I have been having a discussion with my partner on what makes an indie film indie (art) vs when does it become "hollywood".

The main point of interest is camera moves: Do not using jibs, steddiecams, and dollies make for art or an "indie" look. Or do most indies just not use these (hollywood)devices strictly because they can't afford to and if they had them availible would have more moving shots in their "art".

I would be very intersted on you guys' thoughts,
Kevin

I always resented it to call things 'art'...
I know some movies are offcourse more artfull then others, you can look at for example A Clockwork Orange, and look to those symmetric compositions, and if you compare that to for example a standard action film (xXx or something) well, you notice the difference...
Maybe it has not to do with this or that cameramove, but a style? Does the movie has an own personality?
Isn't it so that something with an own personality, really distinctive, is art?
I don't know, I'm just talking, it's just... there will be always discussion about 'what is art'...?
I for myself love movies where I can feel the passion, and the least I expect from a movie is some technical capiblities (editing) or acting performances, those are really important to me. Then I think: was I drawn into the story? Did it move me?
If it moves me, I like it. In that aspect, I love Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade as much as I love for example Steve+Sky (a little indie film made here in Belgium).

If you see then thousands of explosions in a movie, well, you can safely say: wow, there is a lot of chance it comes from Hollywood, who had the budget...
But why couldn't a movie with many explosions or big budget be an indie?
I, personally, many times love mainstream movies, but with a little more edge (Se7en, Schindler's List, The Machinist). I don't know with some of them if it's Hollywood or indie. But does it really matter anyway?
If a movie has great dialogue, great acting performances, soul, passion, maybe a surprising story, or a really outstanding style that fits that story, great use of sound and music, great editing,...

Don't know, it's just a very difficult question, maybe that's the only point of my long monologue :-) but it's interesting to hear reactions of course

Indie just means independent of any major movie making system like Hollywood. Unfortunately, it gets equated with low budget which isn't the same thing.

Your discussion on camera moves is really about movie making with limitations and restrictions - which isn't unique to either independent or Hollywood films.

I agree with Michael- If it is produced by a studio, it isn't indie. Pretty black and white, the name says it all.

I really wasn't looking to debate symantics... but I understand the point you guys are making... I'm just curious as to wether you think it's "more artistic" to not use hollywood devices such as dollies,jibs, and stedicams or is it just a budget constraint and the same people making "artistic" movies would employ all these hollywood devices if they could?

I think wether it is art, lies more in the story, scenery, and composition, not with what it was shot with. Just because a shot is jittery, doesn't make it art, just sloppy.

I agree... I was trying to keep my opinion out of this discussion to see what others have said but here it goes...

I'm from the school of use what you can, plus I feel that steady cams and dollies make the shots feel more natural (When I read a book my imagination doesn't look at the scene from a tripod it moves interactively with what I'm reading)... I also think at the indie level nice camera work can help "distract" the viewer from focusing on a bad actors lack of skill.

Now their are pleny of examples where it doesn't matter what it looks like it's art... Kevin Smith, besides clerks (it is pure "indie" to me) most of his stuff is pretty static shots but you don't get the impression of that because the dialog, characters, and actors are pretty good. Those of us that don't have the dialog/character creation skills and the actors to pull of such things can use what help when can.

Am I off or does that make sense and most guys would use all these toys to tell their stories if they only had the means?

I appreciate what you mean. Many independent films have a certain feel to them, though that feel is not unique to Indie films and I don't think it's tied to any particular technique or types of shots.

I'd call it a clarity and rawness of expression. Things are clear and simple, and not overly edited or polished. In those films, there's not much between the idea/image and the audience. I think those films are the ones that resonate in your head a long time after the ending.

In contrast, many films throw so much money and resources at a particular idea that it gets lost behind the glitz. Or worse, a bad/boring idea is glitzed up to be more than it really is, to no real purpose in the story other than to make it look cool. Those movies look good in a trailer or in the theatre, but once it's over, it's forgotten.

One of the best "art" films I rented recently was Kurosawa's Dreams. It has that clarity and rawness of expression that I'm talking about. Nothing special about the stories or dialogue, but the ideas and images were just clear, simple, and raw.

As stated before, Independent is not the same as low budget. Or outside the Hollywood system. It's a state of mind and a clear vision to make a feature that does not pander to established storytelling techniques (market proven...). It's a willingness to go where others fear to tread, be it internal or environmental (not talking about ecology here). It's about honesty. It's about having the courage to explore something that might actually upset your audience, or require them to think for themselves. It's not about being political, or anti political. It's not about being self rightous and condeming.

Are you making something that is simply a low budget version of Hollywood drivel? Then you are not an independent film maker, you're a poor hollywood wannabe.

If you have final cut decision (very rare), you can be in the studio system and make an independent film, but usually you have to be way outside to avoid interference from all the busy bodies that want to 'improve it's marketability'. Remember, with millions of dollars on the line, hollywood investors are very timid. Low budget independent gives you a certain freedom if you couple it with talent.

It takes courage, because you can pretty much count on the fact it will only run in arthouses and on the internet if you are lucky. Even the most famous (Cassavettes) had a difficult time getting distribution. And now days it's even harder to make back your investment thanks to DV. (Festivals are overhwhelmed with bad to mediocre entries).

But there is hope....

One thing independents have begun doing is taking their movies on the road with a computer, portable sound system and a portable digital projector and booking themselves at places like libraries and even book stores. Takes dedication and lots of hard work.

Study the great independents and their films,but also read lots of good books. It's become increasingly apparent that many filmmakers are simply copying other films they've watched, and further distilling and dumbing down their content. Remember... life experience counts the most. Get out and join in the human race. Travel, study, learn to listen, learn not to judge...pay attention to your surroundings...

and don't worry about which camera you use.

I thought that was just called a good movie *shrug*

isn't it sad that you have to call it "indie" if you make a movie that falls out of the cookie cutter :(

I thought that was just called a good movie *shrug*

isn't it sad that you have to call it "indie" if you make a movie that falls out of the cookie cutter :(

Good movies don't have to be 'independent'. Not sure what you are getting at.

>>I have been having a discussion with my partner on what makes an indie film indie (art) vs when does it become "hollywood".

The main point of interest is camera moves: Do not using jibs, steddiecams, and dollies make for art or an "indie" look. Or do most indies just not use these (hollywood)devices strictly because they can't afford to and if they had them availible would have more moving shots in their "art".

I would be very intersted on you guys' thoughts,
Kevin<<

This is a weird way to define something as being “Indie” or “Hollywood,” because these terms have NOTHING to do with camera movies. Instead the terms are a way to differentiate the financing and distribution structure of certain films.

Good movies don't have to be 'independent'. Not sure what you are getting at.

What you described as an "indie" film is what I would describe as the basis of a good movie... "one that challenges the audience" blah blah blah.

There is nothing challenging and rarely anything good that comes out of the cliche cookie cutter productions that are put out every year.

Hope that clears that up for you

This is a weird way to define something as being “Indie” or “Hollywood,” because these terms have NOTHING to do with camera movies. Instead the terms are a way to differentiate the financing and distribution structure of certain films.

So why not answer the question vs banter the symantics of the question :(

Mel Gibsons' Passion was an indi.

So why not answer the question vs banter the symantics of the question :(

Yeah, it's usually a budget thing. Most Indie producers I know would die for a Helicopter shot, but they can barely afford to have more then 3 angles in their final battle scene (due to time constraints.)

Art can be a number of things--but above all, it needs to accomplish something. It has to have meaning, it has to evoke feeling and emotion, it has to make you think. Anyone can craft a portrait that looks like a person--but does it have meaning? It is usually more artful to pose people in ways that tell you who the person is. There needs to be meaning, emphasis on meaning.

I would actually consider the recent Napoleon Dynamite art--it is a representation of life in Idaho from the directors point of view. Sure, it doesn't have an intricate plot, or fancy camera movements--but to me, it is still art--the movie makes me understand what it is like to live in that part of the country. A lot of people overlook that aspect. Movies that were written and directed by one person are always more likely to be considered artful.

Looking at a former example, XXX. Hmm, I don't know much about this, but by my guess, the screenplay was probably written by at least five different people over a period of two years. It was probably directed by someone chosen based solely on their name value, who had command of a crew of about 75 people--the director probably never touched the camera. To me, this isn't art, it is factory work--pure craft, no passion.

Matthew Overstreet

Glenn..If you mean low budget, then yes lack of jibs, or other things to make fancy shots usually indicate less money spent (maybe), but then again if you check around dvinfo, there have been some very excellent low cost solutions to getting special types of shots.

Glenn, the question about camera moves is irrelevant to indie or studio made.
They have to do with the type of story you are telling and how you are using the camera to convey it. Is this about copying someone elses style?

Do you mean do unusual/extra camera moves add or detract from the story?

>>Glenn, the question about camera moves is irrelevant to indie or studio made.
They have to do with the type of story you are telling and how you are using the camera to convey it. Is this about copying someone elses style?<<

That's exactly what I said, in my first response. I was only trying to answer his question the best I could.

Really drop the indie arguement... I was just trying to give the topic perspective... it's not limited to this

I also believe I said "I'm from the school of use what you can, plus I feel that steady cams and dollies make the shots feel more natural" so I'm not sure how "unusual/extra" get's thrown in here.

Personally I'm wondering what makes "indie" (or better yet stuff I d/l on the internet) look more amatuer... is it: Bad Sound... boring or stale camera angles... bad acting is certainly a big one but what can you do about that on our budget? I think you can get better sound and camera angles... I was just wondering if I was "missing" something to this "art" I have never been to film school so I don't have it engrained in me to be "artsy" with a film.

Really drop the indie arguement... I was just trying to give the topic perspective... it's not limited to this

I also believe I said "I'm from the school of use what you can, plus I feel that steady cams and dollies make the shots feel more natural" so I'm not sure how "unusual/extra" get's thrown in here.

Personally I'm wondering what makes "indie" (or better yet stuff I d/l on the internet) look more amatuer... is it: Bad Sound... boring or stale camera angles... bad acting is certainly a big one but what can you do about that on our budget? I think you can get better sound and camera angles... I was just wondering if I was "missing" something to this "art" I have never been to film school so I don't have it engrained in me to be "artsy" with a film.

There are a ton of factors that separate commercial movies from amateur ones, and it definitely is not limited to camera angles. In fact, I would say camera angles have very little to do with how professional/commercial a movie is (unless they are totally distracting.) Some of the factors that affect the quality of a movie are:

Script
Acting
Art Direction
GOOD MICING
GOOD LOCATION ACOUSTICS/AMBIENCE
Cinematography
Editing
GOOD ADR
GOOD FOLEYING
GOOD SOUND MIXING
Music Composition

I capitalized SOUND so much, because to me, that is the technical aspect of movie making that really tells an audience as to whether or not they are watching something professional, or simply something home made. Trust me, I know, the sound in my feature film (RAP QUEST) aint all that great, and it hurts me more then any other "boring" shot ever could.

I worked for a film finacing company for a while back in 2000 in LA. (Filmtown) So, I'm in-the-know about how indie films are funded most of the time. I can tell you right now that "indie" has nothing to do with any of the crew or any of the creative decisions. It's about where the funding comes from and how the film makes money.

I think everyone is missing the main reason Independent films are called such. If they are made from funds from entities that are not "studio" related I'd call that a true indie film. (a lot of indie films are made with money from doctors, lawyers and regular people approached to help finance a film) We're going to see films being made really soon from corporations...like Coca Cola is going to make a film with Nike. That sort of thing is bound to happen.

In my experience, an indie film just means there are less chiefs and more indians because of the nature of the funding. The studio films have hardnosed chiefs making very specific choices and you don't have a say - regardless of your position on the film. Indie films that actually make it into theaters are generally made with money from multiple sources - not just one studio. So, in theory you have more "chiefs" because of the multiple sources of funding. However, it usually allows for more freedom to the filmmakers (creatively) because they don't have to answer to a "studio" (aka bank).

In short, you can think of the "studio" and "record company" in the same way. Those types of entities are really just banks with money available to fund a project from start to finish. The "indie" film has to get the money to start, produce and finish the project from multiple sources. It's great in one way because you can find some rich person(s) who believe in some type of theory or idea...and get them to dump money on the project. (unique ideas creep out of the indie world this way). The studios don't care about ideas - they want to reach population. From the top down it's about audience attendance. Indies sometimes get made because they are going for a narrowcast...a certain segment of the population. (Farrenheight 9/11 for example - no big studio would allow a film like that to be made because it slaps a huge segment of the population in the face with its staunch opinion)

There are definately variations - indie films get made through post production with funding from various sources. Then they are shown at a film festival or whatnot - then the "studio" sees it and thinks it'll "open big". They gobble up the project (buy out) and then it rides the studio track until release. It's still independent in nature because of the multiple sources of funding, but in the end the studio gets the benefits of its distribution and reaps the larger rewards.

It's funny - the studios have created these "indie" boutique branches for themselves. They work great for them because they can be indies up until the final stage and then be shot out of the studio canon. The Hollywood system morphs in so many ways...gotta love it for that.

That's my 2 cents from personal experience!

Christopher, after this, I'm going to drop the indie thing as Kevin requested.

What you said is what Hollywood thinks Indie films are. What you really meant was Independent financing vs Studio Financing whitch still has nothing to do with a true 'indie' feature. Okay, no more indie

Kevin, sometimes the grainy look is on purpose. Have you heard of 'Dogme95' and the rules they made about film making? They no longer certify features, but most of them had a 'low budget' look because based on the 'Dogma' they subscribed too. Among may other things...they weren't allowed to bring anything to the set other than the camera. Only things found at the location were allowed for use. No sneaking things in either.
No makeup, only available light, no wardrobe, not even an extension cord. It was/is an attempt to return to true story telling that wasn't wrapped up in fancy/schmanzy technology (aka Hollywood style movies). They couldn't be genre stories either (scifi, western...) had to be in th present tense (no historical or speclative fiction). None of those movies used anyting but handheld or the camera was tied/taped into place (Dancer in the Dark used something like 100 pd100/150s for a particular scene).

The most famous was 'The Celebration' shot handheld on a 1chip PAL DV camcorder and blown up to film (on of the requrements was getting it transferred to film). This was a case where the grainy low budget look complemented the story quite well as the increasingly blocky, grainy look matched the breakdown of a family gathering. Another example was a movie caled 'Julian Donkey Boy' by Harmony Korin. Very grainy, poor audio. But it was done on purpose, not from lack of skill.

The most famous of this movement is Lars Von Trier, one of the founders.

They stopped certifiying becuase they were afraid Dogma95 would become one of the things they were against, a genre or particular type of film making.

In the above cases, no jibs, dollys,balloons or anything else to enhance camera movement was allowed.

If they violated any of the rules, they had to make a public 'confession' before getting certification.

So basically if you would like to have the best of the best in lighting then trying to say dolly shots and crane shots are "too hollywood" is sort of rubbish... it's at least a double standard.

The Dogme people wanted filmmakers to concentrate on story and performance rather than on who has the biggest budget or resources at hand. Which is at core a criticism of commercial filmmaking or, if you like, 'Hollywood'.

Joe, no....what I said is what I said...not what you said.

Joe, no....what I said is what I said...not what you said.

Exactly!

An indi can be low quality, or the finest quality, it can use amateurs, or it can use the finest crews and cast available.... and that is that.

Many in demand and highly paid actors are working for scale, or even buying in to an indi film in order to be in it. They do this because they feel that they are able to make a much better film and really develop their characters, not because indi films are of worst quality!

Hollywood studio films can sometimes sacrifice quality for commercial viability. And when I say quality I mean "story quality" not the high production values that expensive equipment bring to the table! The studios may be perfectly willing to make a crap film, if they think they can make a killing at the box office, whereas an indi may fall into that trap, they are more likely to pursue scripts that are great, but don't include an explosion every 5 minutes.

So I guess everything hinges on your definition of quality.... right?

Chris I know what you said. I was disagreeing with the premise.

Even small so called independent productions can create stuff just as bad as the crap from Hollywood. Take for example this years Project Greenlight on Bravo. In one episode they decided to go with a poorer,weaker, but more comercially viable script. That was the last episode I watched. Even worse than the first two seasons.

My posting didn't really talk about content - it talked about funding. Why are you saying I said something that I didn't? Maybe you've misunderstood my post - I don't really know.

No Chris, I wasn't attacking or anything. There seems to be so many interpretations about 'indie' I get confused. I even misunderstood what the original poster of this thread meant.

My interpretation is strictly about content and integrity, whether it's outside or inside the studio system. Not about a certain 'look' or being edgy for the sake of being edgy, or ironic or low budget grainy or beautiful saturated shots. It's not about film vs digital either.

Lest anyone think I'm some sort of snob, for some unknown reason, I like Lindsay Lohen movies. Maybe it's my weakness for good looking redheads with freckles, I don't know. I'm also a life long Star Trek fan (but not a Trekkie or Trekker), I even watched bad Star Trek like the Voyager series.

Film as art, semantics, jib, dolly, film, video...... aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Make the movie however you want. Jib shots using broomsticks, rent a jimmyjib, a full blown crane sysyem, get some heliarch lights (if you can find em), make a skateboard dolly, whatever your heart desires. Make it in whatever genre you want. Shoot DV, HD, Super16, 35mm, (even some the newer Pro8 8mm film stock looks relatively good) etc... Keeping all the control is what makes a film independent or not. If you finish the film, and a studio approaches you for distribution rights, then go for it. But, keep control. Once this is lost, your film is no longer an "indie".

I've worked on several shorts, and a few features. all indies. and control was the one thing that kept these films indies. But, sometimes it can come back and bite you in the butt.

There comes a time to "cut the cord". A good friend of mine made a film a few years.... okay, a decade ago. He put a small fortune into it, and never submitted it anywhere. He set up small showings over a period of several months, and then it sat on the shelf. I'm not saying that it was a great film, but, he might have gotten it to go somewhere, or he (or I for that matter) may have been "discovered" and I wouldn't be working at a convenience store at 37 years of age, and still working on no/low budget shorts trying to "get discovered".

Rob

Well, the term "indie" seems to be in the eye of the filmmaker in this thread. :-)

Don't want to confuse anyone with the facts, but thought you might find it interesting to see at least one outside definition of "indie", or "independent filmmaker". Here it is at wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film).

Enjoy dissecting this definition. :-)

The very first thing of that entire "wikipedia" states:

"An independent film (or indie film) is a film produced without the support of a major movie studio or a big budget."

This is exactly what I said in my posting. Indie doesn't mean anything in regards to equipment, creative roles or any of that. It means where is the money coming from...period. If it's funded by a studio (aka BANK) then it's a studio picture. If it's funded by multiple (or a single) INDEPENDENT source(s) then it's an "indie" through and through.

For some reason people have begun to think that how a film is made creatively (dollies, type of camera etc) is what makes it "indie". Also, some people think it's a mish-mash of other types of things. The facts are that "indie" is about funding and always has been. It is 100% about where the money is coming from and where it's going after the film makes money.

There are variations on a theme here...example, an indie film is picked up after it's completed by a major studio. Then it's a hybrid of sorts, but that's such a silly argument to have anyway. The bottom line is how the movie is funded and where the distribution of profits and losses are located.

I worked for an independent film financing company, so I know. They went defunct like a lot of indie companies do. They were called, "Filmtown International" and was headed by Alan Mruvka who was the creator of the E! Channel. The biggest film we did there was "State and Main" by David Mammet. I was there in 2000...the year they went belly up. Before they were Filmtown they were "Ministry of Film" and had quite a good run.