Top Five Independent Movies

Thank You!

That's exactly how I understood it as well. I know where Silver B. is coming from. We all have our lines of injustice. Hell, I'd like to refuse certian musical artists as actually being artists, but they make money, doing something musical in nature, and other people actually like them. So, what I guess I'm trying to say, is that some movies are made indipendently, and picked up later by big studios. That doesn't change what they started out as. That wouldn't be fair.

Silver B.- When you make movies...even short films, wouldn't it be nice for them to get big? Famous? Or do you want to stay in this little elitest world you've created?

Well put. Sort of like that episode of "Friends" (no, I'm not really a fan) where Phoebe says "God, I've give anything to not be appreciated in my own time."

Thank you for your comment TWT Commish. Trust me Im not discouraged by what Silverbullet has said. He has his opinion and thats what makes this a great country. Independent films are films are films that normally are not the mainstream in society. It's great to have films that dont get that much exposure and build up due to word of mouth. Hopefully, we can start a new thread and keep it going on Independent Films. Thanks for everyone's input on this .

Actually, I'm from Australia.

Hey everyone is reading me the wrong way. There's no holier-than-thou attitude, I just believe that I am right, just as you do. I don't think that there is anything more or less noble in making a small budget flick with unkowns as it is to make a big budget flick with names, as long as it's for the purpose of a story and not [just] for awards or money.I'm not saying I want to be in my own eletist world either. I never said any of these things -- all I ever brought up is what I personally believe to be independant, and it just happened I don't believe some of the mentioned films are indies. To clarify, "Blair Witch" was made with money from the creators own pockets, they were not financially helped -- it is independant. Just because people watched it, or a studio picked it up, doesn't take away what it was -- I never said that.

Please don't put words into my mouth.
I mean, it's no big deal; it's a word open to interpretation and I've been lynched for interpreting it in my way -- not that I am not at fault, I've done the same and for that I'm sorry.

But I don't want to fight with any of you.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

No one's lynching you, brutha...we're just getting certain impressions from you. For example: why do you dislike "Blair Witch"? Maybe I shouldn't assume things, but my initial impressions was that you disliked it because it was an Indy film that went into wide release, made a lot of money, and then spawned a crappy sequel. And, of course, some of us are still harping on the mainstream thing. Honestly: if you could get your movies in wide release, would you? Wouldn't you LOVE that chance?

Hell yes, who wouldn't?
If a studio decided to distribute a film I had made with my own money, God yes, yes, yes. If a studio decided to fund the creation of my film, why, let them! Saves me money! If I get a government grant, well then, I'm still going make the film -- but the latter two just mean that it ain't an Indy film, no skin off my back, so it's not an Indie film. I'm still making the film 'cos I want to make the film, if I can get my story out into the world, that's fine by me, just as fine as if it doesn't. Either way, I want to be making films, funded or not funded -- all I'm saying is my definition of an Indie film, and it just so happens to contrast to some of the views here.

And for the record, I just disliked "Blair Witch" for a few reasons -- I'm not really a fan of the horror genre, never have been, and while it started off looking promising, I found it degraded towards the middle and was really bad by the end. I laughed in some sections. It just wasn't my kettle of fish as a film. It wasn't really anything new.

But that again, is just me.

Ok, I think I understand a bit more now. I was under the impression that, when you said you hated mainstream things, you wouldn't want a film of yours in wide release, because it could, potentially, BECOME a mainstream film. My bad.

It's an attitude thing as I've said before, the major generalisation I make is that mainstream people / filmmakers have a poor attitude -- I use the Oscars as my primary example. But that being said, I think you find people with the right attitude within the studio world, the Coens for example.

And that being said, you definatly find more left-winged Indie's than myself who believe that Mainstream is the anti-christ, and you wouldn't be able to stand a conversation with them because they'd destroy you in a minute, they destroy me and I've with them a lot of the time. There's an arrogance in either side of the spectrum:

"We make more money."
"We make more art."
"You Suck."
"Not as hard as you."

And I just choose to sway one way because of my own position in the cinematic world, hence I clash with you so much, because you represent the opposite end of the spectrum -- we're both stubborn and arrogant.

But also, I think you'll notice, since we've started having "these little talks" we've also slowly cancelled each other other, becoming more neautral, more accepting and open to the "enemies" way of thinking.

We're doing something right, TWT.

I suppose the problem I have is that I don't see why it must be one or the other. "Star Wars: A New Hope" was amazing, cinematically, but was also very commercially successful. I confess, I've somewhat lumped you together with the oh-so-many Indie filmmakers who, for some reason, HATE the idea of any movie that makes money...and are somehow proud of themselves for making movies that almost no one sees.

The Coens make money...and I'm sure they'd love to make more of it. They also make wonderful, hilarious, interesting films. I don't see any rule that says you can't have both worlds.

They'd destory me? Uh....what?

You and Steve seem to have the idea that I somehow dislike art, or wonderful movies, and that I prefer a movie which makes money. The truth is that I just like good movies, and that I admire a movie that can be good, and yet still commercially successful...because it means it gave the people something they wanted to see. As I'm sure you've guessed, I'm not nuts about the whole "starving artist" thing. It seems so self-serving: you do something for yourself, with no regard to what other people think of it, or whether or not they want to see it/buy it/whatever.

Hey, this site is an interesting example: I feel it's personal and friendly for the most part...but I also want it to make money. I don't feel that the two conflict. It seems that many Indie filmmakers do think of the two as completely seperate, though.

I never said that YOU said you wanted to be in your own eletist world...I asked if that's where you would rather be...those were MY words, not words I put in your mouth.

I don't want to fight with you either. I didn't think we were. I thought we were having a friendly debate...I wasn't trying to gang up on you. Sorry if you felt that way. I'm just trying to understand your opinion. That's all.

It's great that we are having a debate on the Independent Films. Hey SilverBullet, sorry I didn't know you lived in Australia. I do have to say, in terms of cultures in the movie business, America we are bombarded with movies left and right, from Hollywood to Independent films and films from all over the world. So my interpertation may be different from your interpertation. I honestly don't know the culture of films in Australia. I would like to know. Are Indie films popular? Maybe you can enlighten us in that part of that world and maybe we can understand your views alot better. I understand them to a certain point. I know there is more to Australia than Mel Gibson. Enlighten me on the the movie industry in Australia.

Yeah, absolutely...there's a lot more to Australia than Mel Gibson...there's ALSO Nicole Kidman.

top Indie films: Chunking express
Dream
Cinema Paradiso.(spelling)
400 blow
and more.... can't remember the names.....

...and Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett and Guy Pearce and... well, anyway.

...and yummy 'ol Hugh Jackman...right?

Well, the AFI awards were last night.
You'll find that there aren't many true Indie films [Indy by my interpretation] in Australia, the majority of them are funded -- not by studios -- but through the Film Commission and so on. I found it interesting to see that Baz Luhrmann and Moulin Rouge didn't go as well as I thought they may have. Here's some of the winners:

Best Film:
Lantana

Best Actor:
Anthony LaPaglia (Lantana)

Best Actress:
Kerry Armstrong (Lantana)

Best Director:
Ray Lawrence (Lantana)

Those four alone all dethroned Moulin Rouge, which says something [good] for Australian cinema. Allthough I loved MR, I think it good to see that story will still overcome all odds, nice acting. The film, was like looking at a mirror of everyone you've ever met.

MR won all the tech awards. Just a taste, I guess, of Australian cinema.

Lantana...never heard of it. What's the story?

I couple of interwoven stories, all basically about couples having affairs. It was apparently very good. It had Geofferry Rush in it as well.

A dialogue sample:

"Do you have heart problems?"
"No."
"I'm not going to have an affair with a man with heart problems."
"I don't have heart problems. And it's not an affair; it's a one night stand that happened twice."

I'll have to get my movie store that I frequent, to order it. They're very bad at getting foriegn films. I love Rush, but he's not the " lover-type". I don't find him attractive in the least.

Actors don't have to be.