In his book Indiewood, USA, Geoff King describes ‘Indiewood’ as “an area in which Hollywood and the independent sector overlap” (2009). This essay will explore the significance of the term with reference to its origins, attributes, critiques and influence on American contemporary cinema.
To grasp the significance of ‘Indiewood’, we must first understand the place of independent film within American cinema. US film can be seen as a spectrum, spanning from underground, avant-garde films to mainstream Hollywood blockbusters. The independent end of this spectrum has had fluctuating success within the history of American cinema, typically struggling to find an audience. These unconventional, low budget films tackled themes and narratives that Hollywood studios would never consider producing. With no market for these kinds of high-risk films, independent filmmakers struggled to find any financing for marketing or distribution. After the brief success of independent films during the Hollywood Renaissance of the late 60s/70s, they again became an afterthought to the studios following the emergence of the high concept, commercial blockbuster. With no help from the major studios, independent filmmakers had to find financing from elsewhere - this came in the form of government grants or funding from organizations such as the Independent Feature Project and the Sundance Institute (Tzioumakis, 2013). The early 80s saw the increasing success of such independent films, including Spike Lee’s She’s Gotta Have It (1986), which had a budget of $175,000 and ultimately made a profit of $7.1 million. This period is what some theorists mark as the beginning of the ‘indie’ movement in American cinema.
The face of independent cinema was evolving throughout the 80s and 90s, thanks to pioneering independent distribution companies such as New Line Cinema and, perhaps most notably, Miramax. The marketing of these films altered to appeal to a wider demographic; their ‘edginess’ and variety of themes appealed to younger generations and minority groups such as LGBT or African Americans, while the critical response, festival exposure and controversy attracted older viewers (Perren, 2012). One of the key events which helped independent cinema attract the attention of not only audiences but major Hollywood studios was the success of Steven Soderbergh’s sex, lies and videotape (1989). This film, distributed by Miramax, was highly rated amongst critics and won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1989. The prestige surrounding films such as this which have received awards, critical praise and a more niche audience was something that greatly appealed to many major Hollywood studios, who desired to be associated with films of greater cultural worth compared to their typical low-risk blockbusters (King, 2009).
Another aspect of the evolving ‘indie’ scene was the changes made within the major independent distribution companies. In 1990, New Line Cinema established their classics division, Fine Line Features, which specialised in more ‘highbrow’ indie films - while New Line was associated with films including Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Fine Line distributed the likes of My Own Private Idaho (1991). With many of the major studios wanting to have stakes in the current ‘indie’ scene, they began to either buy the smaller independent distribution companies or create their own subsidiaries. This began with Disney taking over Miramax in 1993, purchasing the company for $60 million, with Time Warner (Warner Bros) merging with New Line Cinema the year after. Other studios then followed by forming subsidiaries, such as 20th Century Fox creating Fox Searchlight Pictures in 1994 and Universal Pictures forming USA Films (now Focus Features). The aim of these developments was for the major studios to gain from the success of these newly popular ‘indie’ films, while still allowing the smaller companies some autonomy over what and how they distributed, providing them with extra funding to lead to wider success (Wyatt, 1998).
As mentioned previously, one of, if not the most influential distribution company in the evolution of independent cinema was Miramax. Founded in 1979 by brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein, Miramax was one of the leading distributors of independent cinema, being responsible for the success of films such as sex, lies and videotape (Soderbergh, 1989) and Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino, 1992). The film that truly marked the ‘golden age’ of Miramax, however, was Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994), which gave the whole ‘indie’ scene “a refreshed identity and enhanced audience base” (Perren, 2012). Pulp Fiction was the first film Miramax distributed after being purchased by Disney. Originally bought by Sony Tri-Star, the production stalled before the script had even been written as studio heads found the concept too violent and confusing (Polan, 2000). Having worked with Tarantino previously, Miramax picked up the production early on, giving it a total budget of $8.5 million. The film debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, where it won the Palme d’Or (the second Miramax film to do so) and gained much critical acclaim.
With the marketing of the film, Miramax took notes from their experience with Reservoir Dogs which, while being a critical success, did not do well at theatrical release. They needed to adopt a more aggressive campaign, branding the film as commercial rather than arthouse and exploiting the ‘cinema of cool’ concept with Tarantino as a fresh, new auteur. They also utilised the controversy surrounding the film - its explicit use of sex, drugs and violence allowed to target younger, more mainstream audiences, while the critical acclaim appealed to art-house viewers (Wyatt, 1998). Pulp Fiction became somewhat of an ‘indie blockbuster’, opening in over 1000 theatres on opening weekend. That same weekend, Warner Bros released The Specialist (Llosa, 1994), a film starring Sylvester Stallone and having a budget of $45 million. Pulp Fiction ended up taking $107 million - $50 million more than the Warner Bros film. This Miramax/Disney film signified a shift in the industry; speciality cinema was moving away from arthouse and mixing high and low culture, genres and aesthetics, further blurring the lines between ‘indie’ and Hollywood (Perren, 2012).
The crossover of ‘indie’ and Hollywood cinema is what defines the term ‘Indiewood’, so it is important to identify what aspects of each industry are employed within this hybrid sector. One of the key areas of differentiation is within the industries themselves. Films from Hollywood, that being from large media conglomerates such as Disney and Universal, are typically “franchise-spawning blockbusters budgeted in the $100-$250 million range that are targeted at the global entertainment marketplace” (Schatz, 2009). They often feature big-name stars, either in terms of acting or directing/writing/producing, and utilise special effects to create grand, high concept films. Independent films, on the other hand, are usually low budget, ranging from between $5-$10 million (but typically lower). The filmmaker usually has much creative freedom, producing films that are emotionally and intellectually engaging with a much smaller, more niche audience (Staiger, 2013). ‘Indiewood’ takes a modest budget of between $30-$50 million - still drastically less than big Hollywood blockbusters, but substantially more than ‘indies’. Filmmakers still have a degree of autonomy from the studios, and the films appeal to a wider range of audiences as they are often marketed both from a commercial and a prestigious standpoint.
While the industrial differences are clear, the narrative and stylistic contrasts between independent and Hollywood films further characterise the ‘Indiewood’ scene. Hollywood blockbusters are typically fast-paced and action-packed, relying on state of the art special effects to create franchises like Star Wars (Lucas, 1977) and The Avengers (Whedon, 2012) which appeal to wider audiences through their promise of excitement and wonder. They often follow a conventional narrative structure and genre traits and place heavy emphasis on plot rather than character (Schatz, 2009). In contrast, independent films often have distinct stylistic attributes depending on the director, which can range from realism to self-conscious, formalist stylisation. Narratives within independent films are often ambiguously structured (Staiger, 2013), for example, the non-linear, flashback narrative of Christopher Nolan’s Memento (2000). ‘Indiewood’ places great emphasis on the director as an auteur, with directors including the Coen brothers, Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson earning this status due to their distinct filmmaking styles. They often feature big-name stars in more unconventional roles, such as Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Gondry, 2004), and place twists on conventional narratives, combining the more challenging aspects of independent cinema with the marketability of Hollywood (King, 2009).
One example of a film which takes attributes from both Hollywood and ‘indie’ is Spike Jonze’s Being John Malkovich (1999). Distributed by Universal’s subsidiary USA Films, it stars well-known actors including John Cusack, Cameron Diaz and (of course) John Malkovich. Produced with a budget of $13 million, it was given a limited release of 25 screens but then expanded to 624, giving it an overall gross of over $22 million from its theatrical release. These facts indicate that the film took the Hollywood route in its marketing and distribution in order to appeal to a wider audience - it is in the films style and story where it becomes much nearer the ‘indie’ end of the spectrum. The combination of director Spike Jonze’s quirky, surreal style and screenwriter Charlie Kaufmann’s bizarre philosophical humour was the perfect recipe for an ‘indie’ hit. They have since become somewhat auteurs, having worked on other ‘Indiewood’ successes such as Kaufmann’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Gondry, 2004) and Jonze’s Her (2013), becoming known for their “high-concept surreal themes, meta-fictional strategies and playful narrative flourishes” (Maguire, 2016).
In short, Being John Malkovich is about an unsuccessful puppeteer, Craig, who takes up an office job and there finds a portal which leads into the mind of the esteemed actor, John Malkovich. The film features highly complex themes of philosophy, identity, success and sexuality, explored through Kaufmann’s comedic script. The quirky characters, the surreal setting of the 7 ½ floor and overall bizarre concept of identity swapping create a satirical look at high culture, specifically within the art industry, critiquing its pretentiousness and greed for status and success. The internal conflict of the main character is what leads to the absurd situations that contribute to much of the film's humour (Falzon, 2011) and, while the ending is somewhat dismal for the main protagonist, secondary characters Lotte and Maxine benefit from Craig’s greed, thus creating a conclusion that is both satisfying and surreal.
The creation of ‘Indiewood’ has proven to be highly beneficial for major studios, allowing them to gain a more niche audience and prestigious reputation from distributing films that attract critics and awards. However, it has also been met with an abundance of criticism, with some arguing that ‘Indiewood’ is a threat to true independent cinema (King, 2009). Before the surge of major studio subsidiaries and independent distributors, ‘indie’ films were distributed by smaller independent companies such as Cinecom and Lionsgate. However, with the market being dominated by major companies like Fox Searchlight, Focus Features and Miramax, independent distributors have found difficulty in acquiring films at a reasonable price compared to that of the larger companies. Furthermore, with the success of ‘Indiewood’, the market has become much more saturated and therefore true independent films are more likely to be overlooked and ignored. Even the likes of the Independent Spirit Awards, a ceremony dedicated to celebrating independent filmmakers, still favours films produced and distributed from major studios (King, 2013). For example, Birdman (Iñárritu, 2014), a Fox Searchlight distributed film, won the Best Picture award in 2014 and won the same award at the Oscars.
Another critique of ‘Indiewood’ is how it has blurred the lines between authentic independent and Hollywood cinema so far that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. It raises questions of how far an independent can go before it is no longer considered independent - does the size of its budget, its association with Hollywood studios or its awards aspirations indicate when exactly it is no longer part of the ‘indie’ sector? Some viewers also have a form of distrust surrounding films of ‘Indiewood’ origin, believing that they are somewhat ‘selling out’ to the industry. The large amount of funding spent on advertising and large theatrical releases indicate the film is seen more as a commercial product rather than a piece of art, a concept which doesn’t bode well with many arthouse audiences (King, 2013).
After its huge success through the 90s and 2000s, ‘Indiewood’ began to decline. With more competition in the market, many subsidiaries failed to deliver with only a few of their films making a profit. In 2007, the cost of producing and distributing a speciality film was $74.9 million - only $30 million less than the average studio film. Seeing these ‘indie’ films being so successful and getting distributed like their mainstream counterparts, many studios began to question the need for speciality subsidiaries. Furthermore, with the financial crisis of 2008, studios needed to sell or relegate their subsidiaries. After the departure of the Weinstein’s from Miramax in 2005, Disney relegated the subsidiary, while Times Warner closed Warner Independent and Picturehouse after its merger with New Line Cinema in 2008 (Tzioumakis, 2012).
This decline of ‘Indiewood’ has seen a new wave of independent distribution on the rise. With independent distribution companies such as A24 and Annapurna Pictures becoming increasingly popular and reputable, it forms more competition for the major studios. A24, in particular, has received much critical praise, taking Oscars for Room (Abrahamson, 2015), Ex-Machina (Garland, 2014) and Moonlight (Jenkins, 2016). Though critically successful, A24 have struggled with their theatrical releases, with (by 2015) only 2 out of their 23 releases reaching the $10 million mark (Land, 2015). This leads to the discussion of exhibition and how audiences are choosing to view films in the current age of digital streaming.
Streaming sites such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and the newly formed Apple TV+ are frequently producing new, original content - Netflix released 80 original films in 2018 alone, more than all the major studios combined (Laporte, 2019). According to reporter Nicole Laporte, “Netflix is still perceived in Hollywood as the place to sell projects the traditional studios won’t make” (2019), which is visible in its new releases including Scorsese’s The Irishman (2019) which was declined by Paramount. Streaming sites are gradually being praised for the quality of their productions rather than just the quantity, with Netflix’s Roma (Cuarón, 2018) winning 3 Oscars including Best Director. With more and more acclaimed ‘indie’ directors including Steven Soderbergh and Noah Baumbach producing films in partnership with Netflix, the popularity of streaming sites can only increase.
The choice of having an instant release to an audience of millions has become highly appealing to filmmakers in the digital era, thus reducing the demand of both major studio subsidiaries and independent distributors alike. ‘Indiewood’ is a term that has caused a great deal of debate and controversy within the industry, and while the films produced in this sector may have influenced many filmmakers, there is no doubt that it has caused difficulty for the true independent filmmakers to receive any form of audience or accolade. Though ‘Indiewood’ may have drastically declined, the increasing popularity of digital distribution and exhibition still poses the question of how exactly we view and define independent film.
Bibliography
Falzon, C. (2011) On Being John Malkovich and Not Being Yourself. In: LaRocca, D. (ed) The Philosophy of Charlie Kaufman [online]. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky pp.46-65.
Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jcfs5
[Accessed: 14/12/19]
King, G. (2005) American Independent Cinema. London: I.B. Tauris.
King, G. (2009) Indiewood, USA: Where Hollywood Meets Independent Cinema. London: I.B.Tauris.
King, G. (2013). Thriving or in Permanent Crisis? In: King, G., Molloy, C. & Tzioumakis, Y. (eds) American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood and Beyond. New York: Routledge pp.41-52
Land, B. (2015). A24 Sings a Different Tune. Variety [online], 13th October 2015.
Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1728239107?accountid=12118&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
[Accessed: 14/12/19]
Laporte, N. (2019) The Netflix Shuffle. Fast Company [online], February 2019.
Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=133682039&site=ehost-live
[Accessed: 14/12/19]
Maguire, D. (2016) Affairs of the Phone: Indiewood, a Bespoke Future, and Virtual Love in Spike Jonze’s Her (2013). Film Matters [online], 1st December 2016.
[Accessed: 14/12/19]
Perren, A. (2012) Indie, Inc: Miramax and the Transformation of Hollywood in The 1990s. [online] Austin: University of Texas Press.
Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ljmu/detail.action?docID=3443592. [Accessed: 14/12/19]
Polan, D. (2000) Pulp Fiction. London: BFI
Schatz, T. (2009) New Hollywood, New Millennium. In: Buckland, W. (ed) Film Theory and Contemporary Hollywood Movies. New York: Routledge pp.19-47
Staiger, J. (2013) Independent of What? In: King, G., Molloy, C. & Tzioumakis, Y. (eds) American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood and Beyond. New York: Routledge pp.15-27
Tzioumakis, Y. (2012). Reclaiming Independence: American Independent Cinema Distribution and Exhibition Practices Beyond Indiewood. Mise au Point [online]
Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/map/585
[Accessed: 14/12/19]
Tzioumakis, Y. (2013). ‘Independent’, ‘Indie’ and ‘Indiewood’. In: King, G., Molloy, C. & Tzioumakis, Y. (eds) American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood and Beyond. New York: Routledge pp.28-40
Wyatt, J. (1998). The Formation of the ‘Major Independent’: Miramax, New Line and the New Hollywood. In: Neale, S and Smith, M. (eds) Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. London: Routledge pp.74-90
Filmography
The Avengers (2012) [film] Directed by Joss Whedon. USA: Marvel Studios (143 mins)
Being John Malkovich (1999) [film] Directed by Spike Jonze. USA: Gramercy Pictures, Propaganda Films, Single Cell Pictures (112 mins)
Birdman (2014) [film] Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu. USA: Regency Enterprises, New Regency, M Productions, Le Grisbi Productions, TSG Entertainment, Worldview Entertainment (119 mins)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) [film] Directed by Michel Gondry. USA: Anonymous Content, This is That (108 mins)
Ex-Machina (2014) [film] Directed by Alex Garland. USA: Film4, DNA Films (108 mins)
Her (2013) [film] Directed by Spike Jonze. USA: Annapurna Pictures (126 mins)
The Irishman (2019) [film] Directed by Martin Scorsese. USA: TriBeCa Productions, Sikelia Productions, Winkler Films (209 mins)
Memento (2000) [film] Directed by Christopher Nolan. USA: Summit Entertainment, Team Todd (113 mins)
Moonlight (2016) [film] Directed by Barry Jenkins. USA: A24, Plan B Entertainment, Pastel Productions (111 mins)
My Own Private Idaho (1991) [film] Directed by Gus Van Sant. USA. (102 mins)
Pulp Fiction (1994) [film] Directed by Quentin Tarantino. USA: A Band Apart, Jersey Films (154 mins)
Reservoir Dogs (1992) [film] Directed by Quentin Tarantino. USA: PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, Live America Inc., Dog Eat Dog Productions (99 mins)
Roma (2018) [film] Directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Mexico: Espectáculos Fílmicos El Coyúl, Pimienta Films, Participant Media, Esperanto Filmoj (135 mins)
Room (2015) [film] Directed by Lenny Abrahamson. USA: Filmnation Entertainment,Telefilm Canada, Film4, Bórd Scannán na hÉireann/Irish Film Board, Ontario Media Development Corporation, Element Pictures, No Trace Camping, Duperele Films (118 mins)
sex, lies and videotape (1989) [film] Directed by Steven Soderbergh. USA: Outlaw Productions (100 mins)
She’s Gotta Have It (1986) [film] Directed by Spike Lee. USA: 40 Acres & A Mule Filmworks (84 mins)
The Specialist (1994) [film] Directed by Luis Llosa. USA: Warner Bros. (110 mins)
Star Wars (1977) [film] Directed by George Lucas. USA: Lucasfilm (121 mins)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) [film] Directed by Steve Barron. USA: Golden Harvest, Limelight Entertainment, 888 Productions, Mirage Enterprises, Northshore Investments (93 mins)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) [film] Directed by Tobe Hooper. USA: Vortex (83 mins)
