QUESTIONS (pt. 2) Tzioumakis Readings (Molly B.)

1. In Chapter 5, Tzioumakis discusses the New American Cinema and the films of John Cassavettes. I watched his film Faces, and the accompanying “extras” DVD, which included interviews with many cast members who discussed the making of the film. Cassavettes, as director and screenwriter, basically took no outside funding, and used friends and favors to come up with resources needed to make this film, and it won awards at Venice Film Festival, and its actors received prominent award nominations, as well. Faces took over 3 years to complete, and despite major technical difficulties in the post-production (e.g. the entire soundtrack was out of sync!), Cassavettes never sought out help from the Hollywood industry, and therefore, his film retained the aesthetic qualities of that independence, as well. He said he took “mainstream acting jobs” to fund his film outside of the system. He had a strong belief in working with actors and forcing them to be emotionally free in the process of developing characters, and believed Faces could only be made if he had full control over the means of production. He said he didn’t know or care what would happen when he finished the film, that it was about the “process.” In this sense, Cassavettes seems, to me, to have been a rare example of a true “independent filmmaker”in this era, as opposed to most directors who simply work within the existing system as independent directors, in co-agreements with the major studios. What do you think? Are there other directors who seem to define this style of independent filmmaking today? Would this be possible today?

2. Later, Tzioumakis discusses the state of independent films in the early 1980’s, during the conservative political movements in the USA and the shunning of directors with dissenting political views. During that era, many independent filmmakers made low-budget films that found a voice and a home in alternative sectors of the market. One interesting source of funding was from public broadcasting, which Congress asked to assist in financing independent films. Do you think that government grants and assistance should be more involved in the film industry in the US, in order to create a more consistent framework for directors and talent from the margins to make films? Should public funds be diverted to boost the creative sector of the independent film industry, like in other countries (e.g. Canada, Europe)? Or, are cable outlets like HBO, Bravo, etc. filling in this gap for distributing films that may be lower budget and non-mainstream?

3. It seems in the current period of independent cinema, that the major studios have found a way to co-opt the indie producers/directors by providing them a comfortable way in which to work. They are, for the most part, given control of their own work, provided a budget to work within, and guaranteed distribution, which has been the toughest situation for most indie filmmakers, if working “outside of the system.” If such films have content that relates to the human condition and diverse subject matter (e.g. not Blockbusters) can be made within the system, why do we need “indie” film as a term anymore, if these aren’t actually independent? Is there a better term, such as “underground,” that might represent filmmakers that are truly at the margins, producing and distributing films through other channels and financing? Is “indie” just another means for Hollywood to sell movies to new audiences? Is the true meaning of independent cinema lost in the current conglomerate-dominated movie system? Are audiences getting enough disparate viewpoints? Can these new styles of "indie film" be challenging (or merely entertainment) within this framework?