Page 204 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

i

indePendent CineMa: the Myth and
neCessity oF distinCtion
In discussing film, production personnel, fans, and critics alike regularly distin-
guish between “mainstream cinema” and “independent cinema.” If judged by
economical, ideological, or aesthetic parameters only, though, it does not make
sense to have film history, or parts of it, split up between films that are purport-
edly independent from corporate or government influence, and films that are
reputedly fully manufactured and designed through commerce and policy. In
every one of the former cases, there are some “big money” strings somewhere;
and in every of the latter cases, there is some room for autonomy. Yet the distinc-
tion constantly reappears throughout debates on cinema. What, then, is behind
this distinction, why is it so persistent, and what is independent cinema?
The mainstream–independent distinction is one of cinema’s most enduring
frames of reference. Precisely because of its power, which is largely rhetorical, it
is an instrument of debate used to support arguments about historical and con-
temporary developments in the economics, ideologies, and aesthetics of cinema.
In that sense, the distinction between independent cinema and mainstream cin-
ema is both mythical and necessary. It is mythical, because in the same way
myths underscore cultural histories and ideologies as foundational stories, the
repeated and continuously updated use of the mainstream–independent cinema
distinction underscores beliefs about what cinema is and should be. And it is
necessary because such myths not only inform but actually enable the histori-
ography of cinema, its policies, and its practice. As with all belief systems, even
if the distinction itself is questionable, the actions in its name are important in
creating everyday understandings of film and media practice.

83