Is guerilla the new indie?

L

lucidz

Well-known member
After ranting on another website about how the word "Indie filmmaking" has been perverted and distorted, (Little miss sunshine, an "INDIE film", sold for 60 million dollars at sundance and stars Steve Carrell and Alan arkin... Wtf is indie about that?)
I figured I would pose the same question to you guys here.

Even we here have celebrated films like November as indie. Last time I checked, I couldn't afford Courteny Cox with my budget.

So that begs the question, is Guerilla the new indie? Now that we are the last line of true independent filmmakers, are we all thats left? Is indie even indie any more?

When I used to think indie filmmaking, I thought Robert Rodriguez on El Mariachi. I thought Pi. I thought Clerks. More recently, I thought Primer.

These films are NOT in the same league as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or any of the new multimillion dollar budget movies that are coming out. I think the term Indie has become an analogy of "Quirky"

Your thoughts?
 
Well, initially the term "independent film" came into existence to describe a film that was not made from a major studio.

Paramount owns Focus, so does Eternal Sunshine count as indie? I don't know.

If you happen to be a billionare and are able to fund your own film starring Brad Pitt, is it still indie? I don't think that the cast or budget should necessarily be a determining factor in calling something 'indie.'
 
Sad Max said:
what TC sez ^
Click to expand...
I agree with everything that TC says too, except for that bit about Paramount owning Focus Features...











.... they're on the Universal lot. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Totally with TC. The problem is that microcinema makers have tried to appropriate the word "independent" for their own.

"Independent" has always meant "independent of some studio dictating how the film gets made". It doesn't mean that you're broke. It doesn't mean that it was shot on video or that it was made on a shoestring budget or that it necessarily excludes any known actors.

Robert Duvall shopped around his script "The Apostle" for years to studios, nobody would bankroll it. Eventually he put up his own cash to get it made, he sunk something like $5 million into it, and he starred in it himself, and he made it his way, and nobody told him how he could or couldn't make it. And the result was that he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor, and it won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Director, Best Feature, Best Male Lead, and was nominated for Independent Spirit Awards for Best Screenplay, and two nominations for Best Supporting Female.

Independent film? Absolutely. The pinnacle of what it means to be an independent film. He financed it out of his own pocket, did it his own way, and did very well with it. Does it matter that it was $5 million and that it also had Farrah Fawcett and Billy Bob Thornton in it? Why would it? Why should it?

Having decent actors doesn't mean you had a budget, either. Some friends of mine just shot a microcinema film, "Carnies" (www.carniesmovie.com) and they got Doug Jones to play one of the roles. Doug Jones is The Silver Surfer in the upcoming Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer. Carnies' budget was probably about as much as the DVX they shot it on. Independent film? Of course.

Heck, by that definition Star Wars Episodes I/II/III would be "independent films". George Lucas put up is own money and made them the way he wanted to, and nobody could say "boo" about it. He even dictated to the theaters as to how they could exhibit them!

So I am actually quite in agreement that a different word should be used to describe what people are trying to accomplish. You can't blame someone who has money to spend and claim that they're not "independent"; on the indie movie "Siren" that I worked on we had a budget of about a half million, but it was absolutely independent in all ways.

I suggest that either "guerilla" or "microcinema" be adopted for films that cost under, say, $25,000. And I'd probably vote for "microcinema" because "guerilla" implies a certain lawlessness about the production which may or may not be true, whereas "microcinema" only implies that it was done with a tiny budget.
 
Barry_Green said:
And I'd probably vote for "microcinema" because "guerilla" implies a certain lawlessness about the production which may or may not be true, whereas "microcinema" only implies that it was done with a tiny budget.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
Absolutely agree with that. Just because a "microcinema" movie was shot for a few thousand dollars, does NOT mean that laws were broken. Although it's all too often the case, is certainly isn't the norm, and nor should it be.

Some extra leg work and homework normally can yield all the same things as "guerilla" but legally. Such things as permissions, licences and equipment.
Not all "microcinema" films were shot with a cam that was retunred to the store after the shoot.
I vote "microcinema" too.
 
I'm glad you realize what I was trying to say. The public perception of what indie was is not the reality of what indy IS.

I too like the idea of another terminology for what it is we do.
 
lucidz said:
Even we here have celebrated films like November as indie. Last time I checked, I couldn't afford Courteny Cox with my budget.
Click to expand...
Regarding the film "November", I think it was definitely indie. That film was shot in 15 days for $150,000 and Courtney Cox worked for scale.

I find it inspirational that if you can come up with a quality script there are name actors out there, that will work with you and your budget.

Chris
 
outlaw filmmaking = the real hood sh*t

haha

but yeah, Barrys right..... anything financed independently of the majors is "indie"

the apostle ruled btw
 
Could make for a fun production co. logo, too, like the 'microbrewery' labels for beer...handcrafted artisanal films made in small batches...

I remember Harrison Ford on Larry King, and Larry King asking 'would you be willing to act in a small, low budget independent film, if you really loved the script,' and Ford looked at King like he's an idiot (which he kind of is) and replied, 'well, I'd like to think that I could be in an independent film that wasn't small and low-budget, if I really liked the script...'
 
Sad Max said:
Could make for a fun production co. logo, too, like the 'microbrewery' labels for beer...handcrafted artisanal films made in small batches...

I remember Harrison Ford on Larry King, and Larry King asking 'would you be willing to act in a small, low budget independent film, if you really loved the script,' and Ford looked at King like he's an idiot (which he kind of is) and replied, 'well, I'd like to think that I could be in an independent film that wasn't small and low-budget, if I really liked the script...'
Click to expand...

<Translation> I work for paychecks and booze larry. </Translation>

forddrunk.jpg
 
:beer:

The most fun set I've worked on, was probably 'Air Force One.' Harrison Ford and Wolfgang Petersen were like a comedy duo...
 
Harrison looks very disgruntled in this picture.

By the way, Sad Max -- That's a good idea. Micro pre-texts in front of new start-up names.

Neat. Micro is the winner! And I should do some work...
 
cygnet74 said:
.... they're on the Universal lot. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...
Damn it, I even worked in Universal City this summer and still screwed that up. :embarasse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top