11-12

1.) The catering to teen markets due to their level of disposable income began in the 1950’s when low-budget independent producers capitalized off of them. Were independent studios more concerned about profit over art in this era because of the absence of an independent tradition? These exploitation films were produced cheaply and quickly with the promises of controversy (narrative and visuals) for the sake of finding an audience. Even though some of those same subject matters are evident in contemporary independent film (at least in the three that we are watching) they seem more legitimate today, why? Now independent movies target a completely different demographic (those with the cultural capital- professors, artists). Does independent cinema always cater to the audience left out of the mainstream target demographic? When did this shift occur? What events led to it?



2.) “The oppositional stance that defines indie culture is one key to its status as a source of distinction, a means by which its audience asserts its superior taste. By seeing independent cinema as the alternative to Hollywood films, the indie audience makes authenticity and autonomy into aesthetic virtues that can be used to distinguish a common mass culture from a more refined, élite one.” (Newman 10). It seems as though people create this division with all media products they consume. The line between those that like country music and those that like rap music is just as powerful culturally as the division between mainstream and indie. Entire identities are created around music and even if the cultural snobbery do not attribute elitist tastes to either group, they may still see themselves in such a light. What is the motivation behind creating such hierarchical divisions? Forget about indie, if we are only exposed to the mainstream why do we still define ourselves as what we are not?

3.) One observer wrote, “working outside the studio system is no longer a guarantee against interference and censorship. Since the majors dominate the distribution system, they also—in effect—control the independent sector” (Newman quoting a Hwd observer 16). When did working outside of the studio system guarantee against interference and censorship? Even in the 1940’s, independent cinema was shown as part of a double feature in conjunction with mainstream film, did the MPPDAA not deal as much with content? Since the MPAA in the 60’s, it seems like even if you operate “outside” of the studio system, indie film producers’ goals were “interfered with” (if going by “augment, diminish, or otherwise affect one another”) because opting out lead to diminished distribution and exhibition options since the beginning. Am I being too literal? Maybe.