Digital Democratisation and the US indie scene

[npcoombs]

Just finished reading the excellent story of the 90s US indie scene by Peter Biskind - its is called : Down and Dirty Pictures. It is excellently written and really plots the demise of the US indie scene from a peak in 1993/94 to a state of non-existence today. He puts most of the blame at the feet of Mirmax and Harvey Weinstien, who sounds like a really nasty son of a bitch.

Anyway, it was interesting to read this story because it now makes much more sense to me why the impetus and rationale for the digital democratization argument has come from the US. Whereas here in Europe there are various national bodies that can (theoretically) nurture talent and progress careers according to merit, with the rationalization of the US indie scene into a conglomeration with the studios there is no independent space left in the US for non-commercial or truly challenging films. The digi democrat argument then makes sense as in is could allow films to be made on a very low budget, even lower than Kevin Smith's Clerks.

My problem with this idea though is the question of: who decides what is good? Where is the distribution? It is not just financial barriers that are a problem for challenging films, the issue is exposure and support within the system. What good are challenging films if they never create any widespread cultural resonance because they have no outlet or chance to be seen by a wide audience. This also exerts a pressure on independent directors to cast aside challenging stories or direction in favour of just breaking through to the commercial sphere with commercial projects.

At the moment it seems hard to see any silver lining for the US indie scene, although I am eager to be proved wrong and to find something exciting.

[tlatosmd]

It's all a matter of manipulative semantics, actually. Call it democratization and it'll sound like a fair call for participation of all talented.

Call it mob rule, and you'll emphasize that all talented are in the game already, while what others call 'democratization' is nothing but participation of people all technically, talent-wise, and character-wise unfit to participate in a responsible, reasonable manner.

[Evan Kubota]

"The digi democrat argument then makes sense as in is could allow films to be made on a very low budget, even lower than Kevin Smith's Clerks."

I'm not sure what the budget of Clerks was, but unless you're talking about in the $50,000 range (of which there are a lot of under-the-radar features being made) digital hasn't changed things that much. What SAG considers a low budget production (anything under $2.5 million for the main category) is still expensive enough to afford film, considering that crew lodging costs are by far the largest expense.

"Whereas here in Europe there are various national bodies that can (theoretically) nurture talent and progress careers according to merit, with the rationalization of the US indie scene into a conglomeration with the studios there is no independent space left in the US for non-commercial or truly challenging films."

And something created by the government qualifies as "independent"? It seems to be that BFI is probably not interested in funding risky, challenging endeavors. In any free-market society those will inherently be more difficult to produce than something with wider appeal.

"My problem with this idea though is the question of: who decides what is good?"

Don't you know? The Weinsteins, of course :roll:

"At the moment it seems hard to see any silver lining for the US indie scene, although I am eager to be proved wrong and to find something exciting."

DVD distribution and the possibility of determined directors pushing through controversial projects and acquiring Hollywood money to make personal films, maybe? This gives the benefit of enough money to ensure reasonable production values while in some cases still avoiding virtual censorship by producers. "The Brown Bunny" benefited from this arrangement, I think - a good-quality DVD release, widely available, but a film with challenging and controversial (not rightfully so) content.