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.