Never saw "Paris is Burning." We have a winner.
---
I think it's a spectrum. One side is studio financed, produced, and distributed films. The other is what Cassavettes did with Woman Under the Influence, which is pony up the cash to produce it (along with Peter Falk chipping in) and then actually book the theaters himself to distribute it. The only way to get more indie is to build the theater yourself.
I think a lot of films fall inbetween. Something that cost fifty bucks to make in someone's backyard might get picked up by Warner Bros. Studios, for example. There are a bunch of ways to combine financing, production and distribution.
I'm guessing here, but I think depending on the film or filmmaker, the "indie" part of the ratio might be emphasized in the press release. A street cred thing. Maybe another film will try to ignore the film's ignoble beginnings and emphasize the major backing that eventually arrived. A "Hey, I can be a big player too" thing.
---
Finally occurred to me to just look up a list of Sundance winners and runner-ups. Watched PARTING GLANCES (1986). Steve Buschemi plays a gay. Deals with AIDS long before PHILADELPHIA. A bit boring.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
I hate when someone wants me to watch an "indie movie". My definition of "indie movie" is a movie with too much talking, not enough money for interesting plot points, boring sets borrowed from a relative, and dealing with the very specific and tedious concerns of whatever was up the filmmakers ass that day he wrote the "screenplay."
|
I won't necessarily disagree with this, and I'm sure this phase of mine will end soon. After all, indie films have their own cliches and all cliches get old after awhile.
It's just that when I see a low-budget, character-driven film (actually shot on film), I know some people worked really hard against some tough odds to get the thing made. The amount of effort they put into something they care about is touching, inspiring and punk. Even if I do fast-forward through most of it.