reading questions for 11/12 discussion

Tzioumakis brings up a different approach in understanding independent cinema as a discourse constructed by “authorized social institutions.” The author argues that the definition of independent cinema is contributed by such “legitimate social groups” as “industry practitioners, film critics, academics and publications, etc.” that have close association to the field of independent cinema. He further clarifies his argument by applying Foucaultian theory of “naming and defining the object.” Nevertheless, while legitimating the authority and power in construing the conception of independent cinema, Tzioumakis apparently omits the agency of audience. Tzioumakis would agree to the point that, based on the nature of cinema, one may inevitably wind up in misunderstandings if he sees cinema as “a one-way communication.” Therefore, if the discourse is also a process of reciprocity or mutual communication between film and audience, as the author himself suggests, would audience equally (if not less) have the power or authority in the construction of this discourse? If so, in what way would audience’s participation be significant? How may mass audience be able to bring independent cinematic culture into being then?

Following the clarification of his argument regarding the conception of discourse, Tzioumakis holds that independent film represents the issue of power. He claims that in the course of constructing this discourse, different parties compete against each other involving the field of independent cinema. According to Tzioumakis, independent cinema seem to be a tool for marketing strategy that contributes to the survival and development of either major or non-major film makers. In this sense, independent becomes truly “independent” only when it is necessary to certain extent. Independent film appears to be an optimum choice of expediency for concerns like financial achievement rather than for the sake of the films per se, perhaps. Off of this point, are we fair to say that the competition of a privileged power in the construction of this discourse may virtually sacrifice a true autonomy of independent film in the sense that a power-related force could keep a true independence at bay? Or curiously enough, is it correct that there is not such a thing as true independence at all, at least for in the case of films?

This question still follows the key topic of power that runs through the book. To illustrate his point, Tzioumakis delves into the case studies of the major film conglomerates’ growth and finds that, on the one hand, early American film makers struggles hard for the powers to get rid of being “depended upon,” but on the other hand, they oppresses the nascent and keep they from gaining power when they are in control. Michel Foucault interprets the connection between truth and power in the way that truth cannot be true without the sustainment of power, and power could no longer be powerful should it be stripped of truth. In the case of American independent films, what truths are the filmmakers trying to project along their way of growth? Are there any differences in telling the truth concerning independent cinema during their different stages of power?