how indie is indie

new here. love indie films. i love discussing films just about as much as i love watching them. most movie forums i frequent don't really have ppl that are as passionate about indie films as i am. did some googling in hopes of finding an active forum with ppl that enjoy indie films and IT seems to take the cake.

now i'm not a long time lurker so not sure how this site breaks down. it seems like it is focused on working professionals (lol don't even know what that means) into filmmaking. i'm more of an indie film fan myself. i'm curious as to where you all draw the line of classifying what is indie. sorry if this has been discussed before.

i'm a huge sofia coppola fan. just adore her films. is she an indie filmmaker? it seems like she has deeper pockets and a more polished look to her films than say...a kelly reichardt, another director i love. i've always felt like what makes an indie film indie is the overall vibe of the story. kind of like a cult film but less abrasive and generally smarter, targeted for an intelligent audience. it's sort of like there is an understanding between the director of an indie and his/her audience...an ability of the director completely envelop the audience in the story and characters with less of a technical focus. it would be cool to see how some of you aspiring filmmakers make the distinction of what makes an indie film indie.

The line drawn is a blurred one, but worthy of discussion so have fun.

I think alot of what you're referring to is more "Art-house", than Independent cinema. Although, history shows that the two often coincide. "Art-house" fundamentally, is partnered with an "Intelligent demographic" and a particular minimalist approach, that is often mistaken for being of a lesser budget, and therefore mistaken as "Indie".

Independent cinema is purely a film created not from a major film studio. But there be a thousand points that cross and divide exactly what "Indie" is. So who knows?

Independent from the big-guns. That is what i'm led to believe.

Papertwinproductions said:

I think alot of what you're referring to is more "Art-house", than Independent cinema. Although, history shows that the two often coincide. "Art-house" fundamentally, is partnered with an "Intelligent demographic" and a particular minimalist approach, that is often mistaken for being of a lesser budget, and therefore mistaken as "Indie".

Independent cinema is purely a film created not from a major film studio. But there be a thousand points that cross and divide exactly what "Indie" is. So who knows?

Independent from the big-guns. That is what i'm led to believe.

Click to expand...

ah i had never made the distinction of art house cinema from indie. interesting. i agree with the intelligent demographic theory in that ppl that enjoy art house films are able to pick up on subtle acting cues. i don't need the director/writer to hammer home a point, or to even necessarily have one. it's an arrogant way of critiquing art, and it usually manages to piss ppl off but it sho does feel right.

"While there are only five or ten generic Hollywood movies, there is no one kind of independent film. They come in as many flavors, sizes, and shapes as there are artists. That's why it is easier to say what independent films are not than what they are. I can tell you some things they aren't: They aren't about fancy camerawork and razzle-dazzle visuals. They leave that to TV commercials. They aren't about pretty photography and gorgeous shots. They leave that to the manufacturers of calendars and postcards. They aren't necessarily about telling a suspenseful, gripping story. They leave that to writers of murder mysteries. You don't read Shakespeare for the story. You don't go to Chekhov to find out how it ends.

These films aren't about grand sociological generalizations and clanging symbols either. They leave that to Time magazine think pieces about 2001, Apocalypse Now, and Thelma and Louise. Independent films may even violate conventional notions of morality–the infantile punishment of villains and rewarding of heroes that you find in most mainstream movies, because they call us to a higher morality, where what matters is not rewards and punishments, but subtleties of sensitivity and kindness and love.

The best way to describe these films positively is to say that they give us new powers. They give us the ability to see and feel in new ways... like seeing family life through a microscope, suddenly being able to see things that we live most of our lives not noticing; suddenly being able to feel in new ways. We see butterfly flickers of emotion in characters' faces; we hear verbal flutterings with super-sensitive ears; we see and feel emotions we never realized existed." - Ray Carney

You can read the whole thing here : <a href="http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/indievision/fake.shtml">http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/indievision/fake.shtml</a>