The Golden Age of Not-Hollywood

by Miriam E. Zellnik

Imagine this scenario, if you will: the setting is a swank Hollywood party. All the luminaries of the day are in attendance: writers, directors, stars, contract players, from all the big studios. Over in the corner, a young Bette Davis chats with Frank Capra. By the bar, Humphrey Bogart shares a smoke with Lauren Bacall. Kate Hepburn stands off to the side, looking lovely in an off-the-shoulder confection, while Spencer Tracy eyes her appreciatively from across the room. Into their midst, a man appears, awkward and nearly adolescent. He sidles up to Janet Gaynor and whispers in her ear, "Pssst, wanna be in my next movie? My name's Quentin Tarantino."

What’s wrong with this picture? Aside from the fact that in the days of Hollywood’s so-called "Golden Era" Tarantino was not yet on this earth, simply this: the idea of an independent filmmaker seriously approaching a Hollywood star would have been nearly unthinkable in that era of contract players. Until relatively recently, actors and directors swam in the comfortable, if artistically confining, amniotic sac of the studio system. And even today, long after the studio system has fallen away, the vestigial traces of it remain in place. To wit: a major studio finances a "product," and the job of the creative team is to keep their collective vision in line with what will sell to the masses, hopefully resulting in more money for the studio than it spent to produce said product (oh, and did I mention overseas rights and fast-food tie-ins?). We call this quaint model "capitalism."

But what then of the loners, the visionaries, the dreamers who don’t want to tell the same old story for the umpteenth time? Lucky for us, the last ten years have seen a substantial increase in both limited and wide release of independent film projects from all over the globe. Thanks to the proliferation of regional film festivals, there are more venues than ever for the kind of unusual, quirky projects that don’t fit into the comfortable genres of film that Hollywood has been turning out for decades. Furthermore, the popularity of smaller films has caused a sea change in what studios consider "bankable," and the result is that less-mainstream films are being made even by the bigger players in Hollywood. The real winner in this environment is the film fan, who wants to be able to see a variety of different styles, and now is able to. But in a world where former indie darling Richard Linklater makes a major studio turkey like The Newton Boys and up-and-coming television stars lend their names and talent to independently-funded projects, the line between big-budget director and struggling visionary becomes ever blurred. So what then is an "indie" film?

Says film historian Dan Buskirk, "The whole idea of 'indie' is a way to put a label on something, and as usual, labels are of dubious benefit. I would say that easily 90 percent of the films labeled 'indie' are just young filmmakers’ resumés for the major studios. Conversely, a minute amount–maybe two percent–of major studio releases represent a single artist's vision, like Scorcese. For me, the term 'indie' can only count when it's referring to a filmmaker's independent vision." There are many such filmmakers are out there today, says Buskirk, making films that delight and entertain audiences looking for something fresh and different. He mentions just a few of his favorites, adding, "I’ll see anything they do:" Lars Von Trier (best known for Breaking The Waves); Guy Maddin (Careful, Tales of Gimli Hospital); and Aki Kaurismäki (Match Factory Girl).

Independent screenwriter Jason Schafer agrees that the key is staying true to a vision. He penned the feature Trick, which won considerable press coverage and a distribution deal with Fine Line after screening at this year's Sundance Festival. "Because the financial investment is so much lower than on a big budget studio movie, an indie film can target a specific audience," Schafer says. "The director has a much better shot at getting the story he wants to tell to the screen."

Schafer's story will reach moviegoers at this summer's Gay & Lesbian Film Festivals in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City. Upon reflection, it appears that what sets apart the independents from the rest of the herd has less to do with financing than with their ability to tell a story the way they want, without being constrained by the cigar-smoking mogul holding the pursestrings or the greasy marketing guy with a sheaf of reports on audience demographics.

A new age is dawning, my friends. It used to be that the moviegoer was at the mercy of what was showing in the local theatre. But today’s cinema buff has options. Sure, the big blow-'em-up blockbusters are still out there, but there’s now a choice to see something else, something different. Most areas of the country have some sort of regional festival, where the discerning moviegoer can catch new films from indie directors. And I’m not talking about the big guns like the Sundance Festival; there are literally hundreds of small specialized festivals and contests that have far less glitz and far more real credibility among cinéastes in the know. In other good news for fans of film as an art form, there are museums like the Anthology Film Archives in New York, around since 1970, to ensure that small and/or unreleased art films will be accessible to scholars of cinematic art, as well as interested fans. I say rejoice, because the independent scene is alive and well, and coming soon to a theatre near you!

Related:

Lucky Indie : Finding the Films A sidebar to the above article

Andrew Hultrkrans on Retrofuturism in film : Next Marrow Article