READINGS:
(you will need to enter your UWM user name and password to gain access)
Please print the readings and bring them to class with you next week
Peter Biskind, "Introduction: The Story Till Now" from Down and Dirty Pictures: Sundance, Miramax, and the Rise of Independent Film.
Chuck Kleinhans, "Independent Features: Hopes and Dreams" from The New American Cinema, ed. Jon Lewis.
John Pierson, "Stranger Than Paradise and The First Golden Age, and "Dialogue: Paradise" (with Kevin Smith) from Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dikes: A Guided Tour Across a Decade of American Independent Cinema.
QUESTIONS :
Enter your responses in the comments section by clicking on the "comments" link below. Refer to the course syllabus for a list of the required components.
Professor's words of wisdom: be sure to answer all of the questions within questions...
- Yesterday in class we started our discussion of some of the ways in which we might distinguish an independent film from a Hollywood film. What two qualities/characteristics of Stranger Than Paradise stood out to you most as being representative of an independent sensibility? How would this film be different if it was made in a Hollywood context?
- All three of the assigned readings discuss the history of the American independent cinema but from different vantage points and perspectives. What are their different "takes" on the period? Do they all seem to agree on the significance of the independent cinema movement and the "key movers and shakers" within it? If not, how do their accounts differ?
23 comments:
The first thing that stands out is just the medium the film is made on... the stark black and white footage adds allot to the overall feel of the film. Another thing that was interesting to me is how he made the low budget work in terms of aesthetics. You find a lot of well framed but simple shots in the film... with much of the focus on performance it allows the camera to stay stationary with minimal set up and moving. Another thing that illustrates this is the choice of locations. An example is that while they talk about going to the horse tracks and to the dog tracks.. you never see them there. It would cost allot of money and require permission to film on location at tracks like this, but not seeing them works well and adds to the aesthetic of the film. In a hollywood picture one might be inclined to just shoot some scenes at the dog park, but I think that would take away from the picture.
I think the three different readings look at the independent cinema of the 80's and 90's from different perspectives, one who was there through it all, one who spends more time in tracing the roots of it and one that looks more at the outcomes and results of it. It gives us the chance to sort of trace the beginning and development of independent cinema and poses the question of wether or not independent cinema, at least as it was thought of in eighties and the early nineties, has ceased to exist. - Dannon
Two Qualities of Stranger Than Paradise that stood out as being very quintessential to independent style were the pace of the film and its budget. The pace was very slow, there wasn't really a plot or any obstacles to over come just things happening, so it was hard to tell what was going to happen from scene to scene except that we knew who was going to be in the scene. The budget was very obvious to myself in the sense that when they were in a cramped apartment, it really was a cramped apartment, and not a set. Although it was part of the artist style of the film, the setting wasn't very lavish either. Their was no flashiness to the film, it felt dirty. If it were a Hollywood film, it would have been a much different film. There would be some central problem that they would all work together to accomplish and there would be lots of camera movement, instead of the stationary camera.
The Three articles all seem to talk about how different it was for independent cinema to emerge like it did, as it were something truly seperate from anything else being done. The film festival is the independent film makers stepping stone, if you can do well there you have made it. The one perspective I thought was most interesting was in the second article where he talks about people using a template similar to and independent film to collect a niche market to be successful. I just thought it was interesting.
1. "Stranger Than Paradise" differs from a Hollywood film due to its simplistic style and lack of a plot. All editing is done very simple, concentrating on just a single shot or series of shots. There is also a section of black acting as a separator between each scene. This typically does not happen in Hollywood film. If "Stranger Than Paradise" were to be made in Hollywood, there would most likely be more complicated and high-paced editing which allowed the viewer the ability to see “everything.” There would be an overhead tracking shot, and a mobile camera that could follow the actors.
The film also differs because of the story. The ending is really not an ending. The viewer is left with dilemma (each character is in a different place), but there is no conclusion and nothing is resolved. If this were a “typical” Hollywood film, the audience would find out that Willie never really got on the plane. He would then meet up with Eddie, and the two of them would track down Eva at the motel. The three of them would then take the money and “live happily ever after.” Eddie would also probably confess his love for Eva and the two characters would end up together. With this type of ending, there is “closure” for the audience, which is something that is not given as an independent film.
2. All three reading discuss the development of independent cinema, but each author takes it in different directions. The essays by Biskind and Pierson have a nostalgic tone, while Kleinhas’s piece is extremely straightforward and almost cynical.
Kleinhas shows the “truth” behind independent cinema and the relationship between independent and mainstream film (Hollywood). He emphasizes the business of filmmaking, instead of the art. Kleinhas constantly talks about films as “products” and explains how independent cinema, no matter how rebellious, still takes on Hollywood logic (profit and marketing).
Biskind gives a thorough history of how Sundance and independent film came to be. In the reading he focuses heavily on the stories of Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute and the Weinstein brothers developing Miramax. He also connects independent genre and themes to historical time periods and events, such as the Black movement and AIDS.
The Pierson reading is a point of view of someone who was in the “scene.” It reads almost like a diary and discusses the aspiring filmmakers, particularly coming from NYU and New York’s Lower East Side. He, as well as the other two authors, constantly discusses such filmmakers as Spike Lee, Kevin Smith, the Coen Brothers, and Steven Soderbergh. Both Biskind and Pierson discuss the large distinction between independent and Hollywood aesthetics and organization. Both authors do this by listing the characteristics of a “typical” independent film (low budget, grainy filmstock, simplistic camera and editing techniques.)
One key point that all three of the writers seem to agree on, however, is that Cassavetes’s "Shadows" started the independent movement by creating a “I can do that” mentality that inspired young filmmakers. --Anne S.
1.Two qualities or characteristics of Stranger Than Paradise that stood out to me as being representative of independent sensibility is its narrative structure and visual style. The lighting does not complement the character’s faces, and is very harsh lighting. The cinematography was very still; there was little movement with the camera, making the style very visible. The camera focused in on the characters (close-ups) a lot, and made the camera work noticeable, as the final product was jumpy: first a close-up, then a long-shot, then an extreme close-up. The camera was evidentially hand-held through much of the filming, and made every move very raw and as a result had a very untouched feel. This was especially true with the editing style. The editing was not subtle, being jerky at times. The cuts were abrupt and did not attempt to ‘flow’ into the next scene with a fade-in or fade-out. Lastly, the production design was minimal, just involving two rooms (the kitchen and living room area). There were no special effects needed, just dialogue. In the narrative structure, the characters are emphasized more than the storyline, which is very oriented around character-development. As the stagnant ‘plot’ continues, we discover more about the characters. The theme addresses a risky theme of lesbian relationship, or at least a theme Hollywood rarely employs. It appeals to a niche audience; an audience that is either interested in relationships or in one similar to their own-lesbianism. This context is probably not mainstream, as many people would object to this or find some kind of issue with the content (especially the lesbian kiss). If this film were of a Hollywood context, there may be more spectacle. Perhaps there would be ‘love music’ that complemented the smooth transitions between shots or scenes, and stars that have more recognizable to the public (at the time it was made, they were not very well known). Also, the rooms would have been more ‘glammed-up’ and lavish for a Hollywood film (more extravagant furniture and house).
2. I believe that all three assigned readings have a bit different perspective on the history of American Independent cinema. In Peter Biskind’s article, “Introduction: The Story Till Now,” Biskind explores Robert Redford’s impact on independent cinema; specifically, his development of the Sundance Institute. He gave lectures and seminars on independent visions, diversity, and finding your own voice in film. This lead to other seminars about how to work outside the Hollywood system. This included anything from raising money to distributing the final product yourself. In Chuck Kleinhan’s, “Independent Features: Hopes and Dreams,” Kleinhan focuses on the Sundance festival’s impact on well known magazines which provided media coverage [for the Sundance festival]. Thus, it was able to be well publicized. The Festival gave the authorship a means to be recognized instead of being rejected by Hollywood ideals. The last article by John Pierson, “The First Golden Age,” really focused on filmmaker Jim Jarmusch and others involved in the independent scene and how they may have gotten into the ‘scene.’ This article was different from the others in that it focused on not being afraid of high costs or unmanageable equipment. Because the technique of Jarmusch’s independent film required little camera movement, it was cheaper to make. Critics such as Roger Ebert were spoken about in how they play a big role in discovering people. In regards to independent films in this article, it seems as though they really just get lucky-the films and filmmakers are in the right place, at the right time (much like Jarmusch). Festivals aid in much of this-exhibiting the films. Jarmusch and the Coen brothers, very much revolutionized the independent film industry. When people saw them on stage during their festival showing, the people that had seen them in real life then thought filmmaking much more attainable. The essays all explore what impact film festivals (especially Cannes and Sundance) have had. They bring forth new films and personal voices and visions of the filmmaker that is not often found in mainstream—but the lesser taken path. I would argue that independent festivals were more open to female directors that weren’t given the exposure in mainstream culture; a female director Rose Troche (Go Fish, 1994). Independent cinema definitely takes more risks than the mainstream affair which relies on the audience’s interest in the familiar. With new media opening up, there was a larger possibility more independent films could survive. According to chuck Kleinhan’s Independent Features: Hopes and Dreams article, more than half the people who see your movie are going to see it on the big screen. If video did not exist, many directors would not be able to afford film stock and the like, because often independent features acquire their financing through out of pocket, friends, or family (and therefore not funded by major studios 100% of the time). Also, the 90s is very much an age that more media outlets are formed, such as Moviemaker Magazine. Often publicity is cheaper and becoming more available in the 90s for independent artists, as opposed to the Hollywood conglomerate version of promotion (talk shows, dominant television advertising, or even selling superhero figures as plastic toys in a McDonald’s’ happy meal). There is definitely a distinction between art and commerce. The mainstream does not want to hear a niche story about a minority in culture. This is the sad truth; they would rather hear a familiar, over commercialized (cliché) story.
-Jennifer Kreuser
1. In the film "Stranger Than Paradise" by Jim Jarmusch, there are many qualities that make this film an indie film. One certain quality that stood out to me, that Dannon has also pointed out in a previous comment, is the stock of film that it is made on. The black and white film is cheaper than colored film, but I also think it adds to the mood of the film. The grainy texture creates the atmosphere he is trying to portray. For example, I feel the black and white film is better for every scene shot in snowy Cleveland. Color wouldn't do it as much for me. It is kind if a depressing landscape, especially when they go see the frozen lake, and they can't even see it! Another quality that makes it more of an indie film than Hollywood is the actors in it. There are only four main actors and they are not really known at the time. Throughout the film there is only a couple more extras because to hire more extras cost more money and a low budget indie film only has so much money to spend on certain aspects of production. I also like how Dannon pointed out about the locations of where they shot. I did not think about that until I saw his comment. It would be expensive to shoot at the dog tracks and horse races and would require more cameras. But not including that, I feel adds more to the film. If this was under the production of a big Hollywood company, you would have known actors to sell the movie. You would have better cameras and film stock to shoot on. And you could shoot in the more expensive places that this film has left out, but like I said I think that would take away from the film. It would also probably have a better soundtrack. So, it is well done the way it is.
2. I feel each reading had it own view point on the history of the American independent cinema. In the first article by Peter Biskind's "Introduction: The Story Till Now" mainly explored Robert Redford's perspective on how it was changing to giant conglomerates taking over the film business. "Robert Redford understood that the most creative filmmakers were being increasingly shut out of the system" (Baskind, 10). He also realized that race and sex of a person started hurting their chances of getting a project produced. He had visions of creating an organization that indie filmmakers would benefit from, eventually turning into the Sundance Film Festival; one of the most highly regarded film festivals in America. He wanted to bring back the independent voice of unique individuals that weren't driven by money and star quality. There would be lectures, events and seminars on independent film making. In the next article "Independent Features: Hopes and Dreams" by Chuck Kleinhans, shows an outside point of view on the difference between independent film making and Hollywood film making. This article combines the facts that have evolved over history to make its point. It explains how "the independent film is a calling card that allows Hollywood executives to see what a new director can do with a low-budget project so that she/he might be hired into a three-picture deal" (Kleinhans, 309). I feel this article show what Hollywood has done to the film making business. They have made it so difficult for a person to create their own vision. It also goes into like the first article how in the 60s and 70s there was independent vision that constituted an American New Wave. But then the summer blockbuster was created, and the conglomerates saw big money was available and crushed the independent vision. In the last article "Stranger Than Paradise and The First Golden Age" by John Pierson shows a personal point of view on how an independent film's steps from just starting out to being shown across America. Unlike the other two, I feel this is a personal account on the struggles of trying to get a movie known and praised. Pierson explained how "Stranger Than Paradise" went from being a 30 minute short, to being financed into a 90 minute film. Then it went through numerous film festivals, being passed up until some company decided they liked it and bought it out. This article mainly gets into detail on how a film comes to power. All three articles have different point of views on the independent cinema, but I feel they all have the same point. That Hollywood has destroyed independent vision in a way. And that they respect the independent film maker. Bryan Pechacek
1. The main things I noticed about this film, giving it an independent feeling, would have to be the fact that some of the shots were very long and static. Usually in Hollywood films shots are not that long and static, there is usually at least some movement in the frame or by the camera. This seems to give the film a very long exaggerated feeling and tends to make the characters seem impatient at times. Another thing I noticed was the way in which the film was shot, or perhaps the film it was shot on. The film seems to have been a very low grade stock and appears to be sort of amateurish in its look. Both of these would have been handled differently in Hollywood. Hollywood would have of course spared no expense on film and the picture would have been much more crisp and the contrasts and "color" of the film would have been much better. Also the shots would not have been as long and tedious in a Hollywood setting, but that is sort of what makes this film special, at least in my opinion.
2. Overall the "takes" on this period of film making seem to be similar in that the essays all express this period as a time of change for the independent film makers of that period. It seems that they all talk about the 80's and 90's as a sort of "renaissance" for independent film makers. This is where we saw the emergence of Spike Lee for example as well as many others. All the articles talked about these people as being the main "movers and shakers" of the period and I have to agree. They were the main source of the inspiration of the period and seem to have started a trend for film makers to come.
One characteristic of "Stranger Than Paradise" that really caught my attention from the the beginning of the film was all of the long, and at times awkward pauses or silences. I felt that this gave the film a much more realistic feel to it, because often times in Hollywood films the dialogue is intended to flow without many pauses between two or more people in order to keep your attention on the characters and nothing else. Another big characteristic of this movie is simply the black and white color of the film and the grainy film stock that was used. Most Hollywood movies these days are about one thing, money. Thus, I think that if the movie had been made in a Hollywood context it definitly would have been in color. People usually are not as captured right away in a movie by black and white. Also, the silences for the most part would have been cut out or filled with meaningful dialogue to keep the viewers attention soley on the story and the characters. For instance the scene where Willie and Eddie are driving to Cleveland and are sitting there in silence would not exist in a Hollywood film.
I thought that all three of the readings gave different perspectives on the independent cinema that happened in the 1980's and 1990's. The first article seemed to recap what happened in the 80's and 90's where as the second seemed to give more of a personal tone about what has happened to independent cineman. And the last article seemed to be more of a first person telling of what happened and what the results of independent cinema were back then. -Connor M
“Stranger Than Paradise” was a good first example of independent film. I was very unfamiliar with independent film but after watching this film I have a better understanding of the characteristics of Independent film. In this film they taped it in Black and White and it was also very grainy, unlike like many Hollywood films that are in color and are perfectly clear. Another characteristic of Independent film are the transitions of one scene to another. It was just a black screen for a few seconds instead a smooth transition with a change in music and scenery that you see in a lot of Hollywood films.
In the three readings there is a lot of information about independent cinema. They all have different vantage points and perspectives on who the founders are and the people and companies that tried to destroy Independent film. But I felt that they all revolved around one general issue, which was money. They all have smaller budgets and minimal resources but can still create these films. I thought that it was interesting that such a small investment (budget) could gross such large revenues. Also there were so many different people that were part of the Independent film beginnings, but again in all three readings they were related in one way or another. When there is such a small community of people (producers, writers, creators) involved they all end up knowing each other.
1. First of all I thought that the characters in stranger than paradise stood out as part of an independent film because, they were real and when they talked they didn't say the lines that people would expect in a Hollywood film. The conversations were boring and didn't keep the up the excitement or action of a blockbuster film. Another aspect of the movie that was an indicator of an independent film was the plot, or lack there of. The movie had no problem, build up of a problem, climax, or resolution of some sort. The story was just following the three characters as normal life rolled on.
2.After reading the articles i liked the first one the best of the three. I really was shocked that Robert Redford, a famous Hollywood actor founded the very institution that is all about independent films. The article about Jim Jarmusch was neat because, it showed how Jim just shot this 30 minute film one saturday and it goes on to win all these awards and get so much praise. It shows that you don't need the millions of dollars and standards of a major movie for it to be good and reach people. Kevin Smith hit it right on the head when he said "You watch Stranger and think 'I could really make a movie.'"
1.) The two major characteristics that Stranger Than Paradise stood out as an independent film for me the most was the lack of a sustaining plot, and the cinematography. The plot was more realistic and unlike Hollywood, in that there was nothing really moving it forward. The dialogue was also very simple and minimal. The way also that the film ended was very post-modern and unlike Hollywood, in that it just ended without some major resolution to the story or the characters. The cinematography of the film was very representative of an independent sensibility. It was shot in black and white(probably do to the low budget), and the shots were very still. Several of the scenes in Willie’s apartment the camera rarely moved, if not at all. Also the editing was very choppy, there wasn’t a smooth flow that you see in major motion pictures. If this film was made through a major motion picture company, the film would be much different, especially in context to the cinematography. Because there would be a much larger budget, the film would be shot In color, and the camera would feel much more removed from the film. There would be a much more natural feel.
2.) I thought there were major differences in the three assigned readings. The one that I noticed most notably was the different viewpoints between Peter Biskind’s “Introduction: The Story Till Now”, and Chuck Kleinhans, "Independent Features: Hopes and Dreams". In Biskind’s article, the development of the Sundance Film Institute by Robert Redford and other advancements in independent film were due unhappiness and frustration with mainstream Hollywood movies. “…when he[Redford] looked around him at the end of the 1970’s, he didn’t like what he saw” (Biskind 10). Where as in the Klienhans article, independent film and Hollywood mainstream were compared and contrasted in a business sense. In this article, Klienhans felt that independent film was a stepping stone for up and coming directors, and really was a means to an end. The end being to work for the “dominant capitalist film entertainment system” (Kleinhans 316). However I did feel that the Biskind’s article and John Pierson’s "Stranger Than Paradise and The First Golden Age, and "Dialogue: Paradise" did agree on the significance of independent film.
- Julie Olsen
1. Two characteristics of Stranger Than Paradise that stood out to me as being representative of an independent sensibility were the way it was shot and the narrative. First, there were little to no camera movements in the film. Instead, the film relied on a lot of still framed shots. Most of the shots were well framed but quite simplistic. In addition, the narrative was pretty simple. The film was more about the interaction of people than a clear plot. The progression of the “Story (or lack there of) was slow and the film wasn’t necessarily about getting somewhere but being in the moment. As a result of these two characteristics, the film relied on the acting to carry the it as opposed to visually stimulating effects one might find in Hollywood. In a Hollywood film, moving shots, quicker cuts and a more hashed out plot would be evident to keep a commercial audience’s attention. It would rely on more flash and complicated camera angles in order to appeal to a broad audience.
2. It seems that the writers of “Introduction: The Story Till Now” and “Stranger Than Paradise and the First Golden Age,” try to convey the excitement and importance of independent films as an alternative. Both articles explain how its possible to make a film without answering to the big names in Hollywood. “Stranger Than Paradise” examines the importance of Jarmush’s film and how its budget was extremely low for the time. Both of these articles seem to preach in one sense or another that this film was significant because it was well made without using a huge budget, while “…The Story Till Now” takes a different and more factual approach to explaining the new found importance of independent films as a result of being disillusioned with Hollywood business standards and how independent cinema became more widely noticed and accepted.
“Independent Features: Hopes and Dreams,” pretty much sums up the move from independent to mainstream films explaining that Hollywood “…has increasingly come to use low-budget independent films as an inexpensive, low-risk source for an increasingly differentiated market and as a kind of minor league training ground for new talent…” In the end the article seems to acknowledge the importance of independent cinema but more as a piece of the pie in a larger Hollywood arena then an alternative to the mainstream.
-Jacob Feiring
1. One quality in Stranger Than Paradise that represented independent sensibility is the diegetic music that mimics a non-diegetic soundtrack. As mentioned in class and on other people’s comments, the movie was obviously very low budgeted. The first time we actually hear a “soundtrack” is when we track Eva down the streets of New York and she turns on her tape player. The sound is very static and unclear and we only hear the soundtrack when we actually see the source. If it were a Hollywood production the music would start off on screen and then carry us to the next scene offscreen. Another quality of its independent sensibility is its limited used of characters. We are introduced to a few characters, three who are our main characters. Within the three characters, they’re close relationship help move the film forward by creating conflicts and resolutions. In Hollywood films, the conflict is usually separated from the main character(s) and is usually thrown into the situation against his/her will.
2. Stranger Than Paradise and the First Golden Age and The Story Till Now both take an semi-optimistic point of view on Independent films. They express the freedom and creativity Independent film posses over Hollywood’s clear-cut movies; however, they don’t let us forget that money still controls what we see. Kleinhans’ article talks more about Independent film as a stepping stone to get to notice by Hollywood. In a way, all three articles agree on how Independent films create movements. Independent filmmakers create a piece that stirs the community ranking in money and Hollywood filmmakers take notice.
1) In the movie “Stranger than Paradise,” I could tell that the film was produced independently because of the poor transitions and I especially did not like the black scene transitions between the scenes of the movie. The dialect of the movie was also very boring and did not have any action like most of the “Hollywood” films. I also feel that the dialect between the character (ie Willie, Eddie and Eva when they are staying at the motel in Florida and Willie and Eddie leave without telling Eva.) Eva also speaks with a monotone throughout the movie. After watching this film, I also feel that there wasn’t really a climax or any actions leading up to the If this was a typical “Hollywood” blockbuster film I think that there would be less awkward and the movie, especially the transitions, would flow a lot smoother.
2) After reading all three of the articles. I found myself liking the third one because the way that it was written. The tone of the article was very relaxed and I especially liked the interview. The article I liked the least was number two. I found it really weird that the author thinks that money isn’t a factor when it comes to making a movie. I think that the more money the better in most cases because of the special effects and the bigger name actors draw people and are therefore viewed as better.
1. In the film Stranger Than Paradise the two characteristics I thought stood out to me were the terribly long transitions and the silence or lack of any background noise or music. To me a Hollywood movie would almost never have the preposterously long transition which was just a pitch black screen. They could of at least shortened the period of time or added some fade to blend it more. The second characteristic I found made it an independent movie was the lack of background music or any real background sounds in a lot of the scenes. In a Hollywood movie there is almost always background music being played or some sort of ambient sound going on in the scene. This led me to not be very interested during a lot of the parts especially when Eva and Willie were just sitting around in a tiny quiet apartment doing nothing.
2. I found the three articles to be different to me. The first one was the one I enjoyed reading the most while the second one I thought wasn’t very enjoyable. The second article threw out some info about how it took so little money to create some of these films. Around $10,000 to make a movie sounded crazy to me especially when I’m used to hearing of Hollywood films taking millions of dollars to create. The part of the third article that was an interview was interesting to read and also how the whole independent film community sort of knows and can relate with each other unlike the whole Hollywood scene which seems to be unfriendly and just about making a ton of money.
As its been noted already, i thought that two aspects of Stranger Than Paradise that made it more "indie" as opposed to Hollywood were the script and the budget. The film's script was composed of "realistic" dialogue or that everyday sound of three people randomly conversing. As it states in the Pierson reading, Jarmusch hadn't really even written much of a script having picked his actors to portray characters not unlike themselves in their everyday lives. Most Hollywood movies are strictly scripted and seem to rely heavily on the dramatization of the situation. Also, like it had been discussed in the other readings as well, budget plays a huge part in what makes an independent film. Seeing as how "independent" comes from the concept of film making without the aid or involvement of the big studios and lots of money, it makes sense that (especially the first) independently produced films were made on low budgets. These film makers didn't want or need lots of money to make the films they wanted.
As far as the three readings I think, yeah, they all commonly agree with what an independent film is, where it came from, when it started, and who the "movers" and "shakers" are. However the Biskind reading went into further details on the history of the "independent" film giving the background of Redford and the Weinsteins who generated what we would commonly know and refer to as independent cinema today. Kleinhans briefly discusses the first wave of artistic film making in the 70's but not to as great of an extent. All three readings eventually come to discuss the newer, "second coming" if i may, of indie films, focusing a lot on the likes of Jim Jarmusch, Spike Lee, and Allison Anders.
1. A. Stranger Than Paradise was a dece movie. There were parts that really made it stand out from the norm of Hollywood. Not saying that these characteristics made the movie bad or less of a movie but they really made it seem like an independent film. First of these characteristics was the kind of acting done. The acting was really different from what one would be used to seeing in commercial theaters of today. The actors seemed to lack a sort of enthusiasm. The plot itself seemed dull, not really something someone would want to go out of their way to watch. The dull spirit of the movie carried on into the acting. All the lines seemed really grey. Even in times of distress like when Eva was left in the hotel room alone wile Eddy and Willy were out losing their money at the dog races she used some colorful language but never really got upset.
B. The second characteristic that stood out to me was the way the movie was filmed. Unlike a traditional Hollywood film with the elaborate fly in shots of some place or the up high shots this movie had the traditional by hand or tripod shots. It was very basic when dealing with filming. With the black and white film and the by hand kind of style it really make the film seem like an independent film. There are more than just these things that makes Stranger Than Paradise seem like an independent film but these are the most definite things that stood out to me.
2. the three articles that were assigned although not very fun to read really painted a good picture of why independent films were started and continue to be made. The article written by Klienhans emphasized how the independent film group was partially here as a stepping stone for upcoming producers. Where on the other hand the article wrote by Peter Biskind was mostly based on how a lot of the independent film producers and directors were there as a fight against the big dogs of the movie making sector. Unhappy with the way the “norm” is set they set off to make their own independent films about things that are not as popular to make films about.
The two things that stuck out to me the most about Stranger than Paradise in comparison to a Hollywood film were the quality and the obvious budget issues. I realize that some Hollywood films are still made in black and white, i.e. Schindler's List, but that was a major quality that stuck out to me with Stranger Than Paradise. The film stock was not of the quality that is generally used in a studio-backed film. The shots themselves were also a bit shaky, as if they were mostly handheld. Another was the lack of a major soundtrack. A Hollywood film has the budget to pay for the rights for music, wherea an indy film may not.
The readings sort of described the time period of the 80’s as a “new wave” in film making. I wouldn’t personally call the 80’s or 90’s a renaissance of anything, but I can see where the authors are coming from.
One of the first things that I noticed, even before actually watching the film, were the main actors involved. In the photograph that was on the course introduction slide, I recognized one of the actors as being a valet in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I had never seen this man in another movie, much less a leading role. Also I had never seen any of the other actors anywhere at all. I know we already talked about this, but having a lot of familiar faces in a film tends to bring the "independent" feeling out of a film. So many big-budget films go with numerous big stars or stunningly handsome newcomers to Hollywood. But Stranger Than Paradise did none of that, taking virtually no-name actors and utilizing them to make a beautiful story.
Another thing that stood out to me was the absence of plot. Many times a Hollywood film can fall into the trap of being driven solely by plot. For example, big films like Star Wars are all about what is happening in a far off galaxy. But, in Stranger Than Paradise, nothing really happens. The main characters are bored, for the most part, and poor. Such is evident in one of the biggest events of the entire film. Why do they go to visit the main character’s cousin? They say it plain and simple in the car; they have a car, they have some money, and why the hell not? They have nothing else to do. Then they decide to go to Florida. Why? Because they might as well, it’s cold out so they should go somewhere warm. There is no great task for them to accomplish, no infuriating moral dilemma. Instead what carries this film is the study of the characters themselves and how they interact with each other.
In the readings, all of the authors seemed to generally agree on where American independent cinema sprouted from in the American New Wave and films coming out of that era. They all believe that Sundance was a very important step in recognizing and helping along the independent filmmaker, as Robert Redford recognizes what it is like to spend four years on a film and have nothing to show for it, like many independent artists have to deal with. However, I noticed a significant difference in key players listed by Kleinhans that came about in the late 1970s and what was described by Peter Biskind. Kleinhans says that filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were able to make commercial success as well as tackle independent efforts such as in Jaws. Biskind disagrees with this saying that Jaws was “ridiculous” and a “mega-blockbuster,” not the work of an independent filmmaker. Kleinhans also stresses the importance of directors such as Tarantino and Rodriguez who simply began to make films as they saw the vision for them, whether they had a lot of money to take it on or not. He places more emphasis on the work of these directors and less on how a festival like Sundance helps them along.
In my opinion, Stranger Than Paradise is quite obviously independent. Unlike Hollywood films, the acting is not outlandish and full of large gestures and voice levels. The fact that the film is in black and white also screams independent since Hollywood films must be highly aesthetically pleasing, which would include bright colorful films. The main reason the film has an independent essence to me is that the storyline of the film is not full of grand surprises or constant big events. The plot runs through fairly slow, but feels very real. I find this most enjoyable, but most fans of Hollywood would probably be bored by the lack of spectacles it provides. If this film was made in a Hollywood context, it would definitely have to be full of color and not include the long silent shots, such as the shot of Eva sitting by the ocean when she was left alone at the motel. The film would probably include more spectacles, like a sex scene with Eva. Needless to say, the film would have to be totally different if it was made in Hollywood because it would have to be able to continuously stimulate its viewers.
I think the articles reaffirm that independent cinema has its own little world completely separate from Hollywood. A big difference is because of budget, as explained in article two. The articles sort of explained Hollywood vs independent as sort of a battle, which I think it is. There's always competition in any field, but it's weird how totally separate those two worlds are from each other, since they're working in the same medium.
It was immediately noticable that Stranger Than Paradise was a departure from the traditional Hollywood format. We'er used to seeing a setting rich with cutaways and perspective shots, but the camera remains fixed, using a series of long shots throughout. Another trait that places this film in the independent genre is the choice in film stock. The director, Jim Jarmusch, seeks to exploit the simplicity of the medium, and the black and white stock simplifies the image. Instead of being presented with a lush, colorful landscape, we're always stuck in an enclosed black and white environment. This designed lack of beauty highlights the ideals of the film, that wherever you go, everything looks the same.
All three articles explore the emergence of independent film in the 80s, but each describes a different aspect of this movemet. The Kleinhans article was a pretty straight forward approach, giving the history and background to the elements leading up to what separated independent films in the 80s. The other two take a more narrow, focused look at independent film in the 80s. The Pierson article looked specifically at Stranger Than Fiction while the Biskind article looked at Robert Redford and the Sundance Institutes aide in indepenmdent cinema.
Independent film seeps through every frame of "Stranger Than Paradise". As mentioned in many responses film stock and unknown actors give the esthetic of an independent by very definition, a lake of money provided to produce the story. Although, as you look at the and the characters they support a plot of seemingly small conflict, in comparison to a Hollywood spectacle. Conflict, portrayed through slow meaningless, in comparison to the greater world, characters simply living life on a whim without consideration towards their actions and what future consequences they may produce. Where A lives in a one bedroom flat with no known stable form of income or planned schedule for each day other than whatever he feels like. Yet he is still given the conflict of having to house his cousin B for ten days, which is to him a huge inconvenience in his "busy" life. While she is living with him she becomes more of a companion in his lonely and, in the eyes of society, unproductive life. A portrayal of such a life would never be given the opportunity for screen time in Hollywood. It not being grand enough to rise above the common person, or able to make the common viewer in awe of a certain fictional hero that is an extreme minority in reality. Independent film, in "Stranger Than Paradise" and many others, seeks to express reality of common life not the Hollywood extraordinary that the normal person who "may" only dream of experiencing.
Each reading explains Independent Cinema as an ever changing industry. Expanding from B movies towards a breakaway from the glamorous Hollywood dream films searching for an ever more human representation of life, and on to a sort of testing ground for big studios to preview directors work before having to invest any kind of money. All three articles express the non-extravagant grind which goes along with producing an independent film. The fact that there is no real net financial gain received leaves out the financial motivation of filmmaking, leaving creative means instead of a greed to make the biggest buck. Independent Cinema becomes the escape from the fake world of Hollywood towards a grasp of reality.
One of the many reasons 'Strangers in paradise' stands out as an independent film rather than that of a Hollywood feature is the style in which is told. Instead of using majestic color it is used in some raw and gritty 16mm. This makes the film and its content seem more real and the camera techniques used to capture the characters are rather simplistic. There are many wide shots with no cutting and this forces the viewer to decide what is important to examine on the frame.
The three articles all articulate the importance of the independent film scene. It was always around since the beginning of film but really didn't evolve into the real monster it is today until Robert Redford financed the Sundance film festival. And that really didn't do much until the likes of Spike Lee, Quentin Tarrantino, Soderberg and the likes made their films.
Post a Comment