British Indie Film Renaissance? Maybe not…

MaryAnn Johanson recently wrote an interesting piece for indiewire, entitled ‘Why British Film is in the Middle of an Indie Renaissance’[1]. It was widely shared, receiving attention all the way up to the BFI who were quick to jump on an unbiased appraisal of British Cinema. I have also written about the strong state of British cinema[2], which has also incidentally been my most viewed written piece on this blog. There is obviously a strong interest in current British cinema. However, I do have a major problem with the writing of Johanson with this piece, and that is the term, ‘indie’.

The term Independent Cinema since the 1990s has entered, in an almost paradoxical way, the mainstream. Quickly big budget studios were attempting to push films with an indie tag, selling it as unique, fresh, and interesting. It has become almost a genre within itself. People would not flinch at someone saying “I saw this fantastic indie movie the other day!”, just as that wouldn’t flinch at someone saying they saw a fantastic horror film. But people are easily duped into believing it is an Independent production, when it rarely is.

A discussion of what is truly independent is an impossible task, as it is an almost impossible criteria to attain. If we are to take it at its most literal sense, this would mean a film made with no restrictions whatsoever, and therefore we would be limiting ourselves to a small handful of films. I, therefore, do not wish to attempt to state a firm definition of what ‘indie’ cinema is, but a few broad statements that can help place films within this context. I do think it is fair to say that if a film receives financial support from an major outside source, one that often runs into the millions, the film is more than likely not a true independent movie. This obviously rules out American studio-productions, but becomes slightly more tricky in non-American movies, where the studio system is not the same. I would therefore like to suggest that if a film is made for more than ten times the average yearly wage of an average citizen in that country, the chances are again that it has received a fair amount of outside support. If we are to take the UK as an example of this, where the average yearly wage is £26,500[3], this gives a fairly large budget of £265,000. This is obviously open for criticism, as it is a very cheap and quick barometer to measure by, but does give some sort of range to consider.

We could delve deeper into this, to investigate with whom final cut was with, if outside support was provided unconditionally, and so on, but this would then require a film by film investigation. I rather, for now, provide the shorthand approach mentioned before to the films MaryAnn Johanson has discussed.

My two main problems with the films mentioned by her are, firstly, the broad usage of ‘British film’, and broad usage of ‘indie’. Here, we can look at each film mentioned by Johanson, and use the term broad ideas I have also used. In her opening paragraph we are presented with a strange selection of films to use as an introduction for British indies:

Gravity (2013)– As Johanson acknowledges, is studio backed, and is therefore a strange example by Johanson in an article about independent cinema.

Les Misérables(2012) –Budget of $61mil, and heavy studio support.

World War Z (2013) – A mind-boggling budget of $190mil, not exactly indie cinema range…

Fast and Furious 6 (2013)– Another massive budget of $160mil, and with very little British involvement.

Rush(2013) – Johanson stats that its budget of $38mil is ‘paltry’ (for who exactly?!), as well as acknowledging its Hollywood money, instead claiming that its British cinematography and location of sets makes it a perfect example.

We are then taken onto how the Harry Potter series has drawn big productions to British shores (again, this is clearly true, but I struggle to see its relevance to an article about independent cinema?). We are also teased with the future big budget American films that are shot in the UK, Fury (2014) and the new Star Wars (2015) films.

Johanson then presents us with some core films of her argument.

Locke (2013) – Made on a budget of under $2million[4] is a more realistic example of British Independent cinema. However this is another cross-country production, joint with American support through American production company IM Global.

Dom Hemingway (2013) – Although I failed to find the budget for this film, it did receive a large amount of studio support from the likes of BBC Films,  as well receiving distribution from major faux-indie companies, Lionsgate and Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Filth (2013) – Another slightly too high budget at £3million, but can fairly be classed as a purely British (Scottish?) film with about as little interference a film of that budget that could expect.

A Fantastic Fear of Everything (2013) – Again, I struggled to find the exact budget, but it was financed by a Pinewood Films initiative to help low-budget British films[5]. Although a positive thing, it would be silly to claim that no interference or ideology would have been placed on this film.

The Selfish Giant (2013) – Clio Bernard is one of the key British film-makers today, but The Selfish Giant received huge support (and rightly so) from both the BFI and Film4.

Sightseers (2012) and A Field in England (2013) – This pair of films are both fantastic, and provide examples of fresh British cinema. A Field in England is perhaps the closest example of independent cinema. However, it became a flagship film for Film4, as it was released simultaneously by them in Cinema, Television, VOD and DVD. A lot of money was pumped into the release of it in this experiment. The film however is unarguably unique.

Metro Manila (2013) – Is just as Filipino as it is English, and can be claimed as either. I do however feel this is perhaps the truest out of all the films mentioned as being British indie cinema.

Philomena (2013) - $12mil budget staring Judi Dench and Steve Coogan?

The Invisible Woman (2013) – Another big name project, all the way from director, writer and cast.

Under the Skin (2013) – Another joint production with America, staring Scarlett Johansson, and despite its strange story is unlikely to have received little interference.

The Double (2013) – Big names in cast, big financial support, and big distribution.

What MaryAnn Johanson has attempted to write about is fantastic, and a lot of the films mentioned by her deserve more recognition. However these are nearly all not really independent films by any stretch. British mainstream cinema is currently in a fantastic place, and great films are often being made by British people, and big productions are being drawn to Britain. However, independent, low to no-budget cinema is almost non-existent.

Collective film-movements, or film websites, discussion, or festivals are few, and far between in the UK. The Raindance Film Festival is perhaps the only festival that gets any sort of recognition that takes any risks with the types of no-budget films it shows. However, very few of these films or those involved take a step-up into the mainstream. The bridge between these two worlds is not there sadly, despite the talent obviously being there. Despite it never being easier to watch films for cheap, no truly low-budget film has exploded onto the British scene in the way it has often done in American cinema. There is no, and will be no British Indie Renaissance until that bridge can be made stable, and sustainable.

---

[1] http://www.indiewire.com/article/why-british-film-is-in-the-middle-of-an-indie-renaissance

[2] http://whatsthepointofcinema.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-british-cinema-post-2000-cinema-in.html

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

[4] http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-latest/locke/5059867.article

[5] http://collider.com/fantastic-fear-of-everything-image-simon-pegg/

Gravity, The Earth Child, and Exhausting the Planet

Gravity (2013) was recently released to outstanding reviews after its premier at the Venice Film Festival. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, the film tells the story of survival during a catastrophic disaster in space, however themes of rebirth are also explicitly clear. Gravity however, is also a warning of the excessive use and destruction of materials on planet Earth. By relocating into space, Cuaron has developed a story that perfectly demonstrates the seemingly inevitable self-destruction of mankind through use of vital fossil fuels and a lack of care of Earth.

Very early into our introduction to the character of Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), we are shown her devotion to her work. She seems unimpressed by the views of Earth, despite Matthew Kowalski (George Clooney) encouraging her to relax and enjoy them. Things quickly change however, as new filters through of the domino effect from the self-destruction of a Russian satellite that has gone terribly wrong. Stone finds her life in threat due to a lack of consideration for the outcomes of a seemingly meaningless piece of destruction. Ryan Stone can be seen as a twin representation, one of Mankind, and the other of Nature. Within Stone, these things should be intertwined rather than conflicting ideologies, however she has slowly moved away from these ideas due to her loss of focus on the beauty of nature. However the fact remains that they are still inside her, the decision to name her Stone is a simple tool to signify her link with Earth, naming her after a core material to Earth. What the self-destruction of the satellite does to Stone, is place her in immediate danger and starts the process of her re-evaluating what’s important. She is suddenly sent spinning out into space, and on the verge of death, or, the threat of extinction, due to the space junk (an analogy to waste and rubbish on Earth and its danger to nature). This act of self-destruction, committed by humans, changes Stone and begins a re-birthing process that makes her question the very nature of her life, and therefore, of mankind.

The most explicit sign of the start of re-birthing is shown when Stone curls up into a foetal position within the Space Station, slowly floating as the scale of everything starts to dawn on her. These capsules and space stations throughout Gravity become to signify the only place where we can exist outside of Earth. They become wombs for Stone, where there is a constant source of oxygen to breath. If we take Stone to be representative of mankind, we can see parallels to that of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), in a similar way that the Star Child represents the next state of human evolution and a higher understanding of its surroundings. However instead of expanding our horizons, Cuaron has mankind returning to Earth and becoming closer to nature. Stone struggles to come to terms with this during her re-birthing process, especially in relation to the hollow death of her young child. She has seen the violence of nature, and the randomness of its violence, so how can she become part of nature again? This random violence and destruction however is compared to the same violence that mankind inflicts upon itself, that nearly killed Stone as well. Stone begins the process of understanding that by living with nature, rather than against it, there is hope.

Stone eventually finds her way onto the Soyuz. She however soon discovers that there is no fuel left to power it. Stone has literally run out of fuel to power her home, or if we return to the Mankind analogy, we have run out of fossil fuels. The excessive use and exploitation of Earth has taken Stone to the point where there is seemingly no return, and again Stone is able to see how Mankind has been more than happy to exploit Earth for its own needs. She is left, stuck, floating in Space with little hope for survival. Just as her Oxygen, the most vital resource of all, is about to run out, Stone has a vision of a returning Kowalski who refocuses her. This can be viewed as a vision from a higher being, a message to give Stone hope. Kowalski is able to guide her to safety, just like many visions have guided people in the stories of the Bible. With this new determination, and the vision of Kowalski, Stone is able to crash land her pod into a small lake on Earth.

Stone is in the final process of her rebirth, her capsule crashing into a small lake. As she leaves the safety of the vessel, or the womb, she has to crawl out of the water just like the very first creatures to leave the water for land millions of years ago. As she feels the muddy Earth in her hands for the first time in what seems forever, she is able to fully appreciate all of the beauty of Earth, and its importance to human survival. Stone, or Mankind, is finally intertwined again with nature. The re-birthing process has been completed. Stone has seen the dangers of waste, the violent nature of mankind that threatens each other, the inevitable problems of exhausting fossil fuels. She has returned metaphorical to the womb in order to survive and relearn what it means to be human. She has evolved, not as the Star Child, but as the Earth Child.

DANNY MOLTRASI