Film Futurist

One of the interesting results of the proliferation of web video has been that whatever special distinction independent filmmakers felt they had is kind of over.

The truth is, right now, in January 2010 most of the visual storytelling–series, one-off videos and even features you’ll find on content sites (outside of the Netflix and Hulus of the world) ARE independent. That is to say, they were created by individuals who independently decided to create and in most cases finance their own projects. Whether it cost $5 on a borrowed Flipcam to make that cat fall of the piano, or it cost $50K to make that VFX masterpiece that got 1 million views on Youtube, the bottom line is that the idea of the “independent” has gone totally mainstream.

Film and video festivals are proliferating like never before, and the amount of content at online aggregation sites is staggering. Let me put it in perspective: Back in May 2009,  YouTube’s blog said 20 hours of video were being uploaded to YouTube every minute and they point out that it would be the equivalent of over 86,000 new full-length movies into theaters each week. Every filmmaker I know rolls their eyes about YouTube stats. So let me be clear: my point is certainly NOT that a video like Chris Crocker “Leave Britney Alone” a filmic masterpiece because it had close to 12 million hits.

Rather, my question is: What happens to “American Indie Film,” largely defined by the self-financed, autonomous creation of filmed stories by a person or group of people- either documentary or fictional, and to be possibly sold and exhibited to the public. Film schools all over the US are filled with filmmaker hopefuls wanting to do just that, and spending a lot of time and money working towards that end. (I know because I went to one of them.) One could argue that the distinction is obvious, and that my argument is at best, semantic. But I don’t think it is.

I know there are a lot of rah-rah traditional American indie filmmakers out there trying to figure out how to bring the whole kit-and-kaboodle of indie filmmaking from the analog/old/Sundance world into the digital age. And there are some wonderful resources for crowdsourcing funding, marketing and distribution evolving from these efforts. BUT, I am going to argue that the idea of American Independent filmmaking as a cultural movement defined by films all the way from the 70s through the early days of  Sundance, is over.

So while I applaud the spirit of indie creators, I’m going to call a spade a spade: most indie filmmakers (and I know this because I’ve worked on MANY indie films) bootstrap their “passion projects” so they can have a shot at the big time: Hollywood. And I’m not knocking this as a strategy. I mean who doesn’t want to get on a movie where you have a Honeywagon instead of your mom’s station wagon? However, let’s not confuse a financial/career approach with a cultural idea called “independent.” There are fewer and fewer filmmakers working outside of the cultural and even political constraints of the mainstream (as defined by Hollywood). In fact, I would venture to say, there may be more true “independent” thinking buried in the vast depths of the billon-deep YouTube video vault right now.

So maybe the moment has come to re-define “Independent Film”. Perhaps what we are really talking about is filmmaking for niche audiences, the same way cable television changed the way we see television. More rarified, maybe, but by no means does any vague set of “indie rules” apply to any work being created  in the “feature” category by a non-studio entity. I think once we get real about what it “means” to be an independent content creator, we can get down to the business of learning one or two things from folks who are having success in the vast world of online media.