Independent filmmaking has been around for centuries, with one of the earliest examples being Georges Méliès’ A Trip to the Moon in 1902. This film was not commissioned by a studio, and Méliès financed, wrote, directed, and starred in the film himself. In the early days of Hollywood, there were many independent filmmakers who were not beholden to the studios, and they were able to tell the stories they wanted to tell without interference. These days, the term “independent film” has taken on a different meaning. It is now used to describe films that are not made by the major studios, and are usually low-budget. These films are often seen as being more “artistic” than the big-budget studio films, and they are often lauded for their creativity and originality.
The difference between independent and studio filmmaking is very self-explanatory. Apart from the budget of the project, there are some other key disparities. The target audience for independents filmmaking is typically narrower than the target audience for studio filmmaking. This is because independents filmmakers usually make films that are geared towards a specific niche market. For example, a studio might make a blockbuster action movie that is meant to appeal to a wide range of people, while an independent filmmaker might make a low-budget horror movie that is only meant for fans of the genre. The distribution methods for independents filmmaking are also different than studio filmmaking. Independents filmmakers typically have to rely on alternative methods, such as online distribution, to get their films seen. This is because they do not have the same level of access to traditional distribution channels, such as movie theaters, that studios do.
Some argue that independent filmmaking limits the artistic expression of a movie because it is usually constrained by budgets and resources. Others argue that independent filmmakers have more freedom to express their creativity because they are not beholden to studio executives or other investors. Ultimately, whether or not independent filmmaking limits or expands the artistic expression of a movie depends on how you define “artistic expression”. In this paper, I will explore both sides of this debate in order to come to my own conclusion about whether or not independent filmmaking does indeed limit or expand the cinematic arts.
On one hand, those who believe that indie movie making restricts artists would say so for several reasons: primarily financial ones but also due unforeseen production problems & outside interference from studios/distributors. To begin with, let us look at some statistics: according to The-Numbers research firm, as cited in H Perritt Jr.’s “Crowdsourcing indie movies” , the median cost of making an independent film in North America is $600,000 while the average Hollywood movie costs around $100 million to produce. Even when we compare lower-budgeted films, there is still a big discrepancy : whereas an American studio picture might have a production budget of $20-$30 million, most independents would struggle to even get close to that number.
The lack of resources available for independent filmmakers often leads to subpar production values. For example, many Indies are shot on low-quality video cameras or with non-professional actors. This can sometimes lead to a “cheap” look that takes away from the overall artistry of the film. In addition, Indie productions are often plagued by problems such as schedule delays, equipment failures, and bad weather conditions which can all hamper the creative vision of the filmmaker.
Furthermore, those who argue that Independent filmmaking limits artistic expression would also point out how outside interference from studios and distributors can impact a director’s ability to tell their story the way they want too. Studios will typically only invest in an Indie project if it has commercial potential – meaning that they will be looking for a film that will make them money, not one that is artistically groundbreaking. This often leads to studios pressuring filmmakers to change their vision in order to make the film more “mainstream” and thus appeal to a wider audience. In some cases, this can result in an Indie filmmaker having to compromise their artistic integrity in order for their movie to get made.
Aesthetics are important in movies because they can impact the way a viewer perceives the film. For example, a movie with poor production value may be seen as less credible or less artistic than a movie with high production value. This is because the aesthetics of a movie can influence how a viewer interprets the film. If a movie looks cheap or poorly made, viewers may be less likely to take it seriously as an art form. This is why studios typically invest more money in films that they believe will have commercial appeal – because they know that better production values will result in a better reception from audiences.
However, independent filmmakers often have to work with limited resources, which can impact the aesthetics of their films. This can sometimes lead to independent films looking less polished or professional than studio films. Additionally, it can also limit the artistic expression of a film if the director is restricted by budget or other constraints. For example, a director may have a vision for a movie that is very ambitious and requires a large budget to execute properly. However, if the director is only able to secure a limited amount of funding, they may have to scale back their vision in order to stay within their budget. This can result in a film that is not as artistically impressive as the director intended.
Ultimately, the lack of resources on independent filmmaking can impact the aesthetics of an independent film and limit the artistic expression of the movie. However, this does not mean that all independent films are inferior to studio films. There are many independent films that are aesthetically pleasing and artistically impressive, despite being made with limited resources. It is important to remember that the quality of a film is not always determined by its budget.
On the other hand, those who argue that Independent filmmaking expands rather than limits artistic expression are surely familiar with the Auteur Theory. The auteur theory is often cited as one of the reasons why independent films are more artistically expressionistic. The auteur theory is the idea that the director is the “author” of the film, and that their personal vision and style is what makes a film unique. This theory was first proposed by French critics in the 1950s, and it has been influential in the world of independent film. I believe that the auteur theory gives the independent filmmakers the freedom to express their own vision without interference from studio executives.
Independent filmmaking provides filmmakers with more creative control & allows them to tell stories that wouldn’t otherwise be told. When we look at budget statistics , sure – there is no denying that Hollywood blockbusters have bigger budgets which allow for better production values. However, as Mekado Murphy points out in his New York Times article “Bellflower: Build The Apocalypse Inside Your Garage“, sometimes less money can actually lead creatives thinking outside the box: “…a lower budget encourages creativity… With fewer resources comes necessity-driven invention…” For example, he cites how much of Bellflower was shot using homemade props and special effects which added character & charmto the final product. To put it simply: Indies might not always have state-of -the-art equipment or huge budgets to work with – but what they do have is the freedom to experiment & tell stories that might not otherwise be told.
Independent filmmaking may be able to expand artistic expression by providing filmmakers with more creative control over their projects. Unlike studio films which are overseen by executives and producers, Indies are typically written, directed, and produced by a single artist or team of artists. This allows them to maintain full creative control over their movies and tells the story exactly the way they want too. In many cases, this results in a film that is more personal and unique than anything Hollywood could ever produce. I completely believe that creative control plays a major role in making the artist’s artistic point of view more clear to the spectator. I think that when filmmakers have complete creative control over their projects, the results are usually more interesting and innovative than what we typically see from Hollywood studios. I also believe that independent films are often more personal and reflective of the filmmaker’s individual vision, which makes them even more special. The question that still rises is if this is enough to cover for the lack of resources.
It is also worth mentioning that independent films often avoid stereotypical plot twists and lines, which are typical of studio films. The majority of the studio films released for a wide audience are likely to have such narrative situations as bank robberies, love stories that began with hatred, glamorous people addicted to drugs, or having depression. These storylines may be described by just one word – cliche. The general audience loves cliches of different sorts, and that is why films which have them are so successful. It happens so because people tend to unconsciously associate themselves with the characters of the film and try to live through their experiences.
Another phenomenon typical of studio films is a protagonist without any memorable or outstanding characteristics so that people who watch the film can imagine themselves to be the protagonists. It is the pattern according to which an outrageously successful cycle titled Twilight was filmed. Bella, who is one of the protagonists, is shown as a plain girl without any specific character traits and personality details. Such an image makes it easier for the audience to imagine themselves in Bella’s place and associate themselves with the protagonist of the vampire saga. This technique is often applied in studio films and makes them seem alike with the similar images of the protagonists placed in different situations.
Indie films do not use cliches or any other means which simplify the film’s content or make it non-unique. As was already mentioned, independent filmmaking is strongly connected to creativity because it gives the directors the freedom to embody their artistic fantasies and ideas. Though the low budgets indie films often have, presume certain limitations to their makers, they boost their creativity as well. Since independent film creators do not have the financial or technical opportunities their colleagues from the studio filmmaking possess, they have to search for alternative ways to express their ideas and impress the audience. It is usually the indie films that create new styles and storytelling means and techniques which, if successful, are applied by major filmmaking studios. Thus, the indie film producers do not face those limitations and the necessity to incorporate cliches into their film scenarios. It contributes to the growth of their professionalism and helps create something new in the area. Moreover, the audience becomes pickier, and many people are tired of cliches in every movie, so the chances of public recognition are higher for independent films than they were before.
Another argument that revealed a significant limitation the independent filmmakers had to face concerned their inability to use the professional equipment that enables to produce a high-quality sound and video. However, technological progress and development have decreased the significance of the issue. There are a lot of professional video cameras on the market now, and it is possible to film a quality video even on the phone. In addition, there exist many computer programs for editing the filmed videos, and they are available to general users. Thus, independent filmmakers can do the majority of the post-production work themselves on their computers or laptop without paying extra money to professional film editors. Technical progress allowed independent film producers to decrease the costs of the filmmaking process. Now they are able to perform the major part of the work themselves without the need to pay millions of dollars to a bunch of professionals.
Independent filmmaking also provides an opportunity for underrepresented voices to be heard. There are a lot of stories that need to be told, and oftentimes the big Hollywood studios are not interested in telling them. However, with independent filmmaking, anyone can tell any story they want. This is incredibly important, as it allows for a more diverse range of voices and experiences to be represented on screen. Additionally, it gives audiences the chance to see stories that they can relate to, which is something that is often lacking in mainstream Hollywood films.
In conclusion, I believe that independent filmmaking can both limit and expand the artistic expression of a movie. On one hand, the lack of resources available to independent filmmakers can often lead to subpar production values, which can impact the aesthetics of the film and limit the director’s ability to tell their story the way they want to. On the other hand, independent filmmaking provides filmmakers with more creative control and allows them to tell stories that wouldn’t otherwise be told. Additionally, the auteur theory gives independent filmmakers the freedom to express their own vision without interference from studio executives. Ultimately, I believe that the quality of a film is not always determined by its budget, and there are many independent films that are aesthetically pleasing and artistically impressive.