Mericn Independent Cinem

Prticulrly, the discussion will be mde on the blurring of Independent nd Hollywood films fter 1990th. n insight into this importnt theme is mde through the discussion of few books where this subject is well developed nd hs gined considerble scholrly ttention mong film experts, diplomtic historins, nd culturl critics.
When speking of independent cinem, it is needed to sy tht these re independent compnies supplemented with independent productions, mde with smll budgets nd often independently of the studio corportion. Movies mde in this mnner typiclly emphsize high professionl qulity in terms of cting, directing, screenwriting, nd other elements ssocited with production, nd lso upon cretivity nd innovtion. These movies usully rely upon criticl prise or niche mrketing to grner n udience. Becuse of n independent film’s low budgets, successful independent film cn hve high profit-to-cost rtio, while filure will incur miniml losses, llowing for studios to sponsor dozens of such productions in ddition to their high-stkes releses (Glncy, 1999)
While most of the world thinks of "independent cinem" (if the world thinks of it t ll) s being synonymous with tony imports or nything with the sobriquet "Trntino- esque," industry types know the truth is more elusive. Once upon time, when John Cssvetes moonlit from his studio dy jobs by mking msterpieces like Womn Under the Influence, independent cinem signified work tht ws estheticlly nd finncilly t remove from Hollywood. Indeed, independent film t its best is still ggressively, pssiontely, cretively driven nd originl. Films such s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Drgon. Requiem for Drem. Before Night Flls. You Cn Count on Me. or Chuck &amp. Buck hve ll becme populr nd wide-spred mong udience. None of the Independent Spirit nominees re derivtive of commercil product. None re formulic or minstrem in their ppel.
Low-budget works like George Wshington, Everything Put Together, Our Song or Urbni, ll Spirit wrd nominees, hve even less resemblnce to minstrem studio filmmking. Ech of these films ws produced for less thn $500,000 (Shuoguang 1999)hey del with subjects tht include homophobi, SIDS, poverty nd issues of socil clss, rce nd mrginlity. They focus on fricn-mericn, Ltin nd gy protgonists. nlysts of the doom- nd-gloom persusion would undoubtedly mke the point tht these films ll hd or will hve limited thetricl relese, tht the bigger, more commercil independent films hve been crowding out the rchetypl low-budget, "truly" independent films. It’s true tht indie works re relesed on hundreds, even thousnds of screens, thus relegting smller films to just few theters. But tht ws lwys true. Pessimists would lso sy tht the competitiveness in the thetricl mrketplce, the number of releses fighting for exhibition, forces most low-budget films to go directly to video–but ctully there re twice s mny independent distribution compnies now s there were five yers go, which mkes it more likely tht greter number of films will find thetricl relese, however brief.
The trnsformtion of independent cinem into mrketing strtegy known s "indie film" during the pst decde hs been widely noted, but even insiders wonder wht it ll mens. One thing is cler: The blurring of lines between the studios nd their indie nlogues ffects both cmps. t