie cos they very much were.

TBH you've got to hand it to Miramax and Sundance for being able to get a bigger audience for those films. Films that only 5-10 years before would've struggled were able to get the audience they very much deserved. Whilst, as with every subculture, it's been taken, ravaged and morphed to an unidentifiable beast the indie is still alive. It's just that the major studios have pretty much bought all the more reliable indie ie/smaller film companies out there and it's difficult to find the greats now.

Actually that's wrong to a point. The internet has been a great help in finding the films we would never have seen or heard of before. And if we had it would only have been in film magazines then nothing more.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

The first Terminator could be considered indie

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

The first Terminator could be considered indie

"the terminator" (that was the original title) was produced by the hemdale film corporation, an indie british studio which also produced platoon. mira:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/...?ref_=tt_dt_co

pacific western productions was founded by cameron's then-wife

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemdale_Film_Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale_Anne_Hurd

that movie was indie as fuck

if you look @ the imdb article you'll see international distro was done by a bunch of majors depending on country

fact is big studios ran out of original ideas a long fucking time ago and they need the fresh blood that independents bring. what has changed is the way that has been systematized and "vertically integrated" since the 90s. you go to sundance these days and it's just like being outside of the chinese theatre on hollywood blvd but at freezing temps.

[wow, just found from wikipedia hemdale also produced made in usa]

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

I can't tell if you mean they aren't/weren't indie cos they very much were.

Reservoir Dogs was a 'true' indie movie but Miramax was bought out by Disney straight afterwards so if we're being pedantic everything Tarantino did after that wasn't.

Ultimately though my point was just that the indie thing now refers more to a style than to a production model. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has better indie credentials than a movie like, say, Sideways yet I reckon that when most people think about indie movies, they're more likely to think of something like Sideways. As Rob says, it's now more a marketing term for a certain kind of movie, exploiting an audience that was found by films like Sex Lies and Videotape and Clerks.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Reservoir Dogs was a 'true' indie movie but Miramax was bought out by Disney straight afterwards so if we're being pedantic everything Tarantino did after that wasn't.

sure, but the weinsteins kept running miramax until 2005 and they had a lot of freedom to run it mostly as they saw fit. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miramax#Disney_era

i'm not saying a lot wasn't destroyed though, but i believe tarantino did pretty much whatever the fuck he wanted.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Ultimately though my point was just that the indie thing now refers more to a style than to a production model.

that is true in the popular vocabulary, but that language mutation doesn't make an economic reality disappear. just like the current use of "sarcasm" for "tongue in cheek" hasn't ended the art of insulting with irony.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has better indie credentials than a movie like, say, Sideways yet I reckon that when most people think about indie movies, they're more likely to think of something like Sideways.

ha ha ha-- too true.

i wonder if cassavetes is turning in his grave

[demonrail666]

You're right. The economic reality doesn't disappear but that's my point. Indie (as opposed to independent) films are rarely part of that economic reality. Independent means one thing, Indie means something else. Sometimes indie movies are independent but they don't have to be. Same with music.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

sure, but the weinsteins kept running miramax until 2005 and they had a lot of freedom to run it mostly as they saw fit. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miramax#Disney_era

i'm not saying a lot wasn't destroyed though, but i believe tarantino did pretty much whatever the fuck he wanted.

He probably has no more freedom at Miramax (either pre or post Disney) than Spielberg has at Universal.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

You're right. The economic reality doesn't disappear but that's my point. Indie (as opposed to independent) films are rarely part of that economic reality. Independent means one thing, Indie means something else. Sometimes indie movies are independent but they don't have to be. Same with music.

Well said. It's like the relationship between rectangles and squares (the true nature of which might surprise you)

Just kidding. I mean, I agree, but I don't really talk like that. I think like that, but that's because I'm usually envisioning a really pedo-looking old man saying things like that to children with a playful little wink.

Then I laugh to myself, and the people around me get quiet, save for a few merciful coughs that sound like they're coming from really far away. And then it's back to work!

[Severian]

Oh, and my last film was Guardians of The Galaxy.

Late to the party as usual, and not a big enough Marvel fan to have more than a casual respect for the comics. So I mostly went in blind.

Sadly, it was Marvel's best film ever. So much better than anything else. Like Avengers only not awful, with comedy that was intentional, and villains that were unique, and not plucked directly out of another film, in which they where equally disappointing.

But the writers need to do their research. Ronan, even with that pink e-bomb thing in the little sphere, would pose virtually no threat to Thanos, a villain of near Galactus-like proportions.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

He probably has no more freedom at Miramax (either pre or post Disney) than Spielberg has at Universal.

No way man. If thre's two directors whp have gotten to the stage where they can pretty do what they want and the studios know they'll make their money back it's Spielberg and Tarantino.

Tarantino helped Miramax become the powerhouse it did (and the vice-versa really) with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. After that Tarantino stayed making films for Miramax even when they were struggling and releasing films with no quality control and general tosh. The one thing the Weinstein brothers, in all their meddling and chopping up films, knew was to leave Tarantino alone cos he'd make them money every time.

How many other directors would be able to release films like Inglourious Basterds and Django and walk away knowing that's pretty much his image.

Spielberg? It's Spielberg and save for a coupla films he's always made a decent profit on his films. And in terms of Hollywood he's a pretty big guy over there and knows it.