Page 209 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2
P. 209

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

                       momentum, and publicized it as a new boom of independent production that fa-
                       vored auteur-led enterprises—as Jean-Luc Godard noted, “Tout est possible.” Of
                       the many factors facilitating the momentum, the most significant were a vibrant
                       exhibition circuit—comprising festivals, art-house theaters, midnight movies,
                       grindhouses, drive-ins, clubhouses, and campus societies—and an equally vivid
                       film press, encompassing liberal criticism as well as widely available fan maga-
                       zines and underground publications.
                          Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, it guaranteed visibility and conti-
                       nuity to auteur and independent alternative cinema. It gave Corman the oppor-
                       tunity to offer chances to young talents like Francis Coppola, Martin Scorsese,
                       Brian De Palma, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, Jonathan Demme, Stephanie
                       Rothman, and Peter Fonda; it enabled awards, and success, for the films of An-
                       drei Tarkovsky, Bernardo Bertolucci, Akira Kurosawa, and Rainer-Werner Fass-
                       binder; it created networks of support for revolutionary “Third World Cinema,”
                       shaking off cultural colonialism (Cuban cinema, Cinema Novo, even Canadian
                       cinema);  it  turned  obscure  underground  fare  like  Flaming  Creatures,  Scorpio
                       Rising, Eraserhead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and Andy Warhol’s films,
                       into international cult phenomena, and it was lenient and permissive towards
                       films testing the boundaries of taste and decency (like Plan 9 from Outer Space,
                       Sins of the Fleshapoids, Emmanuelle, Deep Throat, and Salo)—if nothing else, it
                       established independent cinema’s “cult appeal” as a prime source of attraction
                       for audiences.
                          By the late 1970s, though, much of the momentum was lost, interrupted, or
                       destroyed by stringent new tax laws (against exhibitors mainly), a recovery of
                       New Hollywood (fuelled by some of the Corman babes, and quick in recuperat-
                       ing independent genres like horror and science fiction), economic crises, and
                       contra-democratic backlashes curtailing emergent cinemas.


                          Moment 3: New Indie Cinema (1989 –2000)

                          It is fashionable to claim that the wave of independent cinema called “indie”
                       from the late 1980s throughout the 1990s was incorporated in the mainstream
                       movie business so quickly that it is no more than a blip in the wider scheme of
                       cinema history, a hit-and-run if we stick to our battleground metaphor. But as
                       hit-and-runs come, this one left permanent traces. Gaining momentum since the
                       late 1980s, when, seemingly coincidentally, films without any industry backup
                       to speak of, by young filmmakers unaffiliated with the trench warfare of Hol-
                       lywood (or similar industries in India, Hong-Kong, or Mexico), or centralized
                       state funding (especially in the European Union, Canada, or Australia) enjoyed
                       success and acclaim. For once, the underlying common thread did not seem
                       to be exhibition or distribution, but a cultural aesthetic: these were films that
                       shared styles and concerns with their audiences. Steven Soderbergh’s Cannes
                       prize-winner Sex, Lies, and Videotape is usually seen as its symptomatic flag-
                       bearer: small-sized, ironic, immoral, self-reflexive, hip and cool, stylish, hedo-
                       nistic, noncommitted, challenging (or confusing) gender roles, and filled with
                       doubt and angst.
   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214