RAZZ / EVOLVE
THE CURRENT STATE OF INDIE CINEMA
RAZZ writer, Caitlin Barr, questions if the commercialisation of an indie film aesthetic has impacted the independent film industry. Independent cinema has a rich history, from roots in California in the early 1900s, to the arthouse movement across Europe, to Timothée Chalamet’s notorious peach scene in Call Me By Your Name. Audiences have flocked to and rejected indie filmmaking throughout the years, but how is it faring in the age of Netflix? How independent are ‘independent’ films in an age when the aesthetic seems more attractive than the process? There was a time when the boundaries between the independent market and the commercial market were stricter. Independent film festivals were a huge 28
factor in this, seeking to promote the talent of filmmakers who didn’t rely on major studio funding. Filmmakers who had struggled to get a look in could showcase their work at festivals like Sundance, and hope to get it distributed. Auteurs like Jim Jarmusch, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez all essentially launched their careers at Sundance in the 1990s and during this period the industry boomed. However, times have changed since and it is becoming increasingly harder to define the meaning of ‘indie’ in regards to filmmaking. The concept of ‘Indiewood’ has blurred the definition of independent filmmaking. ‘Indiewood’ originated around the mid-90s, with Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction as an arguable catalyst. Despite being made and produced without studio input (‘independently’), it was fully financed by Miramax (a leading independent film distributor and production company before losing its independent status when Disney bought it in 1993). After a release in 1100 cinemas straight away (not typical for an indie flick),