Independent vs. Underground Film

Sam Fuller
Guy Maddin

The distinctions between "indie" and "mainstream" seem much stronger in the music world. Say "indie rock," and there's an immediate assumption that the band in question is working for a label unattached to one of the Big Five labels, and is working with an aesthetic that's decidedly outside of the mainstream (though that's not the same thing as being inaccessible -- there's "indie pop" after all).

Obviously, it's muddier in film. Many people still equate "indie" with Miramax, and to some extent that's understandable; sex, lies, & videotape was fairly unique when it came out, even if its style and emotional arc has been stolen and repeated so many times it now looks like a dull and conventional infidelity drama. But you can still hijack the "sex, lies" style and be called "indie." I was recently told about a term that aptly describes the phenomenon: "slipstream cinema," meaning films that have some sort of "indie" imprimatur in terms of financing, distro, etc., but breaks no new aesthetic ground. "The Passion of the Christ" would be the ultimate slipstream film, I'm thinking.

I wanted to put Fuller on the list because I think it's important that narrative film be considered part of the underground/outsider aesthetic you're talking about -- from "Park Row" to "Shock Corridor" to "Tigrero" there's an instinct to tell stories in provocative and unique ways. I've never been on board with the idea that telling a story, in and of itself, is compromise.

But I also love Maddin's films because they're so good at exploring ideas that narrative becomes less important ("Dracula," the most "straight" film of his I've seen, is the one I like least).

I don't think there's an easy definition for the underground/outsider film ("non-slipstream indie"?), but I'd prefer a longer list than a shorter one, and I wouldn't be afraid of familar names either. Stan Brakhage, yes. But also Jarmusch. And Errol Morris. And why not Michael Moore?

Apologies for the semi-coherent rambling, but I like the topic and would love to hear more chatter about it.

mark.

i also like the term you mentioned, "slipstream cinema". i'd never heard it before, and it sounds pretty fitting.

some more names to add to the list (mostly living, some dead): jem cohen, bruce connor, kenneth anger, nick zedd, caveh zahedi, chris marker, john cassavettes, john waters (back in the good ol' days)....

can we count michael moore or errol morris in this list? i'm not arguing content or style, but what degree of self-financing is involved in these works?
i know they're distributed by Universal, Warner Brothers, MGM, etc.

the comparison to "indie" music brought up some good points which i think deserve to be explored more. i don't think there's really any good reason, in the age of cheap video/DVD reproduction, why filmmakers can exist in the same independent realm as musicians. it amazes me that there aren't more "jandeks of film", people who just anonymously (or even randomly) distribute their works. there are plenty of musicians who just record & never play live for one reason or another--why aren't there more filmmakers who never screen but distribute their works? it seems that most filmmakers complain about the limitations of commercial filmmaking, yet they never seem to want to deviate from its structures.

I like pondering the concept of "Jandeks of film." Perhaps the problem is that filmmaking is a much more inherently collaborative art, which involves corralling a lot of different people. Not to mention money. If it's done entirely in isolation, it's extremely labor-intensive -- think of Brakhage's hand-painted films.

Even if production is cheap, there's the problem of venue. In music, there's a working economic system that supports audiences from 50 to 50,000. More importantly, there's a culture that encourages the young kid with a new idea to experiment with in public. In film, there's just the multiplex and the art house and the kid with a new idea is barista-ing his ass off just to get his student film finished and shown to ten people. When I was living in San Francisco, there were places like Artists Television Access that were open to more avant-garde stuff, and occasionally other cultural centers would open themselves up to film. But they always seemed grindingly poor, even in an accomodating town like SF. I'm betting other major cities have it worse. (I'm in Chicago now, but haven't been here long enough to get a sense of what's happening.)

Maybe we need more film venues where people can get drunk and heckle and argue about movies. Or something that doesn't smack of the highfalutin artist salon. For the artists that we're listing, is there a common thread in how they used the economic system of film production and distribution? I have no clue myself, but a possible solution might lurk there....

I have a hard time buying an argument based on venue when it comes to filmmaking when 90%+ of the population owns a VHS player, DVD player or both. being a "jandek of film" is not difficult at all--i'm currently doing it myself (understandably i won't go into detail).

the problem of screening isn't inherent in the art form; the problem is inherent in the filmmaker. there are thousands of ways to show one's work, in a vast variety of formats, based on economic availability. you can buy a beat-up old TV & VCR, plug it into the outlet at the local eddie bauer & show your film on the street. or you can screen it at a local bar. or make copies & leave them on park benches and street corners. the only limiting factor is the convienience of standardized methods of cinematic distribution and the idea that films can only be screened in a theater in front of a large group of people.

"Maybe we need more film venues where people can get drunk and heckle and argue about movies."

No truer words have ever been spoken---this is EXACTLY what we need, a casualization of cinema that takes it out of the commercial & artistic stuffiness & isolation of the theater setting & into the hands of the raw, beligerent public. there is no reason why film should not be interpreted, experienced & critiqued on exactly the same guidelines & in exactly the same venues as music. when we get to this point, film will finally reach a prominence & recognition in the arts that is worthy of its potential.

I should have dealt more with this in my previous post, but i was pretty drunk when i wrote it (somewhat amazed that it ended up being quite lucid).

it's important that the idea of film being "inherently" a collaborative art needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible. i would guess that at least half of the people in this world who make films (and i'm allowing for a wide definition of "filmmaking") work alone or with a very small crew (less than five). Big budget, big crew filmmaking is a studio thing, and studio films probably make up about 1% of the total output of films created each year--unfortunately this 1% is all that viewed by 90+% of the population (gee, sounds like the U.S.'s distribution of wealth figures...but i digress).

i've personally worked with a crew on only three of my films (not counting commercial work), and i find it incredibly liberating--no fighting over creative content, no egos to contend with but your own. i equate it with the "do-it-all" musicians who play every instrument, or DJ's who produce their own albums (the sampling aspect puts it on par with pastiche filmmakers).

as for money, well, that depends on what you need to do. if you want to make a big sci-fi epic with tons of CG-ing, well, you're better off going to work for Universal Pictures. but many filmmakers have made some pretty amazing works for about the same price tag that it takes to record an album on your own. i'm currently in production on a paint film that i'm guessing will have a total budget of less than $50.00 (i got my 16mm projector for free, but if i had to pay for it, lets say $150.00). that wouldn't even cover the cost of a decent acoustic guitar pickup or a shotgun mic.

and, yes, making a film yourself is incredible labor-intensive & time consuming, but so is any other kind of filmmaking. but think of all the benefits: complete artistic control, control over the means of distribution--it's great. the only problem comes, of course, when you're desirous of reaching a large audience. but if your film's good enough, it's bound to attract attention based on word of mouth.

so there are really no excuses why underground filmmaking can't be as easy & accessible as underground music. the only factor limiting it in my minds are narrow-minded filmmakers themselves--i can't believe how many so-called "underground" screenings i've been to that are "film only--no video" or "narrative only" or "documentary only". film is film, whether it's on 35mm, super8, pixelvision, miniDV, HD, etc. it's all images and storytelling to some degree, so why limit what's already so limited?

when filmmakers can get out of the current mindset of "selling their script" and "applying to festivals" and instead just take to the streets or the airways (public access television is an excellent forum) with their films, outsider and underground works will finally gain an appreciation on par with underground music, and maybe a similar sized audience. creating a film and distributing copies is probably cheaper now that ever, and it's unfortunate that not more filmmakers are taking advantage of what could very well be a democratization of filmmaking.

and by the way, where is everyone lately? the conversation has been pretty subdued & there's no buddha, ryan, G.S.. what's up?

I've been real busy the past week or so -- still want to contribute to this thread.

Most of what we originally thought of as independent was underground. Although now the term seems to be weighted towards avant-garde, but I disagree. I think that anything that is a true independent film is ultimately an underground film. Because essentially as it is now, independent film = all films that are not action, romcom, or scifi. (And even with scifi...you can technically call the new Star Wars trilogy independent film, as Lucas is funding them himself - ultimate proof of the bs of the term independent.)

Independent film, therefore, is merely (again in my view) film made with the final cut in the hands of the creator. Auteur, I guess. But obviously independent in that sense is completely divorced from a sense of financing.

There's just something weird about classifying film solely from its source of funding - it has nothing to do with genre or aesthetics, so why should it be an attractive or detractive force with moviegoers?

But then, to get to my major contention, if you ain't making money off of the film, you shouldn't give a goddamn about the money that goes on with it.

is now a meaningless film term.

this could be said also of some established directors working for major studios--guys like woody allen pretty much have final say on whatever they make. unless by "in the hands of" you mean "in the ownership of".

"But then, to get to my major contention, if you ain't making money off of the film, you shouldn't give a goddamn about the money that goes on with it. "

not quite getting your contention here....could you explain this further?

Don't get me wrong, it's sometimes nice to know such trivia as that "this epic-looking film was actually made for less than $10,000", but in and of itself, the numbers game is just an easy way to make decisions about a film w/o any regard to the film itself. I don't decide that a film is great based on how much/little money it cost to create, just as my tastes in music have absolutely nothing to do with if a band is signed to a major or indie.

In any case.

but i guess that's where the indie idea of "non-studio" alternative funding comes into play as a standard of artistic achievement. on a political level, there is something respectable and important about an artist taking the high road & saying they won't subject their film to being nothing more than (or at least primarily) a commodity. to put art first and money second (or last) is a better thing than putting box office first and art second (or last). so while the artistic quality of a film has nothing to do with the funding source, I can see where it appeals to people on a political level.

However, what indie film was about was NOT MAKING MONEY COME FIRST, and if you're going to base your film's value on its funding source, you are unfortunately breaking your own rule. So in the face of that, all that you're left with is, like all films, the creative content of the piece--stories, aesthetics, directorial styles, etc. it seems that independent cinema followers were more consumed with the "D.I.Y" financial aspects of the genre & less with the stylistic tenets of innovation & progression, and as a result, it just became another genre cliche whose few stylistic innovation became quickly appropriated by the studios. Sadly, in the long run, everything that indie was against is exactly what it became--a stale, cliche-ridden form that attempts to bring in a "target audience" for the big bucks.

so death to the indie film! i would like to think that the wide scope of styles & avant-garde sensibilities will make underground film inaccessible enough to avoid a similar plight, but i have my doubts. i was on a web site the other day that caters to "cutting-edge" corporate video productions, as was horrified to see brakhage-esque paint films being sold as "stock background elements" for $600 per CD-ROM. nothing is out of their reach....

"fat bloody fingers, sucking your soul away....."

[Marge is trying to find a good movie at Sundance.]
Marge: Ooh! Regularsville! This might be the one for me!
[Marge goes inside the theater and sees, on screen, a man in a bra putting on makeup.]
Marge: [Shudders and immediately closes the door.] Okay. Ooh! Candyland! A great family game is now a great family movie!
[Marge goes inside and sees on the screen, two hippies about to drug themselves with heroin]
Marge:[Shudders and closes the door again.] I get it! Every title means the opposite of what it means! Then I guess I'll love...Chernobyl Graveyard!
[Marge goes in and immediately comes out.]
Marge: I didn't.