Finance is much more straightforward. It’s relatively easy to spot whether or not a film has been on a shoestring in the director’s hometown, such as Harmony Korine’s ‘Gummo’ (1997), or on a multi-million dollar lot at Universal Studios. Everything from the casting and set design to the distribution and exhibition of a film is governed by the amount of money it has backing it. This can be both a bad and a good thing as, depending on the director, this either means they have the resources and the gravitas to make the project of their dreams, or it means they’ll have to fight the studio all the way to make sure their vision doesn’t get the edges taken off it.
“If there comes a point in my life where I have to listen to studio people, if there’s a chance someone can take the film away, I won’t make the film. The movie should be one person’s vision, and that’s it.”
Harmony Korine quoted in interview with Geoffrey McNab in James Hillier’s American Independent Cinema (Indiana University Press: 2001)
The idea of ‘one man, one vision’ expressed by Korine, is authorship, or Auteur Theory when related to film. Auteurs Theory allows one man to take control of every facet of the physical act of creating a film – Writer, Director, Producer and often Cameraman as well. Famous Auteurs include Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick and Ken Loach, more of whom later.
The advantage of being an Auteur is not only in complete, undiluted control of the project, but the opportunity to create a personal statement, and to gain a strong fan base of like-minded people. While it’s true any director who makes a good film will have more people there to see the next one, Auteurs put much more of themselves into a film, meaning that even if the overall reaction is not good, those who understand and appreciate the statement will be loyal throughout their career. I know many people who will go and see the new movie by Tarantino or Scorcese without even knowing what it’s about. There is however a hole in Auteurs theory. With the hundreds of people required to make even the most basic of films, no one man can take complete credit.
“Anyone who has made even the simplest Super 8 film knows that the phrase (independent film) is a contradiction in terms. No film-maker is independent in the way that a poet is.”
James Snead, quoted in Gill Branston & Roy Stafford, The Media Student’s Book, (London: Routledge, 1996)
Ideology is a tricky subject to analyse, especially in this context as it incorporates idea of both aesthetics and authorship. An independent ideology can mean putting across a different angle of a common stereotype, exploring and breaking social and moral taboos, or even just rebelling against everything you’ve been told, be it by your parents or the government. Directors like Michael Moore, creator of fiercely anti-establishment films as “Bowling For Columbine” (2002) attempt to educate the general public by exposing them to another way of thinking about key issues, things which up until this point they hadn’t even realised. The ideology of a filmmaker can sometimes get in the way, as was the case with some critical reaction to Oliver Stone’s Vietnam epic ‘Platoon’ (1990), as some attributed the wild exchanges between those in authority and the platoon to some sort of physcologically scarring incident Stone himself suffered while a soldier in Vietnam.
The reason there appears to be so much confusion surrounding the notion of independence is because there seems to be trouble deciphering between independent and alternative. The two films I will be looking at illustrate this perfectly. The first, ‘My Name is Joe’ (1998) by Ken Loach, is what I would class as a truly independent film, in almost every sense of the word. The second, ‘Kids’ by Larry Clark, but written by Harmony Korine, is a little more complex – trying to combine a stringently independent and outspoken duo of Clark and Korine, with a major studio such as Miramax, home of such movies as “Air Bud: Seventh Inning Stretch” or the screen adaptation of “Chicago” (both 2002).
Ken Loach is an Oxford educated man, who began his career as an actor in theatre and television, before joining forces with producer Tony Garnett to make ‘gritty’ TV docudramas, the most notable being “Cathy Come Home” (1966), which was widely regarded as a catalyst to changing the laws surrounding the homeless. Since then, he has gone on to make critically acclaimed films such as “Kes” (1969), Riff Raff (1992) and “Land and Freedom” (1995). Loach has a distinct style to filmmaking, focusing on the raw emotions of the characters, just as much as the story itself.
“Loach's work is emotionally direct and bitingly relevant. His films acknowledge the social and economic realities of the day, but his characters refuse to bow down even when life throws its worst at them.”
Alan Morrison
British Film Institute website,
For my name is Joe, a story about the relationship between a recovering alcoholic and a social worker in a rundown area of Glasgow, Loach went to great lengths to capture the essence of the setting, almost to the point of being obsessive. He used actual areas of Glasgow (and for some scenes, Dundee), refused to create any set pieces, and aside from the Male and Female leads - Peter Mullan and Louise Goodall, and a few others, used non-actors for all other parts, including the football team that play such a central part to the story. Indeed most of them were well known to the local police, to the point that during one scene where they undertake a robbery, onlookers who couldn’t see the cameras called the police. This is an idea he shares with Korine, who famously once said:
“I have almost no interest in actors. If I write a script about someone who fights alligators, I’d rather find the person who would fight the alligators for real than ask Tom Hanks to play the part”.
This seemingly flippant quote reveals a lot about the mindset of both men – fiercely independent, continually disillusioned by the Hollywood circus. Both could also be described as Auteurs, although on the features in question, both collaborated with others – Korine with director Larry Clark, Loach with writer Paul Laverty. Despite this, no one could deny both films come from a very singular vision. Both have a habit of using the same production team, and to some extent actors (Korine’s one-time girlfriend, Chloe Sevigny, has starred in all of his films to date). Working with the same people time and again helps to create an identity as a team, and also makes things easier when discussing what they want from a film.
“The film is a "wake-up call," and I guess it serves that purpose for folks who haven't yet figured out that this world is populated more and more by selfish, disenfranchised youth who get their kicks from drugs, sex, and casual cruelty.”
Bryant Frazer
DEEP FOCUS: An Archive of Reviews by Bryant Frazer
Kids (1995), a truly extraordinary film about the adventures of a group of pre and early teenagers who delve into the worlds of drugs, sex and alcohol with wilful abandon, has divided opinion since it’s inception. Some criticizing it for trying to use shock tactics to put bums on seats, and some even calling it paedophilic (a criticism that carried weight due to the growing rumours surrounding Clark).
The furore was so strong that even after nearly 20 minutes worth of footage was cut, Distributors Miramax, a Disney subsidiary had to create an entirely new company (Shining Excalibur) in order to secure an R rating as opposed to NC-17, which would cut the potential profits in half. However, these critics were generally restricted to outraged parents, and the so-called ‘Moral Majority’, a Christian right wing group who see it as their duty to protect everyone from the right to decide what they can and can’t watch. Most actual film critics loved it, able to look past the content to the style.
“The most graphic horror movies are nothing compared to ‘KIDS’.”
Steve Rhodes
Once again, most of the characters weren’t actors, just kids who live in the area the film is set, New York, and the film is much better for it. Korine quite rightly identified that a story as dependant on such warts-n-all ethic, simply wouldn’t be as effective with child actors who couldn’t relate to the story. Being as Korine was only 18 when the film was written, his teenage years were fresher in the memory than most of the people who objected, not to mention the fact that he was of a different generation – that of a kid. His ideology dictates that the priorities of his films, to show the real truth, do not necessarily connect with those of the people putting them out, review them or going to see them.
This is a problem faced by a lot of ‘alternative’ directors, and this is what causes them to veer towards independence. For this reason, I have to conclude that Independence does indeed exist, although not necessarily in the form I initially outlined. Looking in detail at films that are supposedly independent reveal vital areas of compromise, which tend to suggest that even the most singular of filmmakers needs help from somewhere, be it financially, technically or even from his audience. The key contradiction is that most independent directors are attempting to show a new viewpoint on a subject, but without the help of others, this viewpoint won’t be shown. The dilemma is to what extent is gaining help diluting your original vision, and can it still survive. Korine has since decided that collaborations aren’t for him, and aborted making what was due to be his next effort with Clark, ‘Ken Park’, after frequent and increasingly heated arguments. I believe that this is a question with no definitive answer, as it’s totally subjective. It depends upon how Independent the director wants to be.
Bibliography
Gill Branston & Roy Stafford, The Media Student’s Book, (London: Routledge, 1996)
James Hillier, American Independent Cinema (Indiana University Press: 2001)
George Mc Knight, Agent of Challenge and Defiance: the films of Ken Loach (Flicks Books: 1997)
Graham Fuller, Loach on Loach, (Faber and Faber: 1998)
Jonathan Hacker and David Price, Take ten: Contemporary British Film Directors (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1991)
British Film Institute website
Steven Rhodes Reviews Site
DEEP FOCUS: An Archive of Reviews by Bryant Frazer
National Film Education Website
The Internet Movie Database
