Defining Independent

In today's market, where the success of a film is defined by dollar signs, independent production companies such as Miramax seem to operate as mini-studios, churning out populist fare like SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE and THE ENGLISH PATIENT. Nothing wrong with that, really, as long as we call a spade a spade. Are the above referenced films truly distinguishable as independent?

What are the parameters of an independent film? Is it merely the financial constraint of finding money from independent sources? Does it have to do with having a singular independent vision?

It's an easy word to throw around, but not so simple to define.

Wikipedia claims that “Independent films today are generally defined as American films financed and distributed by sources outside today's Big Six [major film studios] and its subsidiaries.” Are financial support and distribution the only determinant factors as to whether a film should be classified as indie or not?

If so, then why is it possible for films, like Juno and Little Miss Sunshine, to be called independent?

In the past, the tag, “independent” was applied to low budget pictures that played for a week in some local art house theatre. Referring to non-studio, low-budget movies, distributed by a nonconformist company, the label had clear meaning. In the 1990s, however, things changed. The former mavericks of the film world were no longer independents. Disney bought Miramax, Universal bought October (eventually morphing into Focus Features,) Turner/Time Warner bought New Line, Vestron was swallowed up by Lion's Gate, and on and on. Stemming from this, indies’ budgets increased to as much as $50 million.

Two different conceptions of independent film can be found. One is based on the way a film is financed, the other focuses on the spirit of the picture or the artistic vision of the creators. According to the first view, any film financed outside of Hollywood is independent. The second suggests that it is fresh perspective, imaginative will and personal vision that are the determining factor.

Brad Krevoy, the producer of 90s comedies DUMB AND DUMBER and KINGPIN says that “the studios, with their hordes of executives going through every page of the script and telling a director what to do, are the antithesis of a pure independent, who basically executes his particular vision.”

When a filmmaker says that he or she is independent, the most important thing is that they do not let anyone beat them into a pulp and force them to make a movie that a financer wants. “It’s a more iconoclastic filmmaking without the burden of attempting to make $100 million at the box-office,” says Emanuel Levy, writer of “Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film.”

Independent has become a label that makes it easy for people to analyze things that are a lot more complicated. The independent spirit is trying to rely on as few outside sources and controls as possible. For many the term “independent” conjures up visions of ambitious directors working with little money and no commercial promises. Ideally, an indie is a fresh low-budget movie with a gritty style and offbeat subject matter that expresses the filmmaker’s mindset and vision. However, in today’s market the lines have blurred with popular Hollywood, creating what some call, “indiewood,” a hybrid of the imaginative creators with all the innovative ideas and the big market with all the deep pockets.

Cover Letter

Nick Kirschner
Persuasion
Bammert
Winter 2009

How to Not Get Hit By Cars
A Cyclists’ Guide


GENRE:
A brochure

PUBLICATION:
This brochure is for the commuting and everyday cyclist to help him/her avoid dangerous collisions with automotives. The brochure will be distributed at local area bike shops and cycling events such as the annual Bike Swap.

AUDIENCE:
At bike shops I expect to encounter all different types of cyclists, from the kind that ride 30-70 miles a day to the kids that are just getting their training wheels taken off. All cyclists that ride in the road are at a constant risk of being hit by motorists, and they need to be properly educated about proper techniques that can save their lives.

BRIEF ANALYSIS:
There is a definite bike v. car mentality out there, and despite all the bickering and proposed legislation, the fact that cars are always going to win in a crash is undeniable. We’re talking two tons against maybe 200lbs; the odds are always going to favor the gas-burning hunk of metal. The best thing that cyclists can do is take into account that in order to serve their best interest and to avoid serious injury they must take the responsibility of remaining safe among the adversity of cars. Motorists are often not cognizant of cyclists, especially when exiting their car, or at intersections. Yes, they should be more alert and should be able to spot a bike rider and evade accidents, but this is not the case. Put simply, car drivers just don’t see us out there. We can tell them to be more attentive over and over again but there is just no guarantee that it’s ever going to stick. That’s why we need to protect ourselves by being smarter on the roads. This brochure gives easy tips to cyclists on ways to circumvent the most commonly seen accidents between cars and bikes. The information provided in this pamphlet when applied to your everyday riding will greatly develop your safety methods and make you a more responsive rider.

WORKS CONSULTED/CITED:
http://www.bicyclesafety.com-/ Provided Images
www.helmets.org/stats.htm
www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Imagery

As a strong proponent of free speech I believe that images of all kind should be used to their fullest extent to sway opinion. It is the public's job to interprete images and decide whether or not they are appropriate based on their own values. Images like the ones distributed by PETA can easily be avoided just by hitting the stop button on the video's browser, or by typing in a different web address. No one is being held down and forced to watch these ads, and as long as it remains that way, let people create whatever type of commercial with whatever type of pictures, videos or illustrations they want.

Seriously, if we ask PETA to cut back their lynch-mob antics, then we'll lose faildogs.com

Cycling Editorial

Every morning Lucas Boyle rides his 1989 Bianchi road bike to Seattle University campus in pursuit of his Fine Arts Degree. On the morning on Tuesday January 27th, as Lucas was coasting in the bike lane on 12th Ave, which runs parallel to the University, a forrest green 2007 Range Rover took a right hand turn directly into Lucas' path. The vehicle had not signaled and Lucas had no time to dodge the collision. The impact launched Lucas over his handlebars, ricocheting him off the hood of the car and then down to the pavement, cutting his elbow and cracking his helmet. As Lucas lied on the concrete grimacing in pain, the driver of the vehicle rolled down the window of his car only halfway and asked, "You gonna be alright?"

Instances like this are riddling the streets of Seattle, and because there has been an influx of bicycle popularity in recent years, bike v. car accidents will continue to grow. As both a cyclist and a motorist I've been able to witness both sides of the debate. Yes, it gets frustrating when you're drving and are stuck behind a slow traveling cyclist on University Way., but at the same time, being hit by a car making an illegal u-turn while on a bike is far more aggrovating, and physically painful.

Just the other day I was biking down 45th ave NE in the U-District and a group of young men in a electric blue Jetta drove up next next to me and yelled, "Biking is gay you fag!" They then proceeded to try and run me off the road. When will this maddness stop? This misguided connotation toward bikers is obviously ignorant and outrageous and does nothing but fuel the cyclist v. motorist dilemma which is dangerous for all users of the roads. If cyclists continue to get acosted by drivers then don't expect this issue to improve any time soon.

Mama!

In regards to the two articles read and discussed in class an examination of what constitutes a responsibile mother must be investigated. Is it considered to be responsible to for a mother to enlist and therefore put themself in harms way day after day while the'yre child is back at home? Does it make things more acceptable if there is a father looking after that child? Also, we have to ask, is it responsible for a woman on disability and food stamps to have eight more children when she already has six?

A tricky aspect of this debate however is the pitfalls of female marginalization. to say that if a woman joins the military she should give up her right to bear children is a pretty bold statement and there will be a backlash. furthermore, to imply that men have more of a right to father children but at the same time fight wars on the other side of the world would also stir up controversey.

Either way, a woman in the military must accept that she is putting not only her life at risk, but her child's, and that if she decided on joining the military, she has to realize what she has done and that that life choice means that she is responsible to her country more than anything else, including being a parent. I personally despise the military, so I am not viewing this with a right wing/conservative bias, I'm just being realistic about the government's "machine" that people cannot just play with or leech off of whenever they please.


In regards to the Octomom, this is about as irresponsible as it gets. She was offered full childcare for free but turned it town because she wants to go on a reality show and that would breach the contrat. A responsible mother, on welfare or not, puts her children before fame.