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.