To be an independent filmmaker is to make films outside of the studio or without the financing of any studios. Funding can be sourced from anywhere or anyone who is willing to support a passionate filmmaker with a very compelling story - or from a filmmaker's very own pocket by begging, stealing, or borrowing.
Ten years ago it was very expensive to produce a film - heck, it was even expensive then to just plan making one. The arrival of the digital format has totally changed the landscape of filmmaking; it has revolutionized the process and has awakened the "filmmaker" in every human being in the world. Inexpensive digital cameras and non-linear editing facilities have brought filmmaking to every living room with an ample electrical supply. Suddenly, "artists" were born - "experts" are everywhere. Dude! Even critics are now a dime a dozen.
The film format is constantly under threat and its quality is always being compared to the ever-changing digital technology. I believe that, sooner or later, the motion picture negative will disappear and will be replaced by a "better" format. But the gap between the professional and consumer formats is shrinking. Hence the introduction of the word "ProSumer", coined by marketing geniuses.
The advent of the consumer digital video system is like the first time the world got hold of an "INSTAMATIC"... everyone can point, shoot, and click! It's a great time to be a filmmaker or be a 10-year-old.
We use to call low-budget films B-Movies. In the Philippines, low budget digital (DV) movies are now called "INDIES". The studios are now producing DV features because of the lack of funds. The studios now are playing "INDIES" to legitimize their commercial soft porn flicks in the guise of an "art film" in "digital" - hiring "indies" ready for any break in the business.
We use to call independent filmmaking the Alternative Cinema. But even before the actual revolution could happen, the filmmakers were overtaken by technology.
Technology has liberated everyone in the visual arts. Technology has made visual "artists" of anyone who can operate a digital camera.
Let's take a moment of silence and pray for the death of the INDIES.
Article comments
1 - -E
I surely don't see independant film as a dying art. Indies have never been synonymous with quality film. There is a ton of much to wade through to find the gems. Certainly anyone who can use the technology isn't a filmmaker. Nor is just anything a camera records truly a film.
The digital format has helped other areas of filmmaking improve as well. Instead of all the funds from a low budget movie going towards film, processing and prints, we can pay for better sets and special effects, we can pay for the locations instead of working in a studio, we can pay for better costumes. It means that more coverage can be shot so editors aren't struggling to make a cut match.
And in the filmmaking world, I know very few that say anything looks better than film. HD may be the closest competitor (and it remains expensive too), but certainly no one is saying DV rivals film in quality.
2 - yam12
The indies have become empowered. I believe that there are no "Indie" or "Studio" productions anymore...there are just films. Format is not a question - content is what's important.
The liberalization of the medium has created geniuses as well as hacks.
WILL THE REAL VAN GOGH PLEASE RISE?
3 - Chris Evans
I disagree with Indie not being synonymous with quality filmmaking. If you look at big budget films that are good and indie films that are good, the ratio is much higher on the indie end. And the reason that is, is because indie films usually place much more emphasis and importance on the screenplay, whereas in big budget productions, the screenplay is not considered "a gem". It is changed a lot throughout the moviemaking process by the director for whatever reason, AND big movie studios rarely want to take risks with screenplays that are different because they're afraid of losing too much money. Of course, this would probably account for the recent trend of movies being re-made or TV shows being re-made, which of course, accounts for the box office slump.
4 - yam12
Technology has leveled the playing field, but quality and content is the equalizer.
5 - -E
Ok, let me clarify. Of the indies made and the ones that get acclaim to the point people hear of them- there is a HUGE difference. I went to film school. I used to work for a film festival and work in the film business now. There is a TON of crap made. And a lot more crap is made by the "indies" because there are more of them. A good independant film is generally better than a good blockbuster (in my opinion), but there is a lot of muck before you get to a gem.
6 - -E
Also, the studios now have their branches for "indie" releases (like Sony Pictures Classic). Most of the time the studios actually have very little or nothing to do with the actual film made. So they are independant films- just a studio likes it enough to buy it and then distribute it.
7 - Chris Evans
You know what? I guess I'd never thought of it that way before. Most indie films that I hear about are MUCH better than the big budget films, but I suppose I never considered the number of indie films that I never hear of.
8 - yam12
I couldn't agree with you more!
There's just a lot of people out ther who are exploiting the "label" (INDIE) as art house, world cinema, and experimental - when more than 90% of those stuff they produce are just low budget "hey-mom-I-just-made-a-moooveee" kind : )
Happy Holidays!
9 - -E
But generally you're right Chris, the stuff that gets to a theater is generally better when its an indie than the big budgets. I just wanted to say that doesn't mean they're all great.
10 - yam12
There is no segregation in filmmaking...creativity is a democracy. Just because you have "less" you make "less".
The filmmaking industry is now on the verge of collision between entertainment and technology.
The audience is also evolving and they do not discriminate.