I wrote an article theorizing my own beliefs as to what happened to independent cinema entitled "From the Ashes of Independent Cinema Rises Original Cable Programming".

If anyone's interested, take a look...

http://www.scripttherapist.com/2010/08/from-ashes-of-independent-cinema-rises.html

I think you can place the blame on companies like Redbox. Why am I going to spend $15 at the theater to watch an 'indie flick' (btw that term means nothing to an average viewer who has no knowledge of the film biz) when I can watch it on my expensive TV at home with my spouse and friends.

Besides there's too much product out there, I'm going to be dam picky about where my money goes.

I agreed with Luke up until he said that audiences are getting stupider.

I couldn't disagree more. Audiences are getting smarter. They're also getting more critical of films and film making, oftentimes going to see movies, not to enjoy the entertainment, but to criticize.

It takes much more to please an audience today than ever before.

What Luke considers "independent film" is the exact lack of a film that can gross 20 million dollars+ he says is lacking in the indie marketplace to begin with.

He sites indie breakouts that he doesn't like because they are too similar to Hollywood cinema.

What he is describing is the problem I've always had with independent films -- he treats them like they are a genre.

They aren't.

They are films categorized by how they are funded. That's it.

Scorcese talks about how he wishes he could turn back the clock, because with 100 million dollar budget(s), which are the type of movies studios expect him to make, he can't make the smaller films that are what originally launched his career.

Independent films have the luxury of getting to be more specified. Smaller. Specific. A 100 million dollar budget means it needs to hit a much wider audience, which means homogenization. That's how it goes.

But indie films also have the obligation of providing some security for investor money.

I'd say if anything is keeping the independent "genre" down, it's a complete and total lack of quality. The best indie films I saw this year, got bought.

You want to make money. Make a good product. Simple as that.

Audiences of ALL kinds are starved for originality. Look at the success that Inception has had.

While Luke obviously has a problem with studio driven dumbed down Hollywood entertainment -- audiences see consistency.

People weren't lining up to see THE EXPENDABLES because they thought they were going to be moved to tears or learn something about life. They wanted to see a dozen action stars blowing shit up.

That doesn't mean they're dumb.

It means they know what they want. And they speak with their dollar.

I'm curious if it ever crossed Luke's mind, that perhaps shoving his view of indie film down the throats of moviegoers that don't want to see his self indulgent pretentious crap (I'm going out on a limb with that -- but if you want to consider indie flicks a genre, I'd say that's what they are best known for) -- then I'd have to ask -- who really is the stupid one?

The day an entertainer turns on his audience is the day he should stop entertaining.

I totally agree with the guy who said "where is that break-out movie?" Because if "The Kids Are All Right" was the best of such films, then no wonder there wasn't a huge break-out indie this year; just in terms of pure content, it was no Little Miss Sunshine or Napoleon Dynamite. Not even close.

James:

You make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs that aren't actually in what I wrote. First of all, I didn't say that I don't like the breakout films I listed. I said they are similar to Hollywood films in terms of their appeal. I also didn't say anything to deny that indies are categorized according to how they're funded (though nearly all the indies that get a theatrical release in the US are "arthouse" films). Nor did I say that I don't like Hollywood movies.

But I must admit I find it rather hilarious that you use The Expendables as evidence that American audiences are smarter than ever. I saw that film - proof that I don't avoid Hollywood fare - and it is absolutely terrible. Compared to countless B-grade action movies of the past, it is absolutely terrible.

Sure, you can say that if people paid to see it, that means they liked it, and that the film therefore isn't terrible. You can make the economic argument about film quality. It gives you a very simple formula for which films are good and which are bad. It means Avatar is the greatest film of all time and Titanic is second.

But if we're going to have a serious discussion about audience tastes and how they've changed, you're going to have to do better. The fact is most Americans won't go see foreign films just because they have subtitles. They won't go see films that don't have recognizable stars, or fit into simple categories. They want to see trailers that reveal the entire story arc of the film.
I could go on. These claims are grounded in empirical evidence.

As for "self-indulgent pretentious crap" films, I know what you mean. I don't like those movies either. But I can list countless indies that didn't gross $20M (or even $1M) that don't fit that category.

For example: "A Prophet." It's a straight-ahead crime drama. Nothing pretentious about it (unless the fact that it's in French counts). It won Cannes last year and was nominated for an Oscar. It has a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. If you want to argue that in a country where that film grosses $2M and the Expendables grosses $100M, audiences are smarter than ever, be my guest. I think you'll have a hard time doing it.

I would even argue that the people who went to see The Expendables, IF they actually went to see A Prophet, would enjoy it more. But they don't go. Because of prejudices, because of mass marketing, and because of the current popular culture.

I'm slowly realising that it's all about distribution and how many people watch big screen movies.
And I fully understand if that number peaks at 'x' no of screens then people are going to want to make the most per screen as possible. So, yeah I can make $20 million from this movie - but $150million from this movie - even if it cost five times as much to make. But I do worry about the arguements that say economic sucess = quality and that indie is just self-indulgent because it doesn't make as much money. That way lies the death of art. In literature no-one suggest John Grisham is better than, say, Henry James just because he sells more. (if you do you're not a writer, your anexecutiuve!) The difference is it costs the smae to print both authors and there are enough 'readers out there to justify publication. SO if we can get the cost of distribution down -change the paradigm - can we not envisage a world where a film costing $5 million that takes $9 million would be a worthwhile investment?
I know my understanding of the technicalities is fuzzy, but my guts tell me there has to be a way forward!

The Expendables argument had nothing to do with an audiences intelligence. It was illustrating the point that audiences knew what to expect from the movie. A Hollywood movie at that. (Yes, it's terrible, no argument here, lol.)

I'm not equating paying for it to liking it either.

I'm equating payment with expectation.

The problem with "independent movies" is often that they are treated as a genre unto themselves.

That is problematic.

The "genre" that it has found itself in -- are the self indulgent, pretentious loads.

But that's not what true indie film is. I know you get this.

I just took it to heart that you claimed audiences are getting dumber. I disagree.

Louder, yes.

Dumber, no.

More opinionated, yes.

Right all the time, no.

There's a thirst for content out there.

Maybe the model for independent film isn't going to mirror the model that studio films follow. The fact that it ever did, was something of a luxury.

But to claim that it is because the audience is dumber is a huge leap imo.

Like I said in the previous post, I agree with you, up until the point about audiences.

Also wanted to point out, you take the box office argument to the extremes, citing Avatar and Titanic.

My point was that indie films have an obligation to their investors.

A million dollar film shouldn't be comparing itself to Avatar.

Everyone seems hyper focused on finding the next Paranormal Activity -- a $10,000 movie, that can gross 100 million.

That's ridiculous.

That was the point of the Scorcese reference. He can't make small budget (or even modest budget films anymore) because the P&A behind his movies would cost more than the film many times over.

The model shouldn't be the all or nothing that it currently is.

Look at what HUMAN CENTIPEDE did with its modest budget (and ridiculously retarded premise).

That's the spirit of indie films right there.