Marianna Ritchey: Indie films lack power of Hollywood effects
Devil's Advocate: "Hollywood artists" is the oxymoron of the '90s
Leyner amuses, fails to educate
Indie films lack power of Hollywood effects
by Marianna RitcheyWhat is an independent film? Does that mean it's made by a non-famous person? Can a film be independent and then become mainstream? Companies like Miramax used to be independent but now are not. Does it mean the movie has a low budget? Is Dazed and Confused independent? Pulp Fiction was independent, but now Miramax is big so what does that mean? What happens if you run an independent film company that gets bought by a huge conglomerate like Warner Bros.? Leaving Las Vegas is classified as independent. Some people say independent doesn't exist anymore because it has already become too trendy.
Many people scoff at the monster Hollywood blockbusters like Titanic, saying that independent movies are where the "real" art is. But these people are just snobs who listen only to what other indie snobs say to them.
Independent movies, however you define them, can be awesome. They can also be really stupid, much like Hollywood films. I'm coming out in support of big blockbusters. Sure, it's fun to sit down and watch a "quirky," "artsy," "low-budget" little movie, and sometimes they truly are brilliant. But there's another aspect of the cinematic experience that these indie-heads have talked themselves into being ashamed of: The Big Thrill. I know that the budget of Waterworld could have fed a small Third World country for a year, but, dammit, this is America. TitanicÊjust wouldn't be the same if it had been made with seven thousand bucks by Robert Rodriguez. That goes without saying. It was fun to watch that big ship go down. It was fun to watch Robert Patrick turn into liquid in Terminator 2. It was fun to see the aliens in Independence Day. Special effects are neat. Jurassic Park was neat. Movies like El Mariachi are neat too, but in a different way. I think indie-philes have forgotten what people initially loved about movies. They loved the fantasy, the act of watching a different reality on a big screen. I get so mad when people say, "That movie wasn't realistic." What the hell, it was Men in Black! Get a grip!
There are also other huge blockbuster Hollywood films that aren't "fun." What would Schindler's List or Forrest GumpÊhave been if they didn't have all those gobs of cash and prestige backing them? It's just a whole different ballgame. The people who sneer at big budget films as being artless and tacky are the same people who like a song until they've heard it on the radio, then declare the band a "sell-out." I reject this discrimination!
Not to mention the fact that no one seems to be able to define "independent" in the first place. I mean, technically everybody starts out independent, don't they? One of Spielberg's first movies was called Duel and it was about a guy in a Dodge Dart who gets chased by a semi truck. George Lucas made THX-1138, that weird robot movie with Robert Duvall, back when even he was "indie." Quentin Tarantino? Is he "indie?" Whatever. I think these classifications are weird. Movies are either for the masses or for more selective audiences. It's all just film to me.
