The Diving Bell and the Butterfly-What Makes a Film Independent?

Jacob Feiring

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Watching The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was quite interesting after assessing what makes an independent film for half a semester. While I’m not quite sure of the cost of the film, different sources on the internet have said that it cost between 7-13 million dollars to make. This film is probably considered independent by most standards despite a budget that is quite a bit higher than many independent films. The cast that was originally going to include Johnny Depp was a group of primarily unknown actors. Once Depp dropped off the cast it seems that film was forced to take a more “independent” route not receiving as much financial backing and going through a more independent company for its release. I think this film is interesting because it questions where to draw the line, as far as what makes a production independent and what makes it Hollywood cinema, an issue that has been discussed all semester.
What stood out the most to me about this film as far as its “independent qualities” was the way it was shot. It definitely wasn’t shot in a typical fast cut, fast edit Hollywood” style. The cuts weren’t seamless nor were they meant to be. While the film’s topic probably had a bit to do with the style, this film clearly wasn’t intentionally polished to cater to the masses. Many of the shots lingered and required patience to watch.
The film is about Jean-Dominique Bauby, the prominent editor of French ELLE magazinein who in the prime of his career had a stroke and became completely paralyzed. His only way of communicating was through one of his eyes. He used a system of blinks to converse with others.
As the film starts we already notice the simplistic style of the film through the credits. They’re not flashy computer animated like many blockbusters but rather a series of stills, almost like a slide show giving the basic information of names over pictures of X-rays.
As the story begins, the viewer is forced to learn patience just like Mathieu Amalric, who plays the character of Jean-Dominique Bauby, someone struggling to cope with paralysis, as the camera goes in and out of focus mimicking his eye. We also get a sense of the man’s attempt to understand the world around him through an eye alone as the camera pans back and forth with choppy motions, again mimicking the eye.
As the film progresses the viewer is treated to an array of beautiful yet simplistic shots. The camera work is often times choppy and the film is shot in a more “artful” manner. A majority of the film is shot through the eyes of a quadriplegic and how he perceives the world in addition to his memories before the accident. There are rare shots of Amalric. Instead we either see the film through his eyes or shots of the other characters.
While the film is a true story, there are various ways that it could have been shot. In a Hollywood setting I feel that the production would have been flashier with more quick edits and a faster paced story in order to appeal to the masses.
Another important aspect to the film in my opinion was that it was made by an American director but shot and filmed in French. Apparently Julian Scharbel learned French on the set in France when it was being made to stay to true to the sentiment of the book and the story. Would a Hollywood film go through this kind of effort? It’s hard to say, however, it seems that this kind of work ethic and attitude towards creating something that resembles reality is more of an independent sentiment.
The overall feeling of the film in my opinion was independent. The shots were challenging and sometimes required patience to watch. Perhaps, the budget is what make film “less” independent, however, the cost to make the film in comparison to other big budget films was still relatively low. There were little to no flashy special effects and the film relied on the simplistic yet rich cinematography to carry the story and ideas.