Round 3 of Tzioumakis Questions (James C)

Chapter five of Tzioumakis’s book really sparked my interest in the Hollywood Renaissance. I actually never thought of film playing an important role in the then pivotal time in our nation’s history. “As a result, American cinema entered a phase characterized by the production of stylistically diverse and narratively challenging films that were much more tuned in to the social and political climate of the era than the films made for the majors by top-rank independents.” (170) “Besides their status as independent productions, the above group of films shared a large number of other characteristics the most important of which were their conscious targeting of a young audience and their emphasis on questioning established traditions, both in terms of the types of stories they presented and the manner in which the presentation of the stories occurred on screen. These films set new trends in their treatment of controversial material such as the representation of violence (Bonnie and Clyde); sex (Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate); and drugs (Easy Rider) and struck the final blow to the already weakened Production Code, which was replaced in 1968 with the Ratings classification system.” (178) Why were these films so successful during this time period? What made the content an integral part of youth culture and society? Were independent filmmakers just creating films in reaction to an already determined successful target audience (young people) of the general public? Does independent film during this time period just serve as a reinforcement of the culture of young people rebelling against societal norms?

Another element that was brought up that I found interesting and somewhat hard to grasp was the idea of being a successful 100% independent filmmaker. “By borrowing a model of filmmaking again from European art-house cinema, whereby filmmakers were able to produce and distribute commercially successful films without the institutional support of a national distributor, and by subscribing fully to the auteur theory which placed the filmmaker at the centre of the creative process, the independents attempted to bring about these fundamental changes in the structure of the film industry.” (181) “Their ‘dependence’ on the old studios for marketing and distribution automatically signaled the failure of their attempt ‘to overthrow the studio system’ or ‘to democratize filmmaking’.” (183) As long as we live in the capitalistic society of America, will this ever be a possibility for filmmakers to be successful and controlling 100% of what happens to the film in terms of production and distribution? Is it better for there to be this relationship between the independents and the film distributors? Could independent films be successful without this and would that further define independent films and the authenticity of the auteur? What were your thoughts on the rise and fall of Orion?

As the book wraps up by outlining how the major studios have entered the independent film world and basically taking over. Tsioumakis credits the success of Sex, Lies, and Videotape for this invested interest or in some ways takeover of the major studios into the independent film world. Should American independent filmmakers be thanking Soderbergh? Are they giving Sex, Lies, and Videotape too much credit for this change (ie: popularity of the Sundance film festival, the creation of other festivals, creation of the Sundance channel, etc)? What were thoughts on films being financed through the pre-selling of ancillary rights to avoid working with one of the majors? Tisioumakis used Lions Gate as an example of a company that has still stayed strong. Is it possible that they will meet the same fate as Orion if the majors get too powerful and have more long lasting ability to be financially sustainable than Lions Gate? What were your thoughts on the examples of the models that Phoenix and Revolution Studios went by to allow them to keep making films and be successful?