The State Of Indie Film: Not Very Good at All

[Clint Johnson]

"I don't find it a solid argument when suggests it is alright to waste a few hundred million more tax dollars because it just amounts to a rounding error for what the big guys waste. You waste a few hundred million dollars a year for a few decades and it adds up to real money."

Your complaint hinges on the word "waste." Art is not a "waste." Entertainment arguably is.

Admit the difference.

You probably won't. But there it is.

There may well be a qualitative difference... but one man's "art" is the next man's belly laugh.

Your complaint hinges on your definition of art being paramount and one that should be forced on the unwashed masses who are too ignorant to want to pay for it themselves.

I may be every bit as arrogant about my opinion, I just don't want it imposed on you by the state whereas you are adamant to have the state impose your opinion on me.

You probably won't admit to that, "but there it is".

 

[Alex Coelho]

Do the masses really want to watch these types of films? I go to a locally owned theatre where they show mostly indie flicks and it's never jammed packed with people because it seems only a few really want to see films with complexity or real emotion. People always tell me that their life is hard enough and indie stories are sometimes a downer. I remember coming out of one of those chain theatres after watching "In the Bedroom" years back and I heard some saying how awful the film was, which was a shock to me since I thought it was one of the best films I had seen in years. I do think there is less quality films out there but I believe we are only going through a cycle.

 

[Priyesh P.]

Do the masses really want to watch these types of films?

One word : NO. I had a discussion with my friends about this and concluded, that most of this indie-movies were not made for people, but for film festivals.

People always tell me that their life is hard enough and indie stories are sometimes a downer.

Yes, that`s what I`m talking about. Sadness seems to be the easiest and cheepest achievable emotion. But, let`s say "Se7en" built this kind of depressing atmosphere by abstraction, whereas indies take long takes of sad faces, choose decaying settings and pull out any colours of the image.

 

[jpp]

If Clint is going to insist on blowing this bugle of his again and again (and again), here's my own bugle blast, from a similar orifice:

Thanks to its commercial funding basis, indie film in the U.S. attracts large numbers whose interest is vocational and careerist, not "artistic" or intellectual. It's not uncommon to encounter established professionals (as well as endless wannabes) who claim love and devotion to the film medium, but who know nothing about film history or contemporary work beyond mainstream traditions, and who aren't curious about finding out.

This is exactly what the commercial financing model would predict. Producers who may be expert in the mechanics of production or sales, but unproven and inexperienced in the "content area", have assumed what amounts to an editorial and curatorial position, because they control the money, or access to money (or, in some cases, production resources). We could argue over whether this development is good or bad, but it's unprecedented in the arts, and decisive - or terminal, as the case may be -- because the creation of work is no longer in the hands of artists or even of people making the claim to art. Similarly, in my experience - take it for what it's worth - directors and writers in the indie world rarely share the intense focus and deep mastery of the subject associated with the practice of solitary arts like writing, painting or music composition. There's a reason why they don't: that kind of personality won't survive in American indie film, the primary burden of which is raising money, not making films. And the lack of obsessive focus and vitality is plainly to be seen in the movies themselves. Most of this stuff is made by demonless upper-middle class kids without enough to do, and it shows.

We also need to look backwards: maybe the Golden Age never existed. When was American indie film ever "good"? At best, in my view, there are some interesting case studies, ranging from a non-Hollywood but industry-produced film like "sex, lies and videotape", to a genuine self-produced effort like "Slacker". Great or visionary work? Not likely. Or maybe there are one or two, which most people here would never have seen or even heard of.

So we're caught in a diminishing cycle: very few films worth seeing thanks to the way the films are financed, which incrementally reduces the "profile" of indie film in the U.S., which is turn makes it even even harder to raise money, which in turn narrows the field to even fewer people "with something to say". It's gone so far that in a thread like this you get actual expressions of hostility to non-commercial moviemaking, because the films are viewed as elitist and therefore undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV (not to mention oil companies, military contractors and outsourced torturers).

Flame me all you want for my insufferable elitist attitudes, but for gawd's sake, not another word about evil Canadian film subsidies or the infinite wisdom of the free market. The free market fantasy is one most Americans can no longer afford, as they look at the bill for bailing out the deregulated financial system, and contemplate yet another quarter without health insurance. Even worse, the movies are bad!

 

[number6]

If Clint is going to insist on blowing this bugle of his again and again (and again), here's my own bugle blast, from a similar orifice:

Thanks to its commercial funding basis, indie film in the U.S. attracts large numbers whose interest is vocational and careerist, not "artistic" or intellectual. It's not uncommon to encounter established professionals (as well as endless wannabes) who claim love and devotion to the film medium, but who know nothing about film history or contemporary work beyond mainstream traditions, and who aren't curious about finding out.

This is exactly what the commercial financing model would predict. Producers who may be expert in the mechanics of production or sales, but unproven and inexperienced in the "content area", have assumed what amounts to an editorial and curatorial position, because they control the money, or access to money (or, in some cases, production resources). We could argue over whether this development is good or bad, but it's unprecedented in the arts, and decisive - or terminal, as the case may be -- because the creation of work is no longer in the hands of artists or even of people making the claim to art. Similarly, in my experience - take it for what it's worth - directors and writers in the indie world rarely share the intense focus and deep mastery of the subject associated with the practice of solitary arts like writing, painting or music composition. There's a reason why they don't: that kind of personality won't survive in American indie film, the primary burden of which is raising money, not making films. And the lack of obsessive focus and vitality is plainly to be seen in the movies themselves. Most of this stuff is made by demonless upper-middle class kids without enough to do, and it shows.

We also need to look backwards: maybe the Golden Age never existed. When was American indie film ever "good"? At best, in my view, there are some interesting case studies, ranging from a non-Hollywood but industry-produced film like "sex, lies and videotape", to a genuine self-produced effort like "Slacker". Great or visionary work? Not likely. Or maybe there are one or two, which most people here would never have seen or even heard of.

So we're caught in a diminishing cycle: very few films worth seeing thanks to the way the films are financed, which incrementally reduces the "profile" of indie film in the U.S., which is turn makes it even even harder to raise money, which in turn narrows the field to even fewer people "with something to say". It's gone so far that in a thread like this you get actual expressions of hostility to non-commercial moviemaking, because the films are viewed as elitist and therefore undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV (not to mention oil companies, military contractors and outsourced torturers).

Flame me all you want for my insufferable elitist attitudes, but for gawd's sake, not another word about evil Canadian film subsidies or the infinite wisdom of the free market. The free market fantasy is one most Americans can no longer afford, as they look at the bill for bailing out the deregulated financial system, and contemplate yet another quarter without health insurance. Even worse, the movies are bad!

Could you guys argue in smaller paragraphs? Time is short.

 

[Alex Coelho]

If it has a negative impact on the people...well its the free market...if it has a negative impact on corporations...well we need to intervene. I love how government works... no welfare for the poor but welfare for the corporations. The indie film industry will always suffer some when they follow a philosophy of profit over substance. This is not only effecting film but music as well...I can't remember the last time I listened to the radio and I am in my early 30's. Are we living Orwell's 1984.

 

[Priyesh P.]

no welfare for the poor but welfare for the corporations.

you should see the state of german films. the whole "film industry" grew around subsidies. the system is so tight, there`s no way in for the real indies. instead of developing a vital industry we got one that wholly survives on life support and produces dead material that is hardly enjoyable.

p.s.: don`t misunderstand me, the mind numbing blockbuster & mainstream crap is not what i`m after either.

 

[jpp]

you should see the state of german films. the whole "film industry" grew around subsidies. the system is so tight, there`s no way in for the real indies. instead of developing a vital industry we got one that wholly survives on life support and produces dead material that is hardly enjoyable.

Without film subsidies and patronage in Germany, Fassbinder would probably never have emerged. Also, Herzog, Wim Wenders and Volker Schlöndorff, when they were still making decent films. I'm not up much on contemporary German cinema, but what about "The Lives of Others"? I would guess there was public money in that film?

The fact that art subsidy systems are corruptible and prone to rot isn't reason enough to kill them off altogether, any more than we outlaw free enterprise every time a business goes bankrupt and costs the taxpayer money.

Granted, there's no ideal system. But one has to try. What we've got now in the U.S. clearly isn't working. There's gotta be a better way....

 

[Sarah C.]

I'm with Tom!!
~Sarah

In the LA area, we have tons of "indie" productions going at any given time, but they completely lack imagination or anything fresh to say. 95% of indies in LA are set in the LA area and feature a bunch of 20- or 30-somethings sitting around running their mouths in their apartments (with brightly painted walls, of course) or perhaps shooting one or two scenes at their friend's restaurant... in LA. Who wants to watch this type of crap?

 

[Clint Johnson]

If Clint is going to insist on blowing this bugle of his again and again (and again), here's my own bugle blast, from a similar orifice:

This has been a tit for tat volleying back and forth with you voicing your opinion every bit as vociferously as I. It seems that you view the act of disagreeing with your belief system as de facto asinine and not worthy of equal footing.

Thanks to its commercial funding basis, indie film in the U.S. attracts large numbers whose interest is vocational and careerist, not "artistic" or intellectual. It's not uncommon to encounter established professionals (as well as endless wannabes) who claim love and devotion to the film medium, but who know nothing about film history or contemporary work beyond mainstream traditions, and who aren't curious about finding out.

I agree that most film maker wannabes focus on the mainstream at the expense of a rounded understanding of the field. This cuts both ways though and a like percentage of the "artistic or intellectual" filmmakers are actively hostile toward mainstream traditions. The first leads to uninteresting action without substance while the second leads to unwatchable substance without action.

So we're caught in a diminishing cycle: very few films worth seeing thanks to the way the films are financed, which incrementally reduces the "profile" of indie film in the U.S., which is turn makes it even even harder to raise money, which in turn narrows the field to even fewer people "with something to say". It's gone so far that in a thread like this you get actual expressions of hostility to non-commercial moviemaking, because the films are viewed as elitist and therefore undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV (not to mention oil companies, military contractors and outsourced torturers).

I am not hostile toward non-commercial moviemaking as long as the money comes from people who want to create it. It is undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV... but professional sports and Network TV are also undeserving of the subsidies that go to them. (consider the bracketed examples condemned as well)

Flame me all you want for my insufferable elitist attitudes, but for gawd's sake, not another word about evil Canadian film subsidies or the infinite wisdom of the free market. The free market fantasy is one most Americans can no longer afford, as they look at the bill for bailing out the deregulated financial system, and contemplate yet another quarter without health insurance. Even worse, the movies are bad!

I have no problem with your elitist attitude, I just don't like you demanding everyone else pays for them.

The financial system in the United States needs "bailing out" because of socialist intervention in the home lending market. The government created the FNMA with the express purpose of fixing a "failing" of the market system so that people who shouldn't get a loan could get a loan. They kept adjusting the rules to allow this state sponsored ponzi scheme to build up to the point of its inevitable collapse and then stepped in to save the country from the "failure of the free market".

Like democracy, the free market is not perfect... but also like democracy it is a hell of a lot better than everything else we've tried.

 

[Joel Kaye]

The financial system in the United States needs "bailing out" because of socialist intervention in the home lending market.

That seems misrepresentative to me. Bush deregulated the lending industry which temporarily propped up a failing economy, allowed for easy private profits for his friends and then when the whole idea failed he forced the U.S. taxpayer to bail the corrupt "free market" businesses out.

So yes, he privatized the gains and socialized the losses. Not free market at all. In fact, the worst version of capitalism you can possibly imagine - Steal from the poor and give to the rich. It's not a system to be proud of or support.

I don't think that's the same as funding the arts though, I tend to agree that public funding of the arts might not be any better because it doesn't solve the fact that artists still have to be salespeople and work the system.

 

[jpp]

This has been a tit for tat volleying back and forth with you voicing your opinion every bit as vociferously as I. It seems that you view the act of disagreeing with your belief system as de facto asinine and not worthy of equal footing.

Public financing is the dominate reality of film production in most countries other than the U.S. I can't help that. I could cease to refer to it, or pretend it doesn't exist, so we wouldn't have these endless free market debates. But in that case, it would make more sense not to discuss film finance at all, since we can't refer to this dominate feature of film finance without ideological disputes.

I agree that most film maker wannabes focus on the mainstream at the expense of a rounded understanding of the field. This cuts both ways though and a like percentage of the "artistic or intellectual" filmmakers are actively hostile toward mainstream traditions.

Who, for example? And even if it were true, what harm does the hostility of a powerless arty type do Hollywood or American Idol?

I am not hostile toward non-commercial moviemaking as long as the money comes from people who want to create it.

On that basis, I guess Michelangelo would've had to pay for the Sistine Chapel out of his own pocket. That absurdity aside, modern industrial societies are rife with subsidies which make commerce and civilized life possible. Even beyond the question of fairness (football is subsidized; Charlie Sheen is subsidized; why not arty films?), I can't share your mercantile view of the world. Some things are worth paying for, even when they're not widely appreciated, in the same way we maintain civil liberties, even when majorities would prefer to do away with them. It's called "civilization". Until you can do away with waste, fraud and corporate welfare, why should anyone heed these lectures on the evils of art subsidies? Is bad art really the worst we have to contend with today?

The financial system in the United States needs "bailing out" because of socialist intervention in the home lending market. The government created the FNMA with the express purpose of fixing a "failing" of the market system so that people who shouldn't get a loan could get a loan. They kept adjusting the rules to allow this state sponsored ponzi scheme to build up to the point of its inevitable collapse and then stepped in to save the country from the "failure of the free market".

It's really besides the point, but you haven't been following this one closely enough. The loans on the books on the quasi-government mortgage companies are actually pretty good quality -- far better than the subprime stuff which was pimped by the major investment banks. However, the subprime crisis has had a cascading effect on the mortgage market and home prices, so that even the better mortgages are no longer safe, because debt is greater than equity.

But of course, I know: it's all the fault of the government. And, under Bush, you're actually right. Put the free-market types in charge, and just watch them raid the national treasury.

Like democracy, the free market is not perfect... but also like democracy it is a hell of a lot better than everything else we've tried.

Most Europeans would not agree with you. You don't hear about it much in North America, or it's presented as a subject for ridicule -- imagine, the Danes get six weeks' vacation! and free health care! hilarious! and subsidized movies! -- but there are other ways of organizing society. The studies done to date indicate that citizens of these countries are far better off than we are, not only in their own estimation, but on all public health and social welfare indices.

 

[Joe G.]

-

-

"That seems misrepresentative to me. Bush deregulated the lending industry which temporarily propped up a failing economy, allowed for easy private profits for his friends and then when the whole idea failed he forced the U.S. taxpayer to bail the corrupt "free market" businesses out."

As they deregulated the Savings and Loan industry previously. And another Bush, name of Neil, profited handsomely from that scandal. It's an old formula.

Risk is made public. Profits are made private. This is plutocracy at its finest.

 

[Clint Johnson]

That seems misrepresentative to me. Bush deregulated the lending industry which temporarily propped up a failing economy, allowed for easy private profits for his friends and then when the whole idea failed he forced the U.S. taxpayer to bail the corrupt "free market" businesses out.

So yes, he privatized the gains and socialized the losses. Not free market at all. In fact, the worst version of capitalism you can possibly imagine - Steal from the poor and give to the rich. It's not a system to be proud of or support.

I don't think that's the same as funding the arts though, I tend to agree that public funding of the arts might not be any better because it doesn't solve the fact that artists still have to be salespeople and work the system.

That particular bubble has been building since 1938 and it has been a long succession of presidents who have pumped hot air into it. Bush and his cronies just happened to be the latest to cash in on it and had their hands on the pump when the bubble popped. But yes, funding for the arts is no where near on the same scale as that disaster.

I still think it is morally superior to try and convince people to support you than it is to lobby the state to use the threat of violence and incarceration to force others to support you. Being a salesperson may not be the noblest of professions but it is far far better than being a lobbiest - a salesperson whose client is the bureaucrat spending other people's money.

Let me be clear in that I am not an anarchist and believe that in any population of humans there is a vacuum of power that will be filled with a state of some kind or another. That said, taxation becomes a necessary evil- and I do emphatically mean evil as it is the indentured servitude of the population to a ruling class and is a horrible thing. I strongly feel that there should be a VERY high standard of necessity for the confiscation and expenditure of this extorted wealth.

Voting in the ruling class has shown itself to ameliorate the damage they do better than any other system - and capitalism has shown itself to take care of the needs and desires of the population better than any other system. We just have to keep a vigilant eye on those who would use one of these systems to subvert the other to their own ends, "noble" or otherwise.

 

[Joe G.]

"Could you guys argue in smaller paragraphs? Time is short."

Then, for God's sake why do you insist on including the entire quotes in your posts?

At least the person you quoted actually said something relevant.

 

[Priyesh P.]

but what about "The Lives of Others"? I would guess there was public money in that film?

Shiver...that`s exactely the type of film I don`t want to see. The GDR is not my history nor of my interest, I`m not german - but the germans seem to live in the past - if it`s not the Nazis it`s either GDR-nostalgia or Stasi movies, the rest consists of vomit-inducing teenie-crapfests or comedies.
60 years of film subsidies didn`t improve the "industry" in this country to get strong enough to stay alive by itself nor did it produce enough works of art to justify the enormous amounts of money wasted in it - Fassbinder and Herzog were good directors, but that`s it...
The whole system is not much more than deluxe job creation scheme for film workers.

 

[Alex Coelho]

Instead of subsidies, how about if the Government actually exerts its power by using antitrust laws to break up this media empire. I think it will go along way to bringing about a positive change in Hollywood. However, I know it will never happen b/c the media industry flows a lot of money through the halls of Congress. Sometimes I wonder if we are heading to some cataclysm collision between the "haves" and "haves not."

 

[Clint Johnson]

Public financing is the dominate reality of film production in most countries other than the U.S. I can't help that. I could cease to refer to it, or pretend it doesn't exist, so we wouldn't have these endless free market debates. But in that case, it would make more sense not to discuss film finance at all, since we can't refer to this dominate feature of film finance without ideological disputes.

You are right, it is almost impossible to make a film or television show in any country without the production company dipping into the corporate welfare trough. There is no way around it, if I want to work in the industry, I am tainted by it through association. It is there and I will hold my tongue when someone gives constructive instructions and hints on how to make use of it - I will reserve my rant for when it is held up as a good thing in need of greater extorted funds.

Who, for example? And even if it were true, what harm does the hostility of a powerless arty type do Hollywood or American Idol?

Contarily, I would ask if you could find a single one of these indie/outsider/artistic film makers who holds that mainstream tradition has any merit? Besides, I wasn't positing that this failing on the artist's part would harm Hollywood in any way- I was saying that in their bigoted and single minded antipathy against mainstream tradition they do harm to themselves and their art by making it pedantic and boring.

On that basis, I guess Michelangelo would've had to pay for the Sistine Chapel out of his own pocket. That absurdity aside, modern industrial societies are rife with subsidies which make commerce and civilized life possible. Even beyond the question of fairness, I can't share your mercantile view of the world. Some things are worth paying for, even when they're not widely appreciated, in the same way we maintain civil liberties, even when majorities would prefer to do away with them. And, as a taxpayer, I believe I'm entitled to this indulgence, since I get no tangible benefits from military spending and subsidies to big oil. On the contrary, both reduce the quality of life. And until you can do away with waste, fraud and corporate welfare, why should anyone heed these lectures on the evils of art subsidies? Or is bad art really the worst we have to contend with today?

Michelangelo wouldn't have paid for the Sistine Chapel himself, he would have spent those years working on sculptures like he actually wanted to. I've looked up at the ceiling and it is a fine piece of work... do you think that they wouldn't have built themselves a fancy church if there had been a separation of church and state? Would his sculptures have been of more artistic worth? He seems to have thought so.

Some things are worth paying for. The problem is that most everyone has a different opinion of what that particular "thing" is. If there is a wide consensus of this "thing" then there will be enough people to pay for it voluntarily via the market. When the special interest group gets small enough they can no longer talk others into paying for it so they turn to the state to force them to pay for it.

Personally, I think that the single most important thing that the human race will ever do is spread to space. There are four key moments in our history as a species. Bracketing our existence is our emergence as a species and our extinction. Between those two points there are only two other fundamental points, our near extinction approximately 60,000 years ago that seems to have triggered a great increase in our intellectual capacity - and our expansion off this planet. Everything else is inconsequential footnotes and only one of those four things will have any impact on life and the universe at large.

That said, I don't think that the state should be funding space exploration either. If I don't think that the state should be funding the most important thing that any living organism will ever do... you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it should be paying for someone to promulgate their personal opinion.

It's really besides the point, but you haven't been following this one closely enough. The loans on the books on the quasi-government mortgage companies are actually pretty good quality -- far better than the subprime stuff which was pimped by the major investment banks. However, the subprime crisis has had a cascading effect on the mortgage market and home prices, so that even the better mortgages are no longer safe, because debt is greater than equity.

The banks gave out these subpar loans because the government gave them a way they could sell off their exposure to defaulting mortgage holders. They most certainly did not sell their best and safest mortgages to these organizations. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac hold about half the mortgage debt in the US and it is these ones that are going into default. It is a real shame that there is a very real cascading effect that has reached out to marginal, but heretofore bankable, home owners.

But of course, I know: it's all the fault of the government. And, under Bush, you're actually right. Put the free-market types in charge, and just watch them raid the national treasury.

The people who become most powerful, in politics or economics, do so because they love power and are willing to do the most to get it. You should no more wish Bill Gates in charge of your lives than Barack Obama. Liberty means that we leave as little power as possible in their hands, with very few means to coerce the individual. While the worst of the business folk will lie and cheat you if they can, Politicians are far more dangerous because they prefer the use of legally monopolized violence as a means to their ends.

If you refuse to buy Windows Vista, Bill won't ever know about it (especially now that he's retired to do disjointed commercials with Jerry Seinfeld) but if you refuse to pay for the state's activities you will be hunted down... and if you resist those armed men you will be shot. When you ask for something from the state, a moral person should remember how they got that money.

 

[jpp]

I will reserve my rant [for public financing] when it is held up as a good thing in need of greater extorted funds.

Fair enough, but where's the rant castigating the failures of private finance? It seems to me you're perturbed not by the defects of the product, but only by the means of financing it. In other words, it looks like you're more interested in preserving orthodoxy, than achieving quality.

Contarily, I would ask if you could find a single one of these indie/outsider/artistic film makers who holds that mainstream tradition has any merit?

Sure. Me. My work may still be "pedantic and boring", but it's not for lack of exposure to popular culture, past and present. Of course, there are limits....

Michelangelo wouldn't have paid for the Sistine Chapel himself....

This is getting ridiculous. Your position here, which looks like cultural relativism ("who's to say what's good?") aggravated by market fundamentalism ("markets are always right and can be nothing be right because market outcomes are always right"), leaves us nothing to talk about here. Best move on.

The people who become most powerful, in politics or economics, do so because they love power and are willing to do the most to get it. You should no more wish Bill Gates in charge of your lives than Barack Obama. Liberty means that we leave as little power as possible in their hands.

Sure, but we live in the real world, and nobody is dismantling nation-states any time soon. Pretending there's no difference between Bush, Bill Gates and Barack Obama is sheer privileged madness. The difference could well be one between life and death for people not as fortunate as we are. Not everyone is insulated from the real-world consequences of power.

 

[number6]

"Could you guys argue in smaller paragraphs? Time is short."

Then, for God's sake why do you insist on including the entire quotes in your posts?

At least the person you quoted actually said something relevant.

Thanks for being brief.