Page 205 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

1 | Independent C nema: The Myth and Necess ty of D st nct on

ThE BaTTLEFiELD mETaPhor
Definitions of mainstream and/or independent cinema often appear futile;
every attempt presents an easy target for refutation, leaving us with a battlefield
of opinions and discussions, and it is precisely in this battlefield metaphor that
the opportunities for a meaningful approach to the distinction mainstream–
independent lie.
Mainstream cinema occupies the high ground on the battlefield—its position
is unquestioned. While perhaps no one has a surefire definition of what consti-
tutes mainstream cinema, it is safe to say that not too many people seem to care.
Debates about kinds of mainstream cinema aside (like blockbusters), and de-
bates around certain kinds of genres like drama or romance exempted, it appears
that mainstream cinema seems pretty well understood in a common sense. It
is formulaic, commercial, top-down, and centralized-control driven (especially
in terms of budget and planning), and it aims for wide distribution in order to
entertain the largest common denominator of audiences. The general ease with
which descriptions like this are accepted for mainstream cinema is probably the
result of “mainstream” being a “center-position,” a position in a debate that is
seen as the norm. It is considered evident and self-explanatory, motivated, con-
fident, and secure. In terms of our battlefield metaphor, it is on top of an eleva-
tion, in plain sight, overseeing the grounds—static, but in charge.
Independent cinema, on the other hand, occupies the “outsider-position.” It is
hidden in the bushes, moving like a band of guerillas, sneaky and swift, but also
outnumbered, divisive, and internally divided. Practitioners of cinema cannot
seem to agree what “independent” means, but they all refer to it as some kind of
“counterforce.” For James Mangold, “independent” signifies an attitude “against
the system, against the grain.” Kevin Smith uses a negative definition: “Can this
movie ever be made in a studio? If you say no, then that’s an independent film.”
Ted Demme invokes a degree of individuality: “If it’s personal to a director, then
it’s an independent.” For Nancy Savoca, it is a mindset: “Independent film is
really a way of thinking.” And for Alan Rudolph the term is useless: “If you’re
truly independent, then no one can really categorize you and your film can’t
be pigeonholed”—hence it cannot be called anything, and certainly not “in-
dependent.” Academics and critics also appear to struggle with the term. For
Emmanuel Levy, independent cinema is characterized by two disguises it can
switch between: independent financing, or independent spirit. For Jonathan
Rosenbaum, independent means being able to intervene at crucial stages, like
having “final cut” over your film. For Geoff King, independent cinema covers a
range of practices, hovering in between nonindustrial cinema (like handcrafted
avant-garde films) and Hollywood’s centralized mode of production. It is not
too much of a stretch of the imagination to see all of these attempts to describe
a dynamic, constantly moving concept as similar to reconnaissance work: trying
to map what’s out there, without really capturing it.
As anyone who has ever played chess, Stratego, or Risk knows, battles are
about momentum. All the directors, academics, and critics mentioned above
can be seen as describing parts, moving fragments of a broader “independent”