50 Greatest Independent Films

briceman said:
its not about it being indie or not... its the compelling film... it shouldn't matter how much money was spent or how big the crew was, if its good, its good.
Click to expand...
This is, in a nutshell, exactly what I'm saying. You can look over film's history (someone should tell the makers of the list the medium dates back further than 1970...) and find all sorts of films that have all sorts of budgets but they share what you might call a common independent spirit: Touch of Evil, Psycho, The Mirror, 8 1/2, The Shining, etc. all had "high" budgets with mixed backing but their "artistic" qualities puncture the idea that money alone should define the "indie" film.

I guess I should end that all with the phrase "for me."
 
Last edited:
bklyndv said:
Well, you use the word as you like, and for my purposes independent means not only the creative freedom to make choices independent of outside interests, but also closely tied to this, evidence of actually putting those choices to unique use.
Click to expand...

So Spielberg, Cameron, Jackson, Eastwood, and any other director who happens to have final cut privileges (thus, to quote yourself, can and do "make choices independent of outside interests") would be considered independent filmmakers by your definition?!



Edit:

Don't wanna take my word on it? The official definition:

An independent film (or indie film) is a film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio. Often, films that receive less than 50% of their budget from major studio are also considered "independent". According to MPAA data, January through March 2005 showed approximately 15% of US domestic box office revenue was from independent or indie studios. Creative, business, and technological reasons have all contributed to the growth of the indie film scene in the late 20th and early 21st century.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film
 
Last edited:
No. I certainly wouldn't call Speilberg independent by any stretch -- you forgot to include the second, and I stressed "closely tied to" part of my definition: evidence of actually putting those choices to unique use.

Of the filmmakers you list, only Hitchcock regularly pushed boundaries. His 53 films, and especially some like Rear Window and Vertigo, when put together display an independent voice that comes through no matter the subject which often does more than just "tell a story."

Kubrick's an even better example.

But really, no "independent" film or filmmaker list would be complete without the inclusion of DW Griffith and his work. He's owed everything, despite often enormous budgets, for having all but invented film grammar... and yet to hear Renoir tell the story of his later life, he died penniless.
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
Yet neither ever made an independent film.
Click to expand...
You need to check your facts. Even by your definition, Kubrick made two features (Fear and Desire; The Killing) and a handful of shorts outside funding by the studio system. Hitchcock made a handful of features this way, later in life, when he started his own production partnership -- for more info, check out Hitchcock/Truffaut or Hitchcock on Hitchcock, especially the section Long Live the Director-Producer.
 
Last edited:
Just so I'm clear -- I know you can dig up any number of sources that use the word "independent" to mean any number of things, some of which describe exactly what you've been saying. I wouldn't disagree that a list like this and your opinion on the subject have their place, instead I'm offering what I think is an equally valid alternative view.

For my purposes, assembling a list like "50 films that weren't funded by a studio" is about as informative as a list like "50 films that have bicycles in them." So they weren't funded by a studio... but are they any good?
 
Last edited:
HorseFilms said:
Hitchcock financed Psycho himself because the studio wouldn't, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that in the Psycho book (great book btw)

Like I said in my original post, I think a film made outside of the studio system or my #1:

TheYankee said:
1. A film where the director sets up his own financing/QUOTE]

qualifies as an indie film.

Now on the other hand, I think a studio film could be considered indie based off the budget. Low budget and indie don't mean the same thing, but for the sake of discussion when a studio throws $1M at a film then that is essentially an indie project just with a studio name.

Furthermore, budget is very important when talking about an indie film. Everyone knows the Blair Witch and El Mariachi story. The Passion, well I'm not a fan of the film, but Mel did pay for it himself, so that's fine, consider it an indie picture.

I personally don't consider it an indie because with his name on it he is guaranteed a release and with the subject matter he is guaranteed to recoup investment.

I'm not going to debate the semantics, although that's what we do here :)

At the same time, just as independent has evolved in definition and what we expect to see from it, so has the library of films we need to associate with this title.

Personally speaking, I have a very hard time giving a label of indie film to anything that has a budget more than the gross national product of Haiti.

-Jeremy
Click to expand...
 
Psycho was co-produced by Hitch's company (Shamley) with Universal-International (after Paramount refused to finance it) the same way Braveheart was co-produced by Gibson's company (Icon) was with Paramount and 20th Century Fox. In fact, Hitch used about 90% of his regular crew that he worked with week in and week out on his television show "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".
 
CallaghanFilms said:
An independent film (or indie film) is a film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio. Often, films that receive less than 50% of their budget from major studio are also considered "independent". According to MPAA data, January through March 2005 showed approximately 15% of US domestic box office revenue was from independent or indie studios. Creative, business, and technological reasons have all contributed to the growth of the indie film scene in the late 20th and early 21st century.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film
Click to expand...
I agree that while we as independent filmmakers want the definition to apply to many different factors, the definition above is what we should be looking at.

By calling a film "independent", what are they saying? It is independent of the studio structure.
 
TheYankee said:
Furthermore, budget is very important when talking about an indie film. Everyone knows the Blair Witch and El Mariachi story. The Passion, well I'm not a fan of the film, but Mel did pay for it himself, so that's fine, consider it an indie picture.

I personally don't consider it an indie because with his name on it he is guaranteed a release and with the subject matter he is guaranteed to recoup investment.
Click to expand...
C'mon, Yank, you're not really serious that it can't be indie because a "name" is attached? Where does this argument end? Is Quentin Tarantino independent? Perhaps. But because of his popularity perhaps not. Afterall, a movie with his name on it is going to be guaranteed distribution and to recoup its costs.
 
Last edited:
Blaine said:
C'mon, Yank, you're not really serious that it can't be indie because a "name" is attached? Where does this argument end? Is Quentin Tarantino independent? Perhaps. But because of his popularity perhaps not. Afterall, a movie with his name on it is goingbe guaranteed distribution and to recoup its costs.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not really serious...

Indie has become a marketing tool. I'm creating my own new label for indie films called "Screw You, I'm Taking My Gear And Going Home And Doing It Myself.. Mom!!"

I figure it will catch on pretty quick, until Mel Gibson decides that he wants to make the story of Noah or something and then I'm forced to come up with a new name.

-Jeremy
 
TheYankee said:
I figure it will catch on pretty quick, until Mel Gibson decides that he wants to make the story of Noah or something and then I'm forced to come up with a new name.

-Jeremy
Click to expand...

there's already a film in production about the story of Noah... not by Mel Gibson, but it's called Evan Almighty :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top