Sheir 1 Noah Sheir Senior Practicum Paper Mr.

Nebbia 5/6/12 The Impact of Independent Film In essentially every medium of art, there are these two intertwining attributes: community and connection. Like most things in this world, community is necessary for good art to be made. It enables one to learn from others work, as well as contribute ones personal and individual art to the community for others to learn from. This is where connection is necessary. As art is a very personal act, it really cannot serve a purpose for others if it does not connect with them on a personal level, and there is a shared understanding of beauty. Specifically in filmmaking, these two aspects have always been found in what is called the independent movement. Throughout its history, this movement has faced challenges and even been on the brink of total absorption from major studios, avoiding extinction only by pinpointing other markets like video rentals or movies straight to television. Presently (within the last 15-20 years), independents have once again faced this problem of losing their audience and with it, their community to connect with. But as they have prevailed throughout their history, there is good reason to believe that they will prevail again. This reason can be found in the vastness of the internet, particularly in Youtube. Youtube offers free distribution for any young filmmaker, a first to do so in the history of cinema. It also offers what makes great art, both community and connection. The community of Youtube is a viable route for independent filmmaking to turn to, and could very well be the savior to independent filmmakers, those who have shaped film for essentially the entirety of the 20th century. Yet the key question remains unanswered, what is an independent film? The main problem with answering

Sheir 2 this question is that despite its importance to the film industry, the defining attribute of independent film has altered several times throughout the past century. From its inception in the early 1900s, independent cinema has had profound effects on the film business, from how films are shot to how much is spent to make and market them, yet with time its definition has altered and changed with different time periods, and a constant definition Some may argue that an indie film is produced and distributed apart from Hollywood, separated from the major studios. This argument can be discounted by the fact that by the 1950s every major studio wanted to delve into this new style of filmmaking. Conant writes, Paradoxically, the very firms that had created the barriers to independent production in the prewar period were by 1950 vying to lease studio space to independent producers and to distribute films for them (Conant 6). Another definition might be that independent films hold a different aesthetic, using unexplored or underutilized camera angles, and overall creativity and personal spirit that the money grubbing majors do not possess. However, as Yannis Tzioumakis writes, The emphasis on the personal vision and spirit that the second view prizes makes any effort to examine independent cinema as a form of filmmaking that is characterized by a unified aesthetic impossible (Tzioumakis 266). Essentially, if aesthetics is all that defines independent cinema than there is no unified body of films that can be labeled independent, as their aesthetics and personal vision all differ according to time period or the message of the film and the individual making the film. Independent cinema is even less definitive today, as nearly every major in the business not only distributes movies made by independent filmmakers (those who produce movies separate from major studio editing), but even have their own independent branches known as classics divisions. To name a few, Miramax/Dimension, who released the most financially successful independent film Pulp Fiction, and Sony Pictures Classics, who released the 1995 dark indie comedy Welcome to the Dollhouse.

Sheir 3 The former is a division of ABC Disney, and the latter a division of Sony Columbia, both of which are major studios. All this forced connection with major studios is where sites like Youtube and Vimeo are capable of clearing up confusion as to what an independent filmmaker represents and does, and what independents have always done is push away from the major studios and rebel against the norm. Whether its how they choose to market their film, or how they budget and make their films, its almost always different than the repetitive nature found in the major studios. This rebellion has come in multiple forms and has altered over a span of a century of independent filmmaking. . Independent film finds its root in the early 1900s, more specifically around 1909 when the

Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) was formed. Many film historians refer to this company as the Trust; those who resisted the monopolization of film that this company pursued were known as independents. These filmmakers were the rebels of the industry. As Tzioumakis writes, They used illegal equipment, imported film stock from abroad or relocated their companies to certain geographical areas where the Trusts representatives would find it difficult to reach them and therefore bring legal action against them (Tzioumakis 22). This was an artistic movement, an organized rebellion against the withholding of an art form. During this time the definition of independent filmmaking was simply those made by filmmakers who were a part of this movement, those who refused to be under the MPPCs regulations and rules. Around 1912 the Trust had the displeasure of seeing independent distribution companies springing up left and right. With companies like the Independent Motion Picture Company , Keystone, and even the famous Universal which was created by Carl Laemmle (who also formed the Independent Motion Picture Company), the Trust began to feel some push from this movement. One of the key aspects to these rebel filmmakers were their rebellion to how the MPPC made films. For instance, the independents

Sheir 4 played with creating long films, which the Trust believed would not captivate the audiences attention. The MPPC proved wrong, as the independents increased film length became more and more popular, particularly from the substantial grossing of the 1912 film Queen Elizabeth, and is what is now known as a feature film, a film 40 minutes or longer (Balio 107). Another experiment the independents pursued that is now commonplace is the emphasis on a star. This began with Carl Laemmle, who made a Florence Lawrence a star for people to look forward to in upcoming films (Balio 106) . Though this new emphasis on stardom showed to be popular, independents still faced a major problem: theaters and motion picture companies were growing, but independents still struggled with booking theaters to have their work shown. First National Exhibitors Circuit, however, held the solution to this problem. The first major independent distributor, First National possessed 639 theaters, opening a large crowd for independent filmmakers. Most important though was its hand in influencing the opening of United Artists, an independent distribution company that survived most of the 20th Century and became a home for those known as top rank independents, who produced films that were high in quality but did go against the major studios creative control policies. As the number of top rank independents multiplied, growing to fifty by the end of WWII, major studios saw a market to expose and began to create their own space in the independent world. Even with key figures and directors during the early years of independents (1909-late 1920s) like Adolph Zukor and Charles Chaplin, the independent movements most influential figure of this period was D.W. Griffith, the director of The Birth of a Nation (1915). The story surrounds two families living in South Carolina and Pennsylvania during the Civil War, and one of the sons of the families journey towards his creation of the Klu Klux Klan. Painting the KKK in a very positive light and degrading the act of freeing the slaves, even now this is considered one of

Sheir 5 the most controversial films of all time, and is arguably one of the most important as it showed the potential impact film can have on society. Many even believe this is the reason for the revival of the KKK, which occurred the same year Griffiths film was released. While its impact on society was far reaching, even causing riots and legal discourse for censorship by the NAACP, its impact on the film industry is just as impressive. While films just ten years prior to that were shot with one reel and were a tiny length of 5-8 minutes, like Edwin Porters The Great Train Robbery (1903), The Birth of a Nation was a grand 12 reels of film, lasting over 3 hours. With a high budget of $100,000, the film depicted what was one of the important distinctions between major studios and independent studios, and that is the amount of money invested into production costs. A rebellion even against societys preconceived notions, The Birth of a Nation adequately represents the early independent movements inclination to create long, high quality, and even complex and challenging films, contrasting to the MPPCs emphasis on quantity rather than quality. With the Great Depression and second era of independent filmmaking (early 1930s-post WWII), independent production became harder to finance and studios found an opening into the world of top rank independent production. To adapt to independent filmmakers desire for creative control, the studios created the producer-unit system. This system fixated the control on the producer rather than have the control pinpointed on a group of executives. They still produced at the same tempo, putting out a few high quality films a year. This caused a split in independent filmmakers, as those who produced from major studios were deemed top rank independents and those who did not were called low budget filmmakers. Many of these low budget filmmakers still worked under United Artists, this new system gave almost the same amount of control; this, as well as the major studios bigger budget, caused a large exodus of independent producers working for major studios during the late 1930s and all throughout the 1940s. Independent filmmakers

Sheir 6 were not the rebels being looked down upon by the major studios, but they were now a source of profit. This of course did not stop the independents who were reluctant to join forces with those whom they had previously been fighting against. Take for example Selznick International Pictures, an independent production company who released the 1939 film Gone With the Wind. With a production budget at around $4.1 million, it was the biggest and arguably most important independent film to date. One of the things that really made it stand out was the amount of publicity the movie received, even grossing $20 million dollars before release to the general public. Another was the allowance of the word damn in the famous closing line, Frankly my dear, I dont give a damn. Up until then, use of this sort of language was forbidden in film, and this opened up the use of strong language in film (Tzioumakis 45). By 1940, Selznick International Pictures grossed more than all of the major studios, a landmark achievement in independent film. It was around this time that the major studios committ fully to their new independent filmmakers, which caused a shift in the major studios from quick film distribution to slower, more prestige films. While prestige independent filmmakers no longer solely working apart from major studios, the old rebel independents lived on isolating themselves from the majors, but not as the first rebels created films. And so, a new defining rebellion arose. After WWII, which produced masses of moviegoers, the audience began to dwindle as returning soldiers had to focus on schooling, family, and careers. This created the main difference between the majors and independents throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the production of film reversed entirely.. The first independents created a few expensive films a year; they pursued quality. The independents of the late 1940s, 50s, and continuing on through the 60s, were making very low budget, low quality films. Many of these companies for low budget cinema, such as Republic and Monogram Pictures, formed during the Great Depression, as the market was far

Sheir 7 more accessible. Not only did independent production become synonymous with low quality, but they also took film style in a different direction than classic cinema. While the majors and top rank independents focused primarily on mood, good dialogue and establishing good characters, low budget independents took a liking towards action, adventure, and big stunts. Their low budget also caused them to write all the stories from scratch; everything was an original production, as buying any rights was too expensive for their $50,000 budget. One of the ways that independent distributors dealt with filmmakers lack of funds was to pay for all production costs in exchange for the signing off of distribution rights on a global scale. United Artists saw renewal of life using this strategy, as they were able to distribute young independent filmmakers work, like Stanley Kubricks Killers Kiss (1955). But cost and quality were not the only two major studio aspects that independents pushed away from, the most important aspect of this era was who independents were making films for, which in the case of the 1950s-60s, was the youth demographic. Spanning from 10 years of age to 35 years of age, this demographic was generally untapped up until this point. This is not to say that all films previous to low budget independent cinema were solely for adult viewership, but rather that these films were directly written for youth culture. Independents exploitation of this demographic, which usually involved elevating hype and curiosity over production quality, was conveniently accompanied by a large increase in drive in theaters, which jumped from 2,202 in 50 to 6,000 in 58. This helped greatly with distribution and theater bookings, which had always been a thorn in independents side. Sam Katzman and Richard Zugsmith stand as the leaders of this teen film movement, particularly Katzmans Rock Around the Clock (1956), a fictional depiction of the beginnings of rock and roll which truly set the movement off. However, with the 60s came the change from the teen pic and exploiting by focusing on a certain demographic, to the exploitation of youth by hype. So while Warner Bros (a

Sheir 8 major studio) distributed films like Music Man (1962) with a tagline of The story of that man and his 76 trombones, and the wonderful, wonderful tune he played on every heart in town!, Roger Cormans Wild Angels (1966) tagline is as follows: Their Credo is Violence, Their God is Hate...and They Call Themselves the Wild Angels. Films of this time were either rebellious, or they were horror, each using their own marketing strategies to lure in their youth demographic. This is what the majority of low budget independent film came to be about in the 1960s: marketing and more marketing. It was not about good films, it was about getting as many people to come and see a movie they would enjoy, but never as much as the hype would say they would. For instance, AIP or American International Pictures marketing techniques consisted of what they called the Peter Pan Syndrome. This is what it consisted of, a younger child will watch anything an older child will watch; an older child not watch anything a younger child will watch; a girl will watch anything a boy will watch; a boy will not watch anything a girl will watch; therefore to catch your greatest audience you zero in on the 19-year old male (Tzioumakis 152). In regards to the late 50s and early 60s filmmakers, Jonas Mekas writes that they aspired tofree themselves from the overprofessionalism and over-technicality that usually handicap the inspiration and spontaneity of the official [Hollywood] cinema, guiding themselves more by intuition and improvisation than by discipline (Mekas 1). In essence, this era was a lot more like what Youtube offers now, as the filmmakers usually self distributed and with that they could choose to put out whatever they felt proud of, regardless of popularity or film style. Unfortunately, the later 60s were a poor time for both independents and majors in terms of audience, and because of this independent filmmakers begin to meld with majors for support and majors accept them with open arms because of the independents expertise on low budget filmmaking.

Sheir 9 This era spans from about 1967 to the mid 70s, and was a time in which freedom to express and create true personal vision was encouraged by the majors like never before, so essentially the independents and majors work together in order for them to both succeed through a recessionary period. During this time, to define independent film is essentially impossible, as there is no true distinction between the majors and the independents. This time is a good example of how aesthetics cannot be a judge of what is independent and what is not. For example, one can attempt to compare John Cassavetes Faces (1968) to Robert Wises Star!, which came out in the same year. They each have entirely different stories to tell, Faces being about a couple who each try and find new lovers, and Star! being a return to the exploitation musical film much like Rock Around the Clock. These films are completely separate in story, but neither is necessarily more independent, they are merely different. Both have the same ties to major studios, so in terms of aesthetics whos to say that one is more independent and rebellious (in some way) than the other? Though this short era of independent film soon came to an end, independent films definition was merely moving towards an era of definition just as muddled and unclear. In the next and final era of film, from the 1970s until the present, the major studios were beginning to be taken over by conglomerates. These larger companies, such as The Coca Cola Company who took over Fox or Gulf and Western who took over Paramount, saw how prominent film was in shaping culture, and so began to tap into other profit potentials with filmmaking. This led to top rank independents creating big summer blockbusters such as Steven Spielbergs Jaws (1975) that would turn a massive profit, because of widespread marketing by other products from the conglomerates endorsing the film. These were essentially high budget exploitation films, a sect of film that up until that point only really applied to low budget independents. This, along with majors movement towards the further use of drive in theaters hurt independents, as their market

Sheir 10 was being taken over. This sort of struggle was not an uncommon trial for independents to face, they would always adapt and rebel from staying the same route as the majors in some way. Independent companies like the American International Pictures began putting out films with big stars like Meteor (1979), which had Sean Connery and a $17,000,000 budget, $6,000,000 more than the budget for Jaws (1975). But AIP was incapable of competing with the conglomerate majors, whose marketing and budgets were far too high to compete with, and so AIP was also taken under the wing of a conglomerate. With some of the larger, failing independent companies being taken under, whether by absorption or bankruptcy, independent filmmakers chose to rebel in a different fashion by exploring the untapped home video market in the very late 1970s. During a time of political conservatism, creative top rank independent filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola, who directed 1972s The Godfather, and Martin Scorsese, director of Taxi Driver (1976), were put on the back burner, as they did not share mainstream political views. This made independent films definition slightly more evident, as it began to be seen as an art of alternate views and opinions from that of mainstream cinema. But as new independent companies emerged in the early 1980s, independent film began to make its place once again in the cinematic world. Young and exciting directors began to enter the world of independents such as Joel Coen, who came out with his first film Blood Simple (1984). Film historian Peter Biskind wrote of this time saying, where before there had been a trickle of poorly funded documentaries, supplemented by occasional underfinanced grainy feature, there was now a comparative flood of slick, reasonably well-produced theatrical pictures...suddenly there seemed to be an indie movement. This indie movement as he calls it also led to the audience seeing films as by directors and not by companies; it became personal. Blood Simple was not a Circle Films production, but rather a film by Joel Coen. This boom of low to mid-budget independent filmmaking hit its stride at the end of

Sheir 11 the 1980s with Steven Soderberghs sex, lies, and videotape. This film is what caused a lot of majors to stand up and take notice at the independent movement, as it grossed $24,700,000 with a $1,200,000 budget. While this sort of low-budget, exploitation film had been done in the past, it was never at this quality and with this high a profit. Though this film was a landmark accomplishment in independent filmmaking, it also served to lead the majors further involvement with independents, obscuring what an independent film really was throughout the 1990s and the 2000s. This obfuscation of the definition was heightened by the increased popularity of creating classics divisions. Classics divisions are essentially independent arms attached to a major studios body. They often have productions headed up by producers who produced independently before working with majors, which gives the independent look and feel. The budgets are lower and the content is usually more controversial than the mainstream major studios work. 20th Century Fox created Fox Searchlight in 1994, and Sony formed Sony Pictures Classics. Even United Artists, who had fairly recently been defeated by major studios, rose with United Artists Films, producing and distributing the 2003 Jim Jarmusch film Coffee and Cigarettes. To quote James Schamus, producer of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and Brokeback Mountain (2005), on current independent filmmaking, [independent films can now be] found both within the studio system, with the mini-majors and major independents, as well as outside the system (Lewis 255). This leads to the problem of bounding independent filmmaking to a certain style and approach to film, exactly what it had been fighting against for nearly a century, being contained by majors and expectations. One thing that was always consistent of independent film was inconsistency. Not only in its marketing and production values, but in its aesthetic. Independent film was ever changing and growing in its aesthetic, and the fact that it was now contained by certain

Sheir 12 ramifications was bad to say the least. This is essentially where independents find themselves today, no longer part of a movement of filmmakers, but rather turned into a genre of film. As independent film has progressed farther and farther from a movement, it has lost what makes great art: connection and communication. As the classics divisions have slowly overtaken major independents, connection and personal vision have become replaced as a concern with money. The artists are no longer communicating effectively what they want with no restrictions, and those who are not attached to any major studio do not receive the audience for their work to matter. But in the year 2005, hope arrived in the form of online video sharing, once again giving independents an opportunity to exploit an audience and marketing strategy that major studios have not tapped into yet. Youtube was created back in 2005 by a few coworkers, with Google picking it up a year later for $1,650,000,000. Since then, it has grown exponentially with 71% of online Americans using video-sharing websites such as Youtube (Peterson-Sloss). People from all over the world are able to upload their work, and currently one hour of video is uploaded per second onto Youtube (Doctorow). This taps into a large audience for literally anyone in the world to be a part of. However, not everyone will see the video uploaded, so despite the large audience, ones independent film will probably be drowned out, correct? While this is a potential problem for those seeking Youtube as an alternative to film distribution, Youtube has made changes to aid in the work of independent filmmakers. For instance, from February 2nd to March 31, amateur filmmakers sent in short films to be voted on by director Ridley Scott, who directed Gladiator (2000) and American Gangster (2007), and the 10 finalists will have their films screened at the Venice Film Festival, with the winner receiving $500,000 to produce a work under Ridley Scotts company, Scott Free Productions. Robert Kyncl, Youtube head of content said this, Through this

Sheir 13 program, Youtube will give filmmakers the opportunity to reach a vast audience, screen their work during the Venice Film Festival and potentially be rewarded in a career changing way (Telegraph). This is merely one way that Youtube is helping young, aspiring filmmakers have their independent work be seen by an audience unimaginable in the past without a distribution company. Not only is Youtube promoting work through contests, but even those merely uploading on their own channels are capable of receiving a sizable audience for their independent film. A good example of this is a film called Four Eyed Monsters (2005), the first feature length film on the site. A drama about a couple that refuses to communicate verbally, the directors of the film , Susan Buice and Arin Crumley, made $20,000 in the first week of putting out their film just by sponsors. Theyve become their own conglomerates as they sell t shirts and explore other markets to make money. Hugh Hart of Wired writes, Indie filmmakers seeking success on Youtube are no longer content to bask in the validation of a few thousand viewers. Instead, these auteur-entrepreneurs are using software, crowdsourcing and virtual studio site to broaden exposure for their work and make a few while theyre at it (Hart). Currently holding 1,364,838 views, Four Eyed Monsters is a good example how with a low budget of $100,000 (which they got from loans), one is now capable of producing an entirely personal project that is untouched by others and distributed by only oneself. The creator assumes every role of the process, from how the film is marketed to how it is shot, a freedom that was impossible before sites like Youtube. William Morris, an 1800s English textile designer said this about art, The only healthy art is an art which is to be made by the people and for the people, as a happiness to the maker and the user (Gauntlett 44). This is what Youtube makes available for independent filmmakers, an outlet for healthy art. Youtubes slogan Broadcast Yourself even expresses this concept. Unlike home video and television, Youtube is not a place for major studio work to overrun, as that is not what

Sheir 14 the site is even remotely about. Youtube is about individuals putting out their personal work for the world to see and enjoy. This is the ideal place for the independent filmmaker. Not because one will make just as much money as if it were distributed by a classics division like Fox Searchlight, but because it holds true to the original ideas of the first independent filmmakers. It offers total separation from the sweeping shadow of the major studios and allows one to be involved in a community of other artists pursuing what is good and true about filmmaking. However, this is not to say that Youtube could have a profound effect on major studio filmmaking as well. Hal R. Varian, a professor of Economics of the University of California at Berkeley and writer for the NY Times, wrote a piece titled Why Old Media and Tom Cruise Should Worry About Cheaper Technology. He begins the article by saying this, I occasionally give talks to old media executives where I am expected to say something provocative about new media. Here is what I have been saying for the last few years: You have spent a lot of time worrying about piracy, but the biggest threat you face is the falling cost of producing and distributing digital content (Varian). Youtube, as well as other video sites, has offered just this: cheap distribution for cheaply produced films, and so could very well be the thorn in major studios sides as well as an outlet for creativity and rebellion that independent filmmakers have lacked for the past two decades. John Ruskin, an art critic of the Victorian era, wrote this, So the rule is simple: Always look for invention first, and after that, for such execution as will help the invention, and as the inventor is capable of without painful effort, and no more. Above all, demand no refinement of execution where there is no thought, for that is slaves work, unredeemed. Rather choose rough work than smooth work, so only that the practical purpose be answered, and never imagine there is reason to be proud of anything that may be accomplished by patience and sand-paper (Gauntlett 86-87). Essentially, one can lose personal connection and vision when fine tuning the most

Sheir 15 miniscule of details on ones art. Michael Bays Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) had a grand budget of $195,000,000 and brought in $1,123,746,996, yet its glossy finish of explosions and special effects do not make it good art, and neither does its popularity. Personal vision, connection, and community make great art, and this is where Youtube thrives. Youtube does not censor based on talent of the film nor aesthetics; and while it may not look perfect or be glossed over with production value, it has the raw vision of the artist and rebels against the path of the majors, and that is what makes independent filmmaking so impactful on both society and the history of film.

Bibliography Balio, Tino. The American Film Industry. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1976. Print. Biskind, Peter. "The Story Till Now." Introduction. Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. Print.

Sheir 16 "Fans Help Filmmakers Win YouTube Deal." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2007/06/youtubefest? currentPage=all>. Gauntlett, David. "The Meaning of Making I: Philosophies." Making Is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2011. 44-87. Print. "The History of Motion Pictures." UW Faculty Web Server. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://faculty.washington.edu/baldasty/JAN13.htm>. IMDb. IMDb.com. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.imdb.com/>. Lewis, Jon. The End of Cinema as We Know It: American Film in the Nineties. New York: New York UP, 2001. 255. Print. "One One - The Filmmakers Journal." One One. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://www.filmmakersjournal.co.uk/article.php?id=12>. Peterson-Sloss, Celeste. "A Survey from The Pew Internet & American Life Project Revealed the following." Computers in Libraries (2011). GaleGroup. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DaSort&inPS=true&prodld=SPJ.SP08>. Tzioumakis, Yannis. American Independent Cinema: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2006. Print. Varian, Hal R. "Why Old Meda and Tom Cruise Should Worry About Cheaper Technology." The New York Times. 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/business/19scene.html>.

Sheir 17 "YouTube Film Festival to Send Amateur Filmmakers to Venice." The Telegraph. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/venice-filmfestival/9024703/YouTube-film-festival-to-send-amateur-filmmakers-to-Venice.html>.