Choose one film to analyse in depth as an example of American Independent Cinema

Choose one film to analyse in depth as an example of American Independent Cinema

The film I have chosen to analyse in depth as an example of American Independent Cinema is Miguel Arteta’s 2000 film Chuck & Buck.  I will be analysing how the film fits into the category of being an independent film and what kind of independent film it is, this will be achieved by examining the film under two main perspectives these being the formal aesthetics of the film and the social, cultural context.  

        Trying to identify what makes a film independent is an extremely difficult task, to some it’s a financial matter, for film makers from the early 1940’s through to the early 1970’s like Maya Deren, Jonas Mekas Kenneth Anger and Andy Warhol “independent” meant opposition to the dominant media on several fronts: technological (amateur 8mm and 16mm instead of professional 35mm formats); institutional (interpersonal and communal versus corporate production); aesthetic (original and avant-garde against the conventional and generic); economic (love of film rather than love of money was the prime motivation); and political (exploring marginal and disenfranchised cultures instead of focusing on the  culturally dominant.)  Although film makers in that era would try to follow these un written guidelines the most important one for them and even today was that a film was made out of passion and vision and not for money, as Chuck & Buck was with a budget of $250, 000.  Made using a digital camera Chuck & Buck is a dark comedy.  As a comedy genre independent films have a popular approach that is not only seen in Chuck & Buck but also in Todd Solondz’ Happiness, Terry Zwigoff’s Ghost World, Todd Louiso’s Love Liza and others.  Firstly they manage to make the viewer sympathise with characters that would normally be avoided or who are morally wrong.  But on the other hand, using such a child like protagonist is a way in which contemporary Hollywood has similarly used to gain sympathy for their characters in films such as Big and Forest Gump both with Tom Hanks.  They gain our sympathy because the audience has the feeling of them not knowing any better than what they are doing.  Independent comedies tend to take heavy subjects such as stalking and arrested development like in Chuck & Buck or paedophilia as in the film Happiness, this will be focused on in the social cultural section.

For me the most distinct aspect of formal aesthetics in this film is the way in which the music is used, primarily the Gwendolyn Sanford song Freedom of the Heart.  The song is very representative of Buck, it reminds him of his mother and we see him put it on at his mothers’ funeral and whilst driving in his car, it is his comfort song.  It is a very upbeat lively sounding song and is played so often that it feels like another character, in the film it manages to come across as innocently fun, and is annoyingly catchy that one can’t help but sing along to it.  But at the same time manages to make the audience feel somewhat uncomfortable.  The impression the song the leaves on the audience mirror the impression left by Buck, although he manages to make us feel uncomfortable, his innocence is at the same time endearing.  It is not only the music in the film that allow us to sympathise with Buck, the slow paced use of the shots help us to understand on one hand Buck’s obsession as we see him stare longingly at Chuck which leads us to believe that he is in love with Chuck and always has been.  And on the other hand Chuck’s awkward feeling towards Buck as in many shots particularly when Buck turns up at Chuck’s house unannounced and when he goes to see him at his office, the shots of silence between the two of them shot in real time creates an intensely uneasy environment which can be felt by the audience.  The fact that the lengthy pauses are shown make the audience feel for both characters for Bucks persistent trying and for Chuck’s uneasy silence that would of lasted twice the time in his mind.  The camera manages to achieve uncomfortable intimacy in some of the most emotionally charged scenes.  The majority of the shots used in this film seem to be there to bring us closer to the audience, the shaky point of view shots which are used when Chuck is jogging, allows the audience to feel what Chuck is going through.  While he is jogging he is having flashbacks of his childhood with Buck and the shakiness of the camera not only obviously represents the jogging but also his state of mind, Buck has come into his life and shaken things up in his previously stable world.  We also see a point of view shot being used when we see Buck watching Chuck and his wife through some bushes, as we watch the shaky footage it is clear that we are seeing through Bucks eyes, it makes the viewer feel uncomfortable as we see the pleasure in his face from watching them.  The flashbacks that are included in the film are vital to the feel of the film.  We see both characters having the same flashbacks, not much happens in them apart from them running around when they were younger but they are intensely back lit and not clearly visible, the strong lighting makes them appear dream like.  When they are shown as part of Buck’s flashbacks the blurry image makes us question whether Buck’s stories are true or if they are what they look like a dream.  But when we see Chuck having similar flashbacks the vagueness of them represents his memories coming back to him slowly and unclearly.  The warm palette used gives a nostalgic impression and gives the memories a happy feeling.  Contemporary Hollywood comedies are much more fast paced not only visually but in dialogue, the comedy is more obvious and visual and sometimes physical.  Films such as, Dumb and dumber, Scary Movie and American Pie are all very noticeably funny, but in the indie sector with films such as Chuck & Buck and more evidently in Happiness the comedy is dark and twisted.  Its is rare in this film to see a collection of fast paced shots, but towards the end immediately after Chuck and Buck have slept together we see a montage of shots of Buck throwing away all of the toys that he had decorating his room.  The fast pace reflect his unstableness and his mood, we see him crying and behaving erratically, and can see what a big step this is for him.  Although through narrative Independent and Hollywood comedies may be on opposing sides of the spectrum they do have their similarities, they can both be read in terms of opposition between normal routine and the disruptive antics of the comedian.  Although Buck is not a “comedian” as such in this film it is his character behaves disruptively in his surroundings, he has not grown up and therefore does not know how to act appropriately or maturely.  It is through his surroundings and the other characters around him that we notice his level of arrested development, which acts as the comedy.  This is also true of contemporary Hollywood films such as the film Liar Liar starring Jim Carrey, it is due to his relaxed surroundings that his odd extrovert personality stands out and makes us realise the extent of his hyperactivity.  The film manages to shock and surprise us without showing any violence or sexual scenes, the majority is just innuendo, letting our imaginations do most of the work, this gives great credit to the filmmaking and script writing, unlike most comedies which have to be physical to get a laugh, this one manages it, although slightly uncomfortably without being slapstick.