Frank P. Tomasulo

The literature on independent cinema is fairly extensive. There are dozens of scholarly histories and academic textbooks, and they are updated frequently, almost monthly. Those books and articles may be broad in scope (the entire history of “indie” film), semi-focused (independent documentaries, experimental films, unconventional American movies, etc.), or rather specialized and niche (“Songs of Ceylon: Music in Sri Lankan Independent Cinema, 1932-1934). However, few of these volumes or essays raise (let alone answer) the principal questions about the subject: What does it mean for a film to be characterized as "independent"? Which paradigms do we/ should we use to categorize them? There are probably as many answers to those questions as there are commentators ready and willing to proffer or prescribe a definition or epistemology. The three main rubrics usually used to define "indie" cinema, whether in the U.S. or internationally, have been, broadly, (1) the economic, (2) the thematic, and (3) the aesthetic.

​

The Hollywood trade papers and industry practitioners mainly define and determine independence by economic parameters. For instance, commercial considerations could include basic budget and financing (outside the studio system, co-productions, major "indies," self-financing, etc.), production (16 mm. or digital cinematography, non-union crews, no stars, novice director, etc.), distribution, and exhibition (niche audience, art-house and museum venues, film festivals, four­-walling, specialized cable channels, YouTube, academic conferences, etc.). In contrast, most film scholars and critics tend to focus on the thematic and stylistic aspects of the "indies," often with numerous subdivisions. For example, thematic independence frequently means focusing on innovative social issues and/or off-beat subject matter, including within various national cinemas, representations of ethnic and other groups, unusual perspectives on conventional thinking, and the personal and/or ideological expression of the filmmaker. The aesthetic dimension could include experiments with narrative form and structure, innovative cinematic techniques, the breaking or bending of genre expectations, non-conventional gender and sexual representations, serious or “in-joke” intertextuality, and self-reflexivity.

​

Despite all these possibilities, many still define independent film as anything outside the "mainstream." As an example, following the 1997 Academy Awards, the so-called “year of the Indies,” a special issue of the New York Times Magazine was devoted to “the Two Hollywoods”—studio and independent. That year, only one studio film, Jerry Maguire (Cameron Crowe, 1996), was nominated for the Best Picture Award, while four other nominees--The English Patient (Anthony Minghella, 1996; Miramax), Shine (Scott Hicks, 1996; Fine Line), Secrets & Lies (Mike Leigh, 1996; October), and Fargo (Joel Coen, 1996; Gramercy)--represented the American indie movement [1]. This belated recognition by the Times confirmed the fact that independent cinema was a consequential commodity, artistic voice, and set of signifying practices. I would argue that almost all the nominated films that year, with the possible exception of Fargo, were really, aesthetically, mainstream films, even though they were financed outside the Hollywood network. Indeed, the Oscar winner that year, The English Patient, was the first Best Picture to ever gross more than $1 billion [2]. A more recent example, The Lord of the Rings franchise was financed (for over $300 million) and distributed by New Line Cinema and could therefore be considered "independent" (with special emphasis on the quote marks here to indicate irony) by some definitions--namely the one that says that anything financed, produced, or distributed outside the eight major studios is an "indie" picture [3]. Of course, as we all know, New Line, Miramax, the Weinstein Group, and Sony Picture Classics were/are subsidiaries of AOL Time Warner, ABC Disney, and Sony Columbia, respectively, and therefore not independent by a more precise and restrictive definition of the term.

​

This essay therefore intends to suggest that we need to reconsider simplified and mono-causal definitions of the term. To reiterate, at least three factors--financing, theme, and aesthetics--characterize and differentiate indie movie--from each other and from mainstream cinema -- and each of those three categories has subtle and important subdivisions. As in our personal and political lives, “independence” in film is an over­determined phenomenon. This essay is a baby-step toward unpacking that Pandora’s Box.