Monday Morning Poll: What Makes a Film a Real "Indie" Film?

by Kim Voynar Jan 7th 2008 // 11:02AM

Filed under: Independent, Fox Searchlight, DIY/Filmmaking, Monday Morning Poll, Cinematical Indie, Polls

I was having an interesting ~~heated argument~~ friendly little discussion over IM yesterday afternoon with one of my Cinematical colleagues about what exactly designates a film as an "indie" film. Does it have more to do with the money spent on making it, or the artistic style of the film? Is a film an indie film if it's financed by an indie arm of a studio, like Juno? Or does it have to be financed by filmmakers on their credit cards, ala Four Eyed Monsters? What if it gets financed independently by a rich guy, like Little Miss Sunshine, and then bought by a studio for $10 million? And if an indie film gets bought by a studio and goes on to get Oscar nods, has it "sold out" like an indie band hitting the Top 40?

As you might expect, it was Juno that started this whole discussion. To me, Juno is clearly an indie film: it was financed not by Fox, but by Fox Searchlight, which is a studio arm set up specifically to buy and create indie films. Artistically, it certainly feels "indie" to me, although crossover hits like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Little Miss Sunshine have helped to blur the line between indie comedy and mainstream. If Jason Reitman had gotten independent financing for it instead of getting it done through Searchlight, I don't think anyone would question its indie status. I understand, though why some folks feel a film like Juno, which had the benefit of backing by a studio to get it made, and a tremendous, well-executed marketing push, is straddling the indie line.

Personally, I see Juno as nothing but great news for other indie films, and I think Fox was smart to recognize both the power and passion of indie filmmakers, and that they don't know how to make indie films themselves. Partnering with filmmakers like Jason Reitman, who have both a solid background and a good eye for what works, especially with indie comedy, allows Fox Searchlight to target the indie market with films that are likely to also appeal to a broader audience. They've found a niche that works, they're both making and acquiring good films, and if all that expands the audience for indie films in general, opens up the popcorn crowd to checking out more indie fare, and ultimately paves the way for more indie films to be funded that's a good thing.

What makes a film an indie flim? Let us know what you think in the poll, and make your arguments in the comments.

14 Comments

Tags: diablo cody, four eyed monsters, FourEyedMonsters, indie film, IndieFilm, jason reitman, juno

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

1-07-2008 @ 11:36AM

Alex said...

My definition of a true indie: any movie financed primarily through non-studio money. The studios being any of the majors and mini-majors. I would include Lionsgate in this list.

Therefore, by my definition, Star Wars Episode I would be an indie (technically) while Star Wars Episode IV would not be an indie.

1-07-2008 @ 11:42AM

ML said...

Technically, "independent" means "independent of studio support." Therefore, any movie except those made by studios (even "an arm of a studio set up to create 'indie' films") would be, by this definition, independent, regardless of atmosphere or quality. However, if you choose to define "indie" as a genre of films rather than as a definition of funding source, that is a different matter.

1-07-2008 @ 12:17PM

Moviezzz said...

I have to agree with ML. Independent SHOULD mean Independent of studio support. Whether it was part of the "indie" arm of a studio or not, it was still funded by money from Rupert Murdoch's corporation, and starred the stars of ALIAS, ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, THE WEST WING and other films. No one was maxing out their credit card to get JUNO made. They probably had the money in their couch cushions if they went over budget.

The fact that films like JUNO are considered independent instead of all the filmmakers out there, who don't know big Hollywood stars, who don't have fathers who are major Hollywood directors/producers, and who have to go to film festivals to get there work seen is kind of pathetic.

1-07-2008 @ 12:48PM

dana said...

I have to agree 100% with Moviezzz -- this same thing happened last year with Little Miss Sunshine, which, while it might have had an "indie feel" (does that just mean interesting characters now??), was certainly not an indie. The whole huge success of Juno has definitely come partly from word-of-mouth, which most real indie films have to rely completely on, but there's also been a huge, well-done media campaign, the kind of which could only be executed by a huge corporation.

1-07-2008 @ 1:26PM

Justin said...

There is a dollar amount assigned to movies that qualify as independent films. I think it maxes out at like $5 million. Of course, that doesn't sound very indie to me, but it is. There are other classes like ultra low budget and such, with different dollar amount classes.

1-07-2008 @ 2:02PM

jrodliebs said...

I agree with everyone in their definitions but I think ML hit it on the head at the end, indie as a genre is a whole different thing than the definition of independent. That being said, I like these "indie" movies as a genre, but I can't agree that they define what indie films are meant to be. And frankly, I am a little tired of calling any quirky Fox Searchlight-like funded film indie.

1-07-2008 @ 2:08PM

Henry said...

someone above mentioned the $5M threshold, which i've heard before, and makes some sense. but if, say, a studio makes a film for $4.9M, i don't think that would qualify as indie. studios are getting good at replicating that indie feel, just like they did with Juno, a film i would bet cost more than $5M to produce, and i think that's taking away from the creative heart-felt indie experience. personally, i think the trend of attaching known above-the-line talent should also disqualify a film from indie status if the total payouts don't already push the budget over the $5M threshold.

the indie world should be by and for people that can't otherwise make film. it should be without the safety net of a studio's unlimited resources, and should showcase unknowns whenever possible. Juno, which cast nearly every speaking role with veteran acting talent, is not indie no matter how hard it wants to be. its music licensing alone probably doubled most true indie budgets.

1-07-2008 @ 2:34PM

Christina said...

That being said, I like these "indie" movies as a genre, but I can't agree that they define what indie films are meant to be.

I think what sets them (studio-financed, indie-feel pics) apart from conventional studio pictures is that they tend to be character driven - not so many fancy locations, relying on subtle visual cues and good subtext to tell the story rather than tricky plots.

1-07-2008 @ 2:50PM

Kim Voynar said...

dana,

"Little Miss Sunshine" was funded completely differently than "Juno," you are comparing apples to oranges here. LMS was independently funded and took the filmmakers 10 years of patient waiting and honing the script to get made before they finally secured financing. It showed at Sundance, and was not bought by Fox Searchlight until then.

"Juno," OTOH, was brought by Jason Reitman to Fox Searchlight when he attached himself as director (after the initial director dropped off the project). The script had been buzzing around Hollywood for a while before that, Reitman brought the project to Fox with some test video of some of the cast he wanted already shot and ready to show them. Fox bought the script and greenlighted the project from there.

1-07-2008 @ 2:50PM

Kim Voynar said...

Moviezzzz,

Reitman has more than proved himself to be doing much more than riding on his father's coattails, and the fact that he happened to be born to a filmmaker doesn't mean he shouldn't make movies himself. He earned his filmmaking cred making shorts for years before he started making features, and didn't land his prodco's deal with Fox Searchlight until after he achieved success on his own with "Thank You for Smoking."

That aside, other indie filmmakers like Susan Bruice and Arin Crumley (Four Eyed Monsters) have also shown that a clever idea and a hell of a lot of hard work can be a path for micro-indie filmmakers to promote their work completely outside the Hollywood system. They're two different paths, but one doesn't negate the other.

Personally, I think anything that gets quality movies (which JUNO certainly is) made over the usual crap Hollywood churns out is a positive thing for people who love good film.

1-07-2008 @ 4:55PM

Josh Boelter said...

I love Juno but it is absolutely not an indie film. It's financed by a studio and features well-known actors. I'm all for the specialty divisions making more movies like Juno. But to call it an indie film is disingenuous.

1-07-2008 @ 5:09PM

AJ said...

while I wouldn't call Juno a studio film, I wouldn't call it an indie film either. As someone above said, there was a script and Reitman shot some footage with actors he wanted to use to get financing. It's like an indie film with financial backing from a studio rather than a person, so they don't have to wait ten years. So I guess it's a studio-indie/studipendant movie. And Knocked Up is NOT an indie film.

1-07-2008 @ 5:18PM

tek said...

Juno is most certainly not indie. They had a shooting schedule, full crew, rentals, producers, editorial department, post production workflow, and amongst all this - they never had to worry about money.

Granted, the story is quite indie, and I'm betting the film would have had the same impact if it was shot for $500,000 (though you never would have gotten most of the people to play their parts because the money would not have been good enough to go all the way to Vancouver last winter/spring and spend 6 weeks in the cold and sometimes rain shooting a low budget feature.)

However, being financed by Fox - let's not beat around the bush, it's Fox and all Fox, regardless of the division whose name is on the bill - makes it a mainstream movie. They have money for marketing, tv ads, hell even a sponsored Facebook gift...

If you are making an indie movie, you have barely enough money to know if you are going to be able to keep your B camera for next week, and you're stuck in post production hell for months if not years...

Everyone knows that Hollywood cashed in on the indie movement YEARS ago (see: Pulp Fiction, Soderbergh, et al) and ever since, we have been watching low budget flicks with interesting characters and slow moving plots that are marketed as "indie" - if not by their own definition, then by their acceptance by the viewers.

1-09-2008 @ 3:57AM

Arin Crumley said...

Movies shouldn't be put into genres or classified based on how they are funded, they should just be what they are and be good. If a film can make it's way through the studio system and still be good, or get made by investors and still be good or made in a bedroom and still be good then all of the above are acceptable means.

Ot's not good when the way the film is being made causes it to suck. That can easily happen in the studio system. But also, some people can't make an entire film with basically no budget and still make something good.

So really, the the project and the abilities of it's creators should determine how they choose to fund the film. And how ever it's funded shouldn't affect peoples decision to see a film or to label it any particular thing. Unless of course you are boycotting hollywood. Which is a completely valid thing to do.

But the main thing to remember is that the way we all discover films is changing. We don't need genres to help us. We've got sits like Spout Netflix and flixter that are really only scratching the surface of what will be possible for people to discover films they've never heard of that they will really enjoy. Then we can really have our own system "independent" of the hollywood system.

Anyway, thanks for the nod to Four Eyed Monsters,
Arin