Why are independent films so important? (1041 views, 5 replies)

While it may seem like there are so many films being generated and they are sufficient to meet the needs for content, the reality is that any time a process is large it gets unwieldly and ends up censoring what can be made.

That limits which films will either be bought up after the production is complete or which will have investors so the film can be produced.

Hollywood once had very limited censorship (see pre-code films). Then enacted very strong censorship. Then loosened censorship. Then made increasingly subversive films. Then made films openly hostile to mainstream views. Then made antiChristian films.

The rationale is that some artists try to depict reality. Other artists try to create what they hope is reality. Some artists subvert what is reality.

Now all of that limits what can be depicted. And as they control the "pursestrings" then they have ultimate editorial control. And so, many film treatments" just fail to get any attention and never move forward, even if significant writing exists or is well written.
...
An independent filmmaker will often take great personal financial risks, will get local people to act in his/her production, even having family members play parts (see Primer). They will get local musicians and university members to write and play the soundtrack. Some people want fame and are willing to do work just to get exposure so others see their artistic abilities. Others hope for lasting fame or a chance to make side money or even make a career.

Having such a limited budget, this means there is not an endless amount of time to shoot. There cannot be many cameras meaning operators as well. There cannot be endless "takes". There may be by necessity "long takes". All of which then means the actors have to be ready and know the script, be very gifted in improvisation, be very connected and have chemistry with their co-stars, and be disciplined because one poorly prepared cast member then can set back the schedule.

Meanwhile the crew have to be clever, cut corners, try to save the budget as there never is enough, be patient and prepared, often look for props to borrow and then see they are returned. The crew do advance work by scouting for locations, getting permission,ensuring the lightings will work, even feed everyone.

Meanwhile the director ends up producing the film too. They find investors. Family members offer loans and these must be paid back. And all the while the director producer watches the budget, sees no money is wasted, and the cast/crew get along as stress brings personality conflict.

And then somehow the costs must be recouped. The film distributed. Sold to a larger firm and so market what has been created. The director/producer must maintain a positive attitude and exude self-confidence. And on and on.

While this often fails, other times you get a gem and once producing a gem, then it has to be revealed by interviews with websites to get a buzz going. Do interviews with small film reviewers that make youtube videos that hopefully go "viral". Get magazine interviews. And on and on.

This is why there now are so many shorts. As they are small and brief and a snippet of a larger work, then the risks are small and easily controlled with a handful of cast and crew. For example, many films begin as shorts. Once that has been produced, there is something to show to interested potential cast and crew and to potential investors.

Sling Blade began as a short. The Australian film The Horseman began as a short.

That means that amateurs can sometimes make something good enough that whatever produced, no matter how limited, then inspires confidence in others.

There is a big difference in how people judge a small independent freshman effort as expectations are low and viewers are easily pleased, and viewers will overlook any rough aspects as it was not made wwith professionals and millions. The entire budget might be $10,000-100,000 versus 4 million.

The reason so much horror drek exists is someone made a small horror short, someone noticed, gave them money to make more, and so there is a prolific amount made, often of questionable value. That means it's an easier way in. And for the investor, a lower risk a shorror films are popular with easily pleased fans than a high brow art film with a very small potential audience as they are demanding.
Read moreLess

That's actually very interesting.

I am going to need some time towards digesting all of what you've written, so I can respond thoughtfully.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialecti...
Here I will provide the frame of reference so that the definition of dialectic is established. Typically pathos is not part of that process, yet aethestics are vauluable in Art and are subjective.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheti...
likewise this is how beauty is discussed within philosophy and in rhetoric.

A Hollywood casting director looks at the actors' face, posture, physicality (ie graceful movements, dexterity, dance ability, stage prescence, musculature), etc.

In classic aesthetics, the more symmetrical the face of a human being is, in general the more the common people and the wealthy note the "beauty or handsome" aspects of that person. That is the general benchmark.

And then sadly in history, more consumers liked Nordic appearances than others.

And then in human nature, consumers have an affinity for those who have similar appearance.

And then in human nature, consumers like "idealized" physicality as it suggests "perfection" or even what a "god or goddess" might look like. [Greek/Roman and Scandanavian myths feature gods who generally look like humans]

And so a casting director has that reality that affects profit.

Meanwhile in postmodern thought, young people and enlightened people challenged this perception of "beauty". Obviously ethnic people living in the US were irritated and upset as there was such uniformity that it was difficult to resonate with the character of actor if the preponderance all are Nordic.
...
And then, as "descriptive" filmmakers wanted to depict realistic art, then obviously the film was flawed as it had an absence of the realistic blend of minorities.

Then as time went on, more minorities were seen in film, but in inferior roles and the concern by some was that descriptive art molded reality and reinforced stereotypes. In other words, if a filmmaker showed that minorities were inferior positions in occupations, would that perpetuate an inabilty to gain better occupations?

The casting director has then issues with pleasing the aesthetic of the director versus the producer ensuring proftability. And so balances the hiring process on the ability of the actor plus believability of their portrayal plus ensuring that enough consumers will watch and support the production.

An independent film has a mucher lower weight of this in the casting process. Actors who may not fit what a Hollywood casting director thinks a leading man looks, may be able to break into fame through an independent film that has less rigor and less boundaries that govern profitability.
Read moreLess