Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream

Edited by Chris Holmlund and Justin Wyatt
London and New York: Routledge, 2005

From Easy Rider to The Blair Witch Project, Contemporary American Independent Film is a comprehensive examination of the independent film scene consisting of seventeen essays from numerous film studies professors through out the country. Exploring the uneasy relationship between independent films and the major studios, the contributors trace the changing ideas and definitions of independent cinema, and the diversity of independent film practices.

They consider the ways in which indie films are marketed and distributed, and how new technologies such as video, cable and the internet, offered new opportunities for filmmakers to produce and market independent films.

Turning to the work of key auteurs such as John Sayles and Haile Gerima, contributors ask whether independent filmmakers can also be stars, and consider how indie features like Boys Don't Cry and Shopping for Fangs address issues of gender, sexuality and ethnicity normally avoided by Hollywood.

The collection of essays offers an unprecedented look at the scope of indie options and the field of indie controversies. Though each author is different in their approach, they seem to all feel passionately that how indies are defined, made, and shown makes a difference. They show great interest in the interface of economics, technology, aesthetics and ideology. The contributors, as well as the editor, Chris Holmlund, recognize that in a world dominated by Hollywood products, independents are necessarily in positions of dependence. Yet still, they write how creative imagination, determination and courage among filmmakers continue to be present.

Several of the contributors measure contemporary American indie features in light of indie traditions of early American features, experimental shorts, documentaries and foreign films. Several explore emerging new media or marketing. Others look at more mainstream work, although they mostly avoid analysis of films produced and released by mini-major studios. A number of the essays examine audiences, distinguishing them by gender, generation, sexual preference, ethnicity and race. Always concerned with audiences, as well as attitudes, all of the contributors weave together reflections on history with assessments of the present and speculations of the future.

Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film

By Emanuel Levy
New York and London: New York University Press, 1999

Given American independent cinema’s rise to prominence over the past several decades, it is very fortunate to read a comprehensive account of the catalysts behind that rise, as well as an assessment of indie cinema’s effect on American film culture and its relationship to the mainstream Hollywood industry. Emanuel Levy’s Cinema of Outsiders can serve as a handy viewing guide for whoever aims to write such an account. Consisting primarily of critical reviews of independent films, Cinema of Outsiders engagingly assesses the extensive range of work in American independent cinema since the late 1970s. Unfortunately, this text covers a lot of critical ground without digging very deeply into it, leaving crucial questions unexplored, but giving a sturdy stepping stone for film fanatics looking to answer those crucial questions on their own.

The introduction, conclusion and first two chapters are the most satisfying sections of the book. The introduction opens in a logical place by addressing how difficult it is to establish a clear definition for contemporary independent cinema. Here Levy identifies the two main factors he feels are essential to such a definition: financing and artistic vision. In Levy’s view, as the book title indicates, independent cinema is founded upon the films of “outsiders,” nonconforming writers and directors not willing to compromise their personal visions in exchange for mainstream studio financing.

The first chapter extends Levy’s attempts at definition by exploring ten forces that have affected the development of independent cinema. This chapter is therefore a useful sketch of methods within both the indie scene and the world of Hollywood have shaped independent cinema. Throughout these opening sections and in the conclusion, Levy repeatedly considers the difficulties in determining the industrial and aesthetic dividing lines between mainstream Hollywood and the independent film world. Yet all Levy does here is indeed “observe” these issues, rarely analyzing them in any detail, and largely not returning to them until the conclusion.

Primarily the book consists of critical assessments of individual films and filmmakers, and Levy provides little sense of how each filmmaker relates to the issues raised in the opening sections of the book. Such editorial comments provide the main attraction of these chapters, as Levy copiously exercises the skills that served him as a film critic for Variety Magazine.

In sum, readers looking for a sharply written abridgment of independent film reviews will be well served by Cinema of Outsiders. But for those looking for more, the book too frequently raises intriguing issues that it then neglects. For instance, Levy opens the “Female/Feminist Sensibility” chapter with the following questions: “Is there a distinctly female sensibility in indie narratives written and directed by women? Are new meanings established? Do women-directed indies address their audiences in different ways?” (348-349). Unfortunately, he never approaches solid answers to these questions in the chapter’s subsequent film reviews. As such, while the reader gains a good sense of the artistic merits and drawbacks of many independent films through reading the book, Levy never satisfactorily makes clear what all of these films add up to, however, he does leave the questions open to the astute film savvy reader for answering.

The Funny Celluloids

Next to noir, comedy is the genre that most excites new indie directors. As in other genres, indie comedy and satire has built upon the work of influential directors: Robert Altman, George Lucas, and Barry Levinson. Quintessential films, such as Altman’s M.A.S.H., Lucas’s American Graffiti, and Levinson’s Diner, have all left a particularly strong mark on indie comedies on the past several decades.


Indie comedies have differed radically from those produced by Hollywood. Mainstream comedies of the 1980s were largely defined by Ivan Reitman, who has shown a knack for commercially viable material. After scoring box-office hits as the co producer of National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978), and the director of Meatballs (1979), Reitman launched a spectacular Hollywood career, capped by the quirky blockbuster, Ghostbusters (1984). When Reitman made Legal Eagles (1986), critics praised his foray into adult comedy, yet the film was still a teenage comedy in feeling, although one populated by adult characters.


American comedies of recent years have been mechanical retreads of old formulas. Filmmakers seem unable to recognize that it’s hard to make screwball comedy these days when the social norms and manners that gave rise to those cinematic conventions no longer exist.

Most American comedies are so broad they are about nothing- take for example a couple of Jim Carrey’s films, Ace Ventura...and its sequel. The distinct sensibility that that permeated American comedy of the 1970s, in the works of Woody Allen, Mike Nichols, and Paul Mazursky, no longer exists. Woody Allen has retained his strength as an inventive comedy director, but he has lost his broad base and now works as a niche filmmaker supported by a small audience.


The work of gifted indie directors has tapped into the zeitgeist, armed with topicality and point of view that defy the mass-marketing approach. Christopher Guest’s style of mockumentary and improvisation, Kevin Smith’s verbal gyrations among the twentysomethings, David O. Russell’s neo-Woody Allen, neurotic tinged comedies, and Alexander Payne’s political satire are all examples of this. Successfully pitching comedies to studios seems like it must be harder than ever, because the conglomerate nature of studios. Studies seem seduced by expensive projects to the point where it sounds like a disgrace to make a movie for only $2 million.

Let’s get back to the character based comedies of the 1970s please.

….and thank you.


Woody Allen