Indie cinema questions

In Chapter 7, Tzioumakis concentrates on “the measures the company took to avoid the possibility of a corporate takeover and thus retain its independence amidst a small number of fully diversified entertainment conglomerates.”(p225) Geoff King also discusses this phenomenon, by stating that the major difference between independent cinema in 1950s-early 1960s and 1980s is the “extent to which any sustained infrastructure was created.” Later on, the most important requirement for independent cinema is its own distribution networks, where Hollywood studios still control the main markets. Is the relationship between the conglomerates and those satellites or mini-majors truly symbiotic, with fair value exchanged in the form of content generated by the smaller studios and infrastructure and finance provided by the conglomerates? Or does the fact that the economic power and incumbency of the conglomerates forces this on the smaller, potentially independent studios mean this is more accurately a parasitic relationship? Is independent cinema nowadays a pure independent territory, which has its own value system, aesthetic standard and ability to resist the organizational gravitation, or an incubator for big companies to discover the talented people? When the independent cinema faces the fact that if it does not stir the market like a bomb then people won’t pay much attention to it, then what is the difference with Hollywood?

Jean-Luc Godard says that “All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun.” However, for those independent filmmakers, from funding and distribution, it is still as dangerous as “walking through the swamp.” In Chapter 8, Tzioumakis continues to talk about the institutionalization of independent cinema. There we read about the efforts leading to resurgence of independent cinema in the 1990s, that were supported by many organizations, which are separated from the conglomerates. However, if there is an audience ready and receptive to the truly independent cinema, are such measures really necessary? Or would independent cinema spontaneously develop to satisfy the audience’s appetite? In other words, if the designers of the market support independent cinema when they develop, does society still need to deliberately or consciously support it, festivals or whatever. Or will the same designers act as the driving forces to bring about an independent element to the market?

I am sort of interested in the selection of music in some indie movies. Look at Juno first, from the interview with Ellen Page, she reveals why she would choose the Moldy Peaches/Kimya Dawson. Ellen describes the music is full of “so much heart and so much simplicity”, “humorous”, “novelty”, which is just as quirky as for Juno. Not only the Moldy Peaches/Kimya Dawson’s music, most of which are self-published, brings to the success of the movie, there are also many other well-known songs in Juno, such as the song written by David Bowie “All the young dudes” (one of my favorite songs) and Sonic Youth. Then let’s look at the soundtrack of the movie Happiness again. There are many masterpieces, which are from Mozart and Vivaldi. I realize that even with those masterpieces the soundtrack did not give me more impression of the whole movie than Juno. So what is the respective value of music used in both movies? To a wider extent, how possible could a movie be successful by the value of its soundtrack, which is highly recognized by those previous music fans? I know the movie Once is a good example in Europe. Another interesting is that after the success of Juno, Kimya Dawson’s fans are unsatisfied with how widely those songs are presented to the public, by stating that “not indie anymore”, “the movie spoiled her music.” Still an old question, how do those indie musicians and filmmakers balance between their original creativity and the potentially huge money-making market in front of them?