MaryAnn
Johanson recently wrote an interesting piece for indiewire, entitled ‘Why
British Film is in the Middle of an Indie Renaissance’.
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,
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,
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
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.
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.
The Cinema is the room that saves us from ourselves. Not to be my final point but a Cinema is why Cinema will always be better than TV, we’re too distracted at home and nobody is asked to live tweet during the new Woody Allen movie, he’s doing TV for that.
