Defining the Genre of Bad Narrative Filmmaking

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It used to be easy to tag cheesy, over-the-top, manipulative (via big budget effects & music) filmmaking as "Hollywood" and intelligent, outside-the-mainstream, low-budget films as "independent".

Now, with so many films coming from outside the major studios with big budgets and all of the same elements of a "hollywood" film ("the english patient" immediately comes to mind), how do we define the difference between the two? in my mind, a film like "The English Patient" is not an "indy" film, at least in the way that I grew up knowing independent filmmaking.

I would be interested to hear what terms others would deem appropriate in defining these two groups, and the criteria you would use to make the differentiation. I'm not thinking an entire manifesto, but something along the lines of what Dogme95 did to separate their style and production method from that of the big studios/big indies.

― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 14:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem I've always had with this issue is that anything unconventional tends to be labeled "indy," and anything that follows a particular formula (no matter what the budget) is labeled "Hollywood" or "commercial."

The truth is, the only quality a film needs to have in order to be labeled one or the other is the plain truth: if it was funded by a major studio, it's "Hollywood," no matter how off-the-wall it is (ex. Adaptation). If it comes from outside the major studios, it's independent, no matter how conventional it is (ex. My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

I understand why we like to draw a clear distinction between the two based on the quality of a film, with the independent scene producing such a higher percentage of quality work than the big studios. But to put it in different terms: Eminem can do anything he wants to fit into the distinction of a different group, but when it comes down to it, he's still White.

― Anthony (Anthony F), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

A thought just occurred to me. How about from now on, we simply call any poor filmmaking "Joel Schumacher?"

― Anthony (Anthony F), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 23:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Schumacher's not necessarily a poor filmmaker, just a hack with no particular style.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.