I wish I could go back and meet Spielberg and Lucas in the 60’s and 70’s. I bet I would probably even want to hang out with these young filmmakers. They had so much promise. They remind me of the stories I heard about Truffault and Godard in the fifties: in love with cinema and ready to set the world on fire. It seems that over time they have fallen prey to artifice and have become immersed in their own myopia. And now they want to return to the a priori days but, as the saying goes, you can never go home -- they’re too dispassionate and these fat-cats can’t come back from that.
It comes down to this: people always want that which is most coveted. But if Hollywood is at your fingertips, do you really want the harsh realities of indie movies? Established directors presume to think they can make an artistic statement as potent as Pie, Donnie Darko, Brick, You and Me and Everyone we Know or Primer. Sorry, but it’s highly unlikely that this is going to happen. If you have handlers, pundits, and anyone you refer to as “your people” or use the term “working lunch” then making Killing of a Chinese Bookie might be a stretch, mais oui? And, anyone who considers the backlot at Universal “home”, as Spielberg did on a recent TV interview, will have a hard time fitting into the independent world where they won’t have their own personal assistants. The real shame is that after the fat cat directors finish their version of an indie movie, a large sector of the built-in audience will buy into their expensive marketing machine and think it’s going to be quality indie; that is until they step into the theatre and realize things really aren’t clickin’.
The only reason directors should want to make movies is to do work in an art form that is unique. If not, why not just write a novel or make and album or even commercials? One of the more brilliant literary adaptations of the past years, Morvern Callar, managed to subvert the pitfalls of screenplay translation and become something unto itself alone. By reading the synopsis of this movie (girl’s boyfriend commits suicide, she steals and publishes his manuscript, goes to Spain) you are in no way prepared for the visually arresting vision of director Lynne Ramsey’s final product. For most directors it would be a mind numbing string of enervating plot points. Ramsey understands the power of filmmaking and uses it to it’s fullest potential. Her success story, sadly, rarely exists in the straight world of corporate Hollywood.
So what does Independent mean?
Independent does not necessarily mean low budget. In fact, many indie directors have clandestine agendas of making the next bloated Hollywood production. Their real intentions aren’t exposed till much later. Movies like Hard Candy, Whale Rider and Bend it like Beckham are good case studies. Hard Candy is director David Slade’s attempt at a Morgan Freeman/Ashley Judd serial killer movie. Basically, it’s Slade’s demo reel to Hollywood. The latter 2 of this troika are little more than Disney kids movies done on shoestring budgets. They fit in perfectly on double bills with Freaky Friday and Princess Diaries. When those directors finally did make their big budget hollywood movies the gimmick of being indie darlings couldn't save their flacid tales. Shane Carruth (director of Primer) is the antithesis to this obsequious trio. Primer was a movie that didn’t sit well with the marketers or financiers. It was made for 7000 dollars after all. As gripping as all the presidents men and as complex 2001: a space odessey this movie had the power and gravitas of a master directors mid career masterpiece; not a debut. It will be remembered long after the sugar high created by North Country and Dallas have vanished.
The directors of Brick and Sin City have both been quoted as identifying inflated minimum wages as the main culprit of bloated budgets in Hollywood. Look at a movie like Sky Captain with its 100 million dollar budget compared to Sin City which was done for a measly 30 million. Both used A-list actors and no physical sets; all the actors performed in front of blue and green screens. Yet, Sin City has, arguably, a superior look, tone and script. So where did that 70 million dollars go? Into the hands of the useless so-called experts whom, we are told, are essential to getting’ a film “in the can”.
Richard Linklater, Steven Soderbergh and Gus Van Sant are good examples of directors who take advantage of Hollywood’s positive aspects yet retain their original visions of what filmmaking should be. Sure these guys make their overpriced star vehicles but then they return to what really inspires them. For instance, Linklater went from the Newton Boys to Tape and Waking Life with ease. After making Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester, Gus Van Sant went on to make three plotless films that clipped along at leisurely pace (too leisurely for some). Soderbergh, the most successful of the three, started with a string of failures in the nineties, made the truly bizarre Schizopolis then came back hard with the universally excepted Out of Sight, Erin Brokovich and Ocean’s 11. These directors know how to play by the system’s rules yet have mastered that intangible quality that creates resonance with the audience.
After my rant, here’s a surprising thought. Amazing films are still getting made within this system. Luckily, there are just so many utter disasters to rail against that it’s easy to make a good film in this climate. American Beauty, Thin Red Line and Fight Club are prime examples of occasional miracles that ooze through the fissures of that hermetically sealed reality-suppressed bio-sphere in California. Miracles do happen, unfortunately the suits don't know how to bottle and reverse engineer it.
To Spielberg and your cronies, you claim to be powerless in the system but you are all both engineers and dramatis personae of this industry. You’re so powerful yet you complain you’re powerless to have your personal projects funded by Hollywood. This is complete bullshit. I call your bullshit and say you do have the power. Hell, Spielberg even has the financial power to fund his own indie movies without breaking his fund manager’s sweat.
How about taking a lesson from independent filmmakers who are willing to take risks, make sacrifices, and use their own money to realize their artistic visions? A nice dream but I don't figure it will happen anytime soon.
The real cure for this disease is to purge these messy tent pole disasters with a deluge of great films. If hollywood sees that films don't have to be made for so much money then maybe they'll sever the lifelines to these leeches. It is getting to the point where you can make a film for almost the same price it costs to make an Music CD. So instead of just making Dark side of the Moon you can also make the Wizard of OZ for a few dollars more. Then you and your friends can listen and watch your Opus as the Bong bubbles on ---- and yes the hapless schmucks in LA can spend millions marketing it and tell all the industry rags how they were truly responsible for its success.
The upshot is more and more young directors are taking cues from the new wave of hollywood directors and not the afformentioned old guard. David O' Russell's I heart Huckabees is more important to a young kid than the Terminal and it's a better world because of it. What inspires me even more is that kid from shit-spat Saskatchewan who knows nothing about film history, walks into Best Buy to buy a camcorder and makes his own personal Eraserhead.
