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

The Brothers Noir

Arguably no indie filmmaker has benefited or exploited the noir tradition more effectively and thoroughly than Joel and Ethan Coen. The Coen brothers are one of the most creative pairings on the contemporary scene. Unconventional and arcane, they have maintained artistic control through writing, directing, producing, and even some times editing their movies. They form a unified team, with their individual contributions so intertwined that no one can say precisely who did what (Usually Joel directs, Ethan produces and they both write.). With fourteen films to their credit, including Blood Simple (1985), Miller’s Crossing (1990), Barton Fink (1991), The Man Who Wasn't There (2001), and the Oscar winning No Country for Old Men (2007), the Coens have created a world that doesn’t look like anybody else’s.


The Coen’s commercial successes, Raising Arizona (1987), and Fargo (1996), are set in recognizable worlds inhabited by more or less ordinary characters. The rest take place in the stylized noir tradition (Blood Simple), remote gangster lands (Miller’s Crossing), or abstract studio sets (The Hudsucker Proxy). As formalist filmmakers, the Coens have pushed Hollywood conventions to the point of absurdity. Like those of many filmmakers, their ideas were formed by pop culture, which means that their work is self conscious. Each of their films pay homage to a classic Hollywood genre, with a knowingness born of numerous hours spent in the dark. Simply, the Coens are clever directors who know too much about movies.


The only shallowness of their work is a result of their creating sealed universes that have few references outside the world of cinema. It would appear that the Coens believe linking form and content is irrelevant, that brilliant style will somehow lure viewers into uncritical acceptance of their schemes (Which works). Their films are both unique and derivative, displaying dazzling camera techniques, meticulously conceived scenes, elaborate set pieces, brilliant production design and smart dialogue.


The Coens, not their characters or the actors who play them, are the stars of their movies. Unlike Tarantino, who puts his performers center stage, the Coens pull the audience away from the actors and showcase their talent.


From the beginning it was the Coen’s self knowingness that endeared them to high-brow critics and sophisticated audiences. Box-office failures like Miller’s Crossing and Barton Fink would have ruined most filmmakers, but in the Coen’s case, they have managed to increase their stature as supreme filmmakers.


The Coen’s work, like the arty Miller’s Crossing, or the desolate styled Barton Fink, feels sealed off and motionless. But this doesn’t mean their work is devoid of serious themes or ideas: Hysterical individualism, often translating into greed, runs through most of their films, creating underlining premises often overlooked.


MILLER'S CROSSING TRAILER

The Smithonian Universe

Kevin Smith has been called “The King of Gen-X Cinema," a label he surely embraces with joy. A satirist who writes skillfully but lacks any sense of visual style, Smith has made a strong case for attending film school, if only to acquire some technical skills. Clerks (1994), a savage assault of convenience-store culture, put on screen the loves and ambitions of two cash register hockey nuts. Raggedy and vulgar, a studio made Mall Rats (1995), which takes aim at the shopping mall “subculture.” It was a sophomore jinx, flat and not very funny. The sex-comedy Chasing Amy (1997) represented a return to form but again showed that Smith is a rough filmmaker with limited understanding of the medium’s possibilities.


The son of a postal clerk in Highlands New Jersey, Smith set his sights on becoming a screenwriter after dropping out of college. He switched gears and headed to Vancouver to where he would spend four months in film school until deciding to invest the rest of his tuition into making a movie. Shot after business hours in three weeks at the Quick Stop where Smith used to work, Clerks was made for a mere $27,575.


The anti-hero, Dante Hicks, plans to sleep late, play hockey, and enjoy his day off, but, instead he gets called in to the Quick Stop and is stranded when his boss never shows up to relieve him. He’s forced to listen to tales of lung cancer from customers and is later devastated by the wedding announcement of Caitlin, the high school sweetheart he can’t forget. Shocked by the sexual revelations of his girlfriend, Veronica, he blusters, “You sucked thirty-six dicks? Does that include me?” “Thirty-seven,” she calmly responds.


Dante quips that his job would be great if “it wasn’t for all the customers.” Randal, Dante’s reckless counterpart at the adjoining video store also insults customers. Together they philosophize the Star Wars Trilogy. They theorize that The Empire Strikes Back ended on a down note, and that’s all that life is, a series of down notes.


Shot in grainy black and white, Clerks is cast with beginners and the script dogpiles absurdity and obscenity on top of each other. The dullness of dead-end jobs is brightened with odd bits- a fat guy asks for softer toilet paper and then dies on the toilet. When Dante and Randall run out to attend the funereal, Randall tips over the casket. By the end of the day the Quick Stop lies in ruins.


After premiering at Sundance, where Clerks won the Filmmakers Trophy, Smith barnstormed around the global film circuit, gathering acclaim for the film and quickly getting picked up by Miramax.


Although still somewhat considered a new filmmaker, Smith hails more mainstream aspirations. Mainstream hopes don’t sound too surprising from someone who avoids drugs, attends church and loves the family life. Smith grew up “talking about sex, but not having it,” which explains why his movies are raunchy, anticlerical, and sexually glitzy.


Politics

Indies From Venus

In the winter of 2000, another “Year of the Woman” was proclaimed in the independent film scene. Reporters had either forgotten or had never known that the Sundance Film Festival had already celebrated the year of the woman in 1989, 1991 and 1993. So for trade journalists, Sundance had hit a major milestone with its notable jump in female participants, 40 percent of the candidates in the festival’s dramatic competition were female, up from 20 percent in the previous eight years. And a woman, Karyn Kusama won the Grand Jury Prize for her film, Girlfight (2000), a feminist version of Rocky, which featured a working-class teenage girl’s entrance into the amateur boxing ring. Kusama, who had financed the $1 million film through her previous employer John Sayles and the Independent Film Channel, sold Girlfight to Sony for $3 million.


Around that same time, Kimberly Peirce enjoyed the success of Boys Don’t Cry (1999). A dramatic treatment of the rape and murder of Brandon Teena, a teenaged girl passing as a boy in Falls City, Iowa. This debut film gathered critical acclaim at festivals in Toronto, Venice, London and New York just to name a few. Boys Don’t Cry won several highly coveted Independent Spirit Awards as well as an Oscar and a Golden Globe Award for Hilary Swank’s performance as Brandon. A $2 million film, it eventually made $11.5 million in domestic box office.


The success of Kusama and Peirce’s indie debuts had a good deal to do with casting, which is not to devalue their writing and screen direction, but for Girfight a publicity campaign was developed around newcomer actress Michelle Rodriguez who possessed little experience in either acting or boxing. For Boys Don’t Cry, Hilary Swank’s status as a Beverly Hills 90210 starlet turned method actor provided immediate attention. In addition to casting, these films generated a high-concept type of ‘hook’ that heightened their marketability.

The visibility of Kusama and Peirce’s debuts would seem to set them up for enduring careers in independent film. The experiences of women directors who came before them indicate, however, that the odds would not favor Peirce or Kusama.


The problem is that women who attempt to establish careers in an independent world now dominated by mini-major studios often hit a plateau after their first film. Since Girlfight Kusama has director one major flop, Aeon Flux, and a couple Episodes of Showtime’s The L Word. Peirce also has struggled post Boys Don’t Cry and in a decade has directed only one film, Stoploss, and like Kusama worked on an episode of The L Word.


Studios have squeezed out avant-garde film and documentaries, but what of women who decide to direct the narrative features so valued by major film festivals? What precisely are the hurdles for women filmmakers? What strategies of empowerment are indie women directors crafting in the narrowly circumscribed business of cinema?

Zowie Bowie

A small, personal story wrapped in the trappings of classic Sci-Fi epic, Moon manages to be both derivative (most notably, of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001(1968), but with only a touch of that film’s monumental pessimism) and deliberately rebellious in its treatment of Sci-Fi euphemisms. Moving through familiar territory and yet sparked with a spirit all its own, like any great work of genre cinema Moon’s future-world scenario and super-slick techno-artistry are put to the service of a story that ultimately downplays the traumas wrought by technological possibility in order to dig deep into the traumas of people being people.


The film, directed by first time director Duncan Jones (once known as Zowie Bowie, son of Sir David Bowie), begins with a pitch-perfect advertisement for the company that contracts an astronaut named Sam (Sam Rockwell) to live and work on a space station on the Earth’s Moon for a three year stretch, accompanied only by a HAL-meets-Johnny Five (2001 and Short Circuit [1986]) robot named Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey), and able to communicate with his wife and child on Earth only via taped video message.


Shot within a grueling 33 days on a fair budget in regards to indie films ($5 million), but on an incredibly low budget in reference to mass market Sci-Fi pictures (Independence Day (1996) -$75 million), Moon relies on a major twist that would be criminal to reveal. Suffice it to say that Sam is at once not as alone as he thought he was, and as fundamentally lonely as anyone could ever be. This dramatization of Sam’s sudden, tragic self-awareness gives Rockwell a platform for a terrifically exciting dual performance which, thanks to over 450 seamless, non-showy effects, and a magic of chemistry, works magnificently.


What marks Moon as a potential Sci-Fi game changer is the complexity of its philosophy on The Future, one which allows for both limitless faith in human feeling and skepticism over the human cost of innovation, particularly in regards to Saving the Planet. 2001 predicts that the more human-like machines become, the more they’ll take on the worst of humanity and, as an added bonus, that humans will lose the passion and compassion that makes them human in direct proportion to the degree to which they engineer machines to become more human-like. Moon approaches a similar scenario from a very different angle, imagining that the artificial intelligence that humans create will embody the best of what humanity can be, but will probably be used to the ends of, if not evil, than at least the individual-indifferent banality that keeps a capitalist society ticking along.


“I took common Sci-Fi illusions and assumptions that people make and changed that in the course of the film” said director Duncan Jones at the San Francisco International Film Festival, detailing his film’s “inverted common trend of technological mistrust in Sci-fi.” He described in a question answer session after his film was shown that the all encompassing aspect of Sci-Fi film is “telling human stories but having the world be Sci-Fi, because then the environment makes us see the characters in different ways we wouldn’t look at before. In other words, Sci-Fi can be intelligent and smart, but also very simple; the stories are the baggage that humans bring to create trauma.



Moon Trailer

Welcome to Tromaville

Working under the slogan of “Movies of The Future,” Troma Entertainment, founded by Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz, has been producing and distributing low-budget films since 1974. One of the longest surviving American independent film studios, it has been a catalyst of do-it-yourself guerrilla filmmaking that has created the trademark “Troma Library.” There are essentially two types of Troma films, those produced, and those purchased, which make up the smorgasbord of psychopathic and surreal movies within the library. The trashy aesthetic and genre mutation (and character mutants) are what identify a Troma release, which boast such provocatively titled films like, Rabid Grannies (1988), Killer Condom (1997), Surf Nazis Must Die (1987) and the beloved Cannibal: The Musical (1996), the first film project for South Park creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

The films that have been the most commercially successful and revered by followers of the studio have been Troma’s own productions, Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. (1993), Tromeo and Juliet (1996) and in particular, The Toxic Avenger series (1984-2001 [four parts]). The Toxic Avenger, also known as Toxie, is a fighter of crime, a mutant superhero, who employs excessive violence to defeat evil and restore community harmony. The films effectively establish the transparent values of the Troma ‘Universe’, which long time producer and director of the original Little Shop of Horrors (1960), Roger Corman, once described as “extreme yet idealistic, violent, yet romantic.”

The studio first established itself with sex comedies in the late 70s, and then after the success of the first Toxic Avenger (1984) Troma moved toward making films packed full of nudity, gore, and comic book violence. What has subsequently categorized Troma as a neo-independent studio is the various ways in which they have attempted to market a body of films which are practically all discredited by critics. The films are counter-aesthetic and are in full opposition to the institutions of Hollywood interest and popular taste.

The Toxic Avenger series is best described as a jumble of Peter Jackson’s style of slapstick horror, the absurdity of South Park, the physical comedy of the Three Stooges, the inventive murders of 1980 slasher films and the cheesy spoofing of film moments perfected by David Zucker in movies like Airplane! (1980).

Residing largely in isolation, main character, Toxie, always remains the friendly neighbor and a model citizen. His body might signify chemical pollution, but Toxie is still essentially law-abiding and clean-living. Within “Tromaville,” Toxie works with the blind, helps elderly folks cross the street, and even more mundanely helps a housewife open a tight jar lid. Tromaville’s streets and park are populated by the old and the young, illustrating community equality. Toxie can walk freely through Tromaville despite his gruesome appearance.

The citizens of Tromaville are repeatedly seen moving through the community, dancing in groups, enjoying leisure time walking dogs and taking picnics. Horse carriages are an optional and utmost optimal mode of transport, and well-behaved children bike and play in the streets free from passing traffic, all the while eating an endless supply of ice cream. But industrial capitalism, political greed, corporate, and gangs constantly threaten Tromaville’s utopia. Such counter-communitarian behavior challenges the moral rights of the community and puts Toxie in charge of saving the neighborhood.

The common silly and rude nature of Troma’s own productions disguises the extent of its social and political philosophies, and of those within Tromaville, the fictitious community built with the values of the studio. It is crazy that an independent producer of low-budget exploitation films should incorporate such ideologies into its productions. Troma’s communitarian logic is, however, not without its complications. Toxie’s acts of violence are part of his fight for community justice, yet they are clearly unethical, and contradicting of communitarian values, which have lead many critics to challenging the studio’s cultural worth. While Troma’s form of commentary is far from complete, it is not without moments of irony and eccentric oddity.


Troma fights the big pictures!!!
VERY GRAPHIC

Marty

Uncompromisingly, Martin Scorsese is arguably the most brilliant filmmaker working in American film today. Over the past 40 years, Scorsese has directed an impressive canon of innovative and controversial independent (and big budget) films that clearly stand as some of the best Indies/films of all time, and at the time of their release thru to the present have clearly laid the groundwork for succeeding filmmakers. He combines a film enthusiast’s passion for film noir with an appreciation of rich characterization and a hint of place and time. Scorsese’s impressive, and yet erratic, career has been emulated by young indie directors. His intoxicating take of the film medium is most apparent in the work of Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs), Nick Gomez (The Sopranos), and Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood).

Scorsese’s films display such talent with their dazzling camera work, jump cuts, and vivid framing that the filmmaking alone becomes a subject of his movies. His style is marked by a restless, jittery camera that in his best films reflect the tension of city life, a topic that found the most expression in Taxi Driver (1976).

An epic street opera, Taxi Driver centers on Travis Bickle (Robert Dinero), a Vietnam vet turned psychotic vigilante fighting against New York city’s scum, pimps, muggers, junkies and of course, politicians. The film generated controversy because of its bloody finale which was a long sequence of carnage involving a 12 year-old prostitute played by a young Jodi Foster.

In Scorsese’s next film and arguably finest film, Raging Bull (1980), he chose black-and-white cinematography to lend barren realism and intensity to the story of boxing champion, Jake La Motta, who rose from the dirt to the height of boxing, only to be destroyed by his own paranoia and personal vices.

Scorsese’s films are rooted in his Italian-American Catholic upbringing and confront themes of sin, guilt and justice. His explorations of male camaraderie, violent behavior, and definitely man’s deep fear of women have left significant footprints on the works of many directors. Scorsese places certain women, like mothers, on a pedestal to be revered, but more women in his films are depicted as being deceitful whores. Prostitutes are abound in Taxi Driver, and in Raging Bull, La Motta asks his brother to keep an eye on his wife for him, implying that given the chance, all women cheat on their husbands.

Based in New York, Scorsese has largely worked outside the establishment, pursuing his own path, (though often with Hollywood money) by making personal movies such as The Last Temptation of Christ. Scorsese has attained a goal of authorship more fully than other directors because of his high artistic quality. He may be one of the few directors left who still passionately cares about film.

Remember that Controversial scene in Taxi Driver I mentioned?
BOO-YA!!!



Unofficial Website of Martin Scorsese

The Indie King Makes Movies Too!!!

A serio-comedy about a do-well barfly, “Indie King” Steve Buscemi’s, Trees Lounge (1997), is an apologetic look at the petty feuds and uneventful existence of working-class people in a New York suburb. The film’s greatest virtue is Buscemi’s thorough knowledge of the characters because of the autobiographical nature of the story. Trees Lounge is a projection of what life might have been had Buscemi never left Valley Stream, Long Island, to pursue an acting career.

At age 31, Tommy (Buscemi) is a loser who is described by his own friends as a screw-up. Tommy is fired from his job as an auto mechanic after “borrowing” money without informing his boss. Tommy’s former girlfriend, who may or may not be pregnant with his child, has moved in with his angry former boss. Living in a tiny apartment above a bar, Tommy has no money to fix his car or to buy drinks. Further complicating life is Debbie, an adolescent with a crush on Tommy. Temptation overcomes Tommy, and after an ill-advised night together Debbie’s hotheaded father is infuriated.

Epitomizing the middle-class locale is the neighborhood bar, Trees Lounge, in which neither the décor nor the jukebox songs have changed in years. Spending his time hustling drinks and engaging in one-night stands, Tommy gets kicked out of the place for bad behavior. At a crossroads in the film, Tommy realizes that he is young enough to break out and make something of his life. If he doesn’t, he can see his future down at the other end of the bar, where the old salty dog regular, Bill, drinks himself to death.

Neither the comic nor the melodramatic elements are punched up and over done. Buscemi roots his film in characterization and acting, with the humor stemming directly from the characters. Without forcing a dramatic structure or an obvious climax, Buscemi conveys the dead-end nature of aimless lives. He refrains from giving his film the self-conscious hipness typical of the indie pictures in which he has so often appeared just as an actor.

Buscemi handles the material with casualness, so his characters are not caught up in a big dramatic crisis, but instead they get engulfed with petty quarrels. Trees Lounge boasts a cast of indie staples like Samuel L. Jackson, Mimi Rogers and Chloe Sevingy. Above all it’s Buscemi’s triumph as an actor that makes Tommy both pathetic and sympathetic. In the film Buscemi successfully transfers his cheerless character and sensibility to a bar that is a cave for losers. Trees Lounge shows how the young and restless Tommy struggles to distinguish himself from the drinking community. Despite its grim subject, the film is rambunctious. The drinkers are funny, each one of them with an ego to defend, and the film serves as a testimonial of the valor of failure.

Avant-Garde Binge

Critics have argued that in Avant-Garde and post modern film there is an emphasis on style over substance, a consumption of images for their own sake rather than for their usefulness or the values they symbolize, a preoccupation with playfulness and inside jokes at the expense of meaning. Even in big Hollywood movies like Zach Snyder’s depiction of Alan Moore’s world renowned graphic novel, The Watchmen (2009), we see fashion over content. As a result qualities like integrity, coherence, seriousness, authenticity and intellectual depth are undermined. Indie films, as well as some Hollywood pictures have destabilized cinema from within by challenging audiences’ expectations of narrative and visual representation.

Avant-Garde director, Jon Jost, is a ruggedly independent filmmaker who unlike most of his contemporaries exhibits a voice that is uncompromisingly personal. Self-taught, Jost has made his films as cheaply as possible. Though he has been directing for over 30 years, only a few of his works have had theatrical releases.

In an article published in Film Comment Jost writes that he has always worked “small.” “My entire career has been mounted on a fiscal sum- less than $500,000- that in LA would scarcely be imagined suitable for an episode of a lame half-hour sitcom.” Jost later in his article writes, “The thought that there might be virtue in modesty, that having a crew of just two or three might actually have its benefits- and not merely fiscal- is perceived lunacy…is to point out the obvious and the tragic.” The obvious and the tragic being that big production, big money and big promotion have nothing to do with art or human values.

Jost’s movies are mostly about losers. The kind of protagonists considered unappealing by mainstream standards. His repertoire consists of three kinds of film according to film annalist, Emanuel Levy; essays, Westerns, and urbans. His essays include Speaking Directly: Some American Notes (1973), which deals with the intersection of the personal and the political of American involvement of the Vietnam War. Last Chance for a Slow Dance (1977), Slow Moves (1983) and Sure Fire (1988-1990) are among Jost’s Westerns. His westerns examine the teetering generation of cowboys after the frontier and the decline of honor at this time. The characters go on long drives through barren landscapes and the only emotion they have left is rage, which often results in violent and seemingly pointless deaths.

His urban films like All the Vermeer’s in New York (1992) incorporate the lyrical camera of Jost’s essays and the violence of his Westerns together, creating a poignant story of discrepancies between art and spiritual decay. Like all of Jost’s films, he explores the boundaries between narrative and experimental cinema. He presents worlds that are both beautiful and decadent, calm on the surface, but riddled with anxiety.

Like Jost, filmmaker David Lynch is dedicated to explaining the violent nature of American life, but unlike Jost, Lynch has the ability to transform scary nightmares into pleasurable sensations, like the infamous dinner scene from Lynch’s breakthrough film, Eraserhead (1977).


From the very beginning, viewers of a Lynch film expect to be shaken up, to be astonished by the tension, mood and sensation in his work. This is very likely the reason why the term “Lynchian” has become a catchphrase of all other cinematic deviations somewhat like his style. Lynch’s creativity manifests itself through a disconnected series of images and moods. “Cinema is a language that can say abstractions,” Lynch said in a June of 2007 lecture. In that lecture he explained that sometimes even he doesn’t know what’s going on in his films, but that “Intuition and knowingness” of the individual are all that matter. People can interpret things an infinite number of ways, and Lynch says that “You know for yourself what an idea in a films means, and what you know for yourself is valid.”

Thus is the gist of Avant-Garde independent film. A provocative thought or image that suggests nothing in life is fixed and that everything is relative. A surreal search beyond logic and beyond narrative of perversity, violence and frivolity.

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.

Grant Writing

Cyclists is every city are constantly being threatened by motorists that follow too closely, pass unsafely, or blatantly disregard a bike riders existence whether intentionally or on accident. In order to make the city of Seattle a safer place for cyclists we need to encourage people to get out of their cars and ride bikes. Not only would less decongest the city streets, but it would also provide a cleaner environment for residence after drastically cutting down exhaust levels created by vehicles. 

The implementing of more bike lanes would provide cyclists with safer routes and could then encourage others to give up the car for a bike. right now, there are bike riders in Seattle that still do not commute to work because they feel unsafe on the roads because of reckless drivers. By creating a environment that first makes all cyclists confident enough to ride, then motorists will see the advantages of bike riding. It will become apparent to them that cycling is more healthy, fast, and pretty darn fun. 

Dear Mr. and Mrs. CLIF BAR,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Neverland Ranch Bike Coalition. We are a community of cyclists in the north Seattle area that commute to work and/or school everyday, rain, shine, and this winter, even snow. We've found in our daily bike rides that Seattle's roads are unsafe for cyclists and every day we commute with fear.

We are attempting to implement putting a bike lane beginning at 15ave Nw and Holman Rd at the northend of Ballard, all the way down south, across the Ballard Bridge and then continued into Downtown Seattle. A project like this would take several weeks to accomplish but would be most beneficial to the cycling community and the environment.

We are seeking a grant of $40,000 to help advance this project. Our coalition would be willing to submit a proposal for this project for your foundation and we will be sure to follow up with a phone call within the upcoming weeks.

Thank you for your time and attention.

=Nick= 

NLRBC

District 5 Diary Blog

In order to establish that I have good sense concerning the issue of cyclists v. motorists, I would have to demonstrate to the audience that I am well informed about the issue to the point in which I would easily be able to answer any possible questions they may have about the topic. In particular, I would need to take special care in making sure that after explaining the issues to them, that they are informed while at the same time are not overwhelmed with details. Lucky for me, the topic is pretty basic, so while there are many facets of the issue, the basic idea that cyclists and motorists are struggling to get along and are constantly bickering online and in the streets about right of ways and illegal moves can be understood fairly simply.

Also, within this debate it is easy to get lost in very trivial arguments, like the thousands that take place on blogs and forums. A vast amount of those arguments are irrelevant and often incoherent, it would be very important for me to only touch on the disputes that have actual material influence on the subject and avoid juvenile refuting juvenile squabbling.

A very advantageous aspect of my character regarding this topic would be to discuss openly how I am both a cyclist and a motorist. By doing so I provide the audience with personal information about myself that helps portray a balanced position on the issue. Examining further, I can also speak of my driving record which is free of any moving violations both on a bicycle and a motor vehicle. Generally speaking, I demonstrate to the audience that I am a credible individual that can see both sides of the issue clearly, which hopefully reveals that I have personal experience regarding the ongoing circumstances of the concern.

Presenting the importance of the argument would be the most concrete way for me to reveal my goodwill for the debate. If the audience becomes aware of the dangers that revolve around the issue and can then deduct the benefits that will accrue from understanding the problem, it will be quite comprehensible to people that I only hope to better the situation for the safety of the greatest number.



For the past couple of years the San Francisco bay area has faced endless arguments concerning bicycle safety. Cyclists in the area have tried to push the city organizers to create more bike lanes, however, motorists have refuted the cyclist advocacy work and one man in particular, Robert Anderson, has spearheaded what appears to be an anti-cyclists campaign. Anderson has been keeping a blog entitled, District 5 Diary, since December of 2004, in which he scribes his personal analysis of San Francisco politics.

The blog site invites users and anonymous guests to comment on his posts, in which Anderson most usually promptly replies. Anderson has a very strong stance against the use of city funding going towards cyclists, suggesting that doing so would actually be even more harmful to the environment than if the city made more room for cars on the roads. However, Anderson lacks credibility. He himself has never conducted any research on traffic congestion in San Francisco roadways, nor does he ever cite outside research when making such statements. It is obvious from his posts that Anderson is trying to engage in pseudo-sophisticated bashing of cyclists and only further persuade those that already agree with his position, not win over people that sit on the fence.

Anderson lack goodwill in his writings. He jumps at every opportunity to take a stab at the bicycle community, and he shows it right of the bat in the sarcastic titles of his articles, such as, The push to “fix” Masonic Ave, and Implementing Bicycle Plan “Improvements.” He elects to quote terms used by the cycling community just to poke fun from his perspective. There is no concern for the well being of cyclists or even motorists for that matter. He comes off as incompetent in argument by bullying opposition, and to top it off the guy truly thinks he’s better than everyone else. Rob Anderson does not come off as a person that wants to share information for the better good, but instead acts like he’s on a personal crusade to restrain the biking community by getting legislation passed that delays (not cancels) road work. So in result, he’s just buying time and wasting the state of California’s money, which they have none of already.

School Closings

Dear Superintendent,

In regards to the closing of 5 schools in the Seattle school district I have to ask, how on earth did the school district acquire a $25,000,000 deficit? Despite the current economy, someone must have seen this coming a long time ago, so why did no one pull on the reigns to stop spending and appropriately allocate funds? Closing schools is not going to fix this issue, it is only going to put a burden on parents and their children, not remedy the problem.

The city of Seattle is contemplating saving the Post-Intelligencer, but schools? Forget about it. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Or should we just pretend it never existed in the first place? We need to focus on saving our children’s education and there are thousands of voices standing up and saying the same. The opinions and needs of the people should be worth something, so please, save these schools.

Sincerly,
Nick Kirschner

College Humor- Make it Viral!

With ADHD technology rubbing off on consumers and the day to day web/media addicts, collegehumor.com is an unconstrained onslaught of witty and crude short-form comedic videos that has sunk its teeth into the viral video market. 

While not having to abide by network rules and regulations, and with the freedom to make segments as short (or as long) as possible, collegehumor.com has taken random skits to a different playing field with damn near anything they want to do. The unique and random story lines that feature relatively low budget camera work and unprofessional acting always deliver a punch in the face of hilarity mostly due to the timing of the videos. It's rare that the segments last too long, and because of that, the in your face mentality of the pieces hold clout. It never gets old, and individuals can just keep on watching.

I foresee a problem however now that the creators are debuting a television series of the program on MTV.  With network guidelines and timing slots needing to be filled, the creators are going to have to adapt while still keeping up what people are used to. I predict that the show will never be as humorous or successful as the site, with people always commenting, "Their website is/was way better."