Indie in Name Only?

by

I hesitate to call myself an “independent filmmaker.”

In simpler terms, it seems that the realm of indie films has unfortunately fallen into the wrong hands, so to speak.

It’s hard for me to see any comparison between my low-budget movie-making, which usually costs under $20,000, and someone else’s large-scale project that requires millions, such as a $4 million production or even one that meets the budget cap for Indie Spirit Awards eligibility of around $30 million.

Independent films have evolved into a style and a fad – a popular choice to make – instead of a mindset and a motivation. The elements that define these films as “independent” are increasingly testing the values and principles that originally defined this counter-culture movement.

To me, independent films are movies that aren’t typically expected or produced. These stories can be rough-edged, with characters that feel raw and authentic, which may not always be easy for viewers to digest. They often operate on modest budgets and rely more on festival accolades rather than well-known actors for recognition.

Despite the challenges, these films come to life thanks to a filmmaker’s relentless determination and drive. In many ways, they embody raw, unadulterated filmmaking, untainted by the biases or comforts that often accompany big-studio productions and their familiar faces.

Initially, the impact of celebrities on independent films was limited to a small group of trailblazers, reminiscent of Hopper, who dedicated themselves to bucking trends. As it became clear that indie cinema frequently surpassed mainstream productions in quality, more commercially attractive actors jumped aboard this movement, creating outstanding work and shining a spotlight on talented filmmakers.

But that, too, had a price.

Additionally, there was a growing interest among more actors to participate in the project and share in the recognition it was receiving. Furthermore, they sought to benefit from its success. As indie film budgets expanded, they began to accommodate the luxuries that top-tier actors might expect.

As a film lover, I’ve noticed that independent film festivals have started to incorporate celebrity Q&As, which have become so popular they even sell out screenings. They’re not just programming movies with commercial appeal, but also films that might already have distribution deals in place before being shown.

RELATED: THE UNSEEN STRUGGLES IN INDIE FILMS

Over time, as the bigger movies dominated the scene, fewer projects with the primary aim of gaining festival exposure rather than having a renowned director or visually appealing quality, began to be considered for inclusion in the programming discussions.

In response to this change, independent art house distributors – typically autonomous subsidiaries of larger corporations that used to promote innovative content – adjusted their acquisition strategies accordingly. Their selection of films mirrored the programming of the festivals, and as the film festivals stopped championing indie productions, so did the distribution companies.

They now focus on acquiring only well-reviewed and established assets instead of unknown or untested ones, preferring to emulate the “independent” sector by producing more refined, high-profile, and safer investments.

This opened a door many non-industry filmmakers saw as an answer.

Independent or art house film distributors, who claimed to support low-budget movie makers with their purpose statements, started appearing rapidly, similar to crabgrass, aiming to bridge the gap left by traditional film festivals and distributors when they stopped showcasing films that used to be their identity.

This was a group of boisterous, self-assured business school graduates aiming to profit from the numerous films that no longer fitted the independent film model due to their extreme independence. They presented themselves as the opposite of the established system; the underdog saviors of authentic indie cinema.

Looking through The Film Collaborative Distribution Report Card, which is filled with anonymous accounts from filmmakers who’ve worked with various distributors, you might find that the ‘punk rock’ label doesn’t quite fit. Instead, some of these firsthand experiences portray behavior that’s oppressive and deeply disappointing, far removed from the mission statements they claim to uphold.

But at least the films found distribution…right?

Many of these aggregators experienced a downfall reminiscent of the art-house distributors from the past. Unlike before, when the industry shifted, they didn’t simply reorient; instead, they were forced to close due to damaging revelations about fraud and poor management.

Some persist, and anyone venturing across them might ponder whether the influence of a film’s acquisition truly outweighs its independence.

In the aftermath, it’s the independent Hollywood-adjacent films that have managed to stay in the game. They control, manage, and shape this arena to suit their needs, often keeping exceptional works hidden from public view. This domain they will maintain, refine, and safeguard according to their preferences, leaving many outstanding pieces of work undiscovered and unseen.

Currently, Jennifer Lopez is strolling along a red carpet at Sundance Film Festival (which previously launched Richard Linklater’s career with the low-budget film “Slacker”), while Cannes Film Festival (notable for Larry Clark and Harmony Korine’s groundbreaking work like KIDS) is screening a big-budget blockbuster. Joe Swanberg’s mumblecore genre debut, Kissing on the Mouth, was born at SXSW, and they are now showcasing Apple TV+ pilots. Meanwhile, Netflix has earned the second most nominations at the Independent Spirit Awards.

They’re all indie, man!

Indeed, I find it challenging to label myself as an independent filmmaker since numerous others who carry that title have gained widespread recognition from the media for their contributions to independent filmmaking. However, upon closer examination, the way they create and finance their films seems far from independent.

Is the word being overused and misused so much that it loses its significance? I certainly hope not. I wish we could revitalize it, as it stands as the most authentic and fitting symbol to underscore the authenticity of our separation from any established system or practice.

Until that point, I’ll strive to embody the spirit of Hopper and persistently challenge the norms, illuminating the ridiculousness of an ever-expanding industry which perpetually seeks domination.

Vincent D’Alessandro is a filmmaker who works on a small budget, with his debut full-length film “BOTTOM FEEDERS” now up for rent or purchase on Vimeo On Demand. He earned his degree in Filmmaking from Rutgers University and has showcased his short films at the BFI Future Film Festival, NFFTY, and NewFilmmakers New York. For more details about him, check out his website: www.vincentdalessandro.com.

Read More

2025-04-08 02:03