What are the most important indie films?

October 14, 2005 3:05 PM

I have been interested in "indie film" for some time now. But don't let that be misleading--I have been interested in it and still know nothing about it. More inside.

I have seen a few independent movies in my day, but I really wish to be entrenched in "the scene." And not the cheapened version that trickles down to the mainstream--you know, where "indie" means "quirky romantic love comedy about life" and not "independent."

So I guess my question is, what are your guys' favorite 'independent' films, and what are the most important that you simply *have* to see if you want to be anybody who knows anything? :P

posted by Lockeownzj00 to media & arts (15 comments total)

Eh, the term "indie film" has always rubbed me the wrong way. Strictly speaking, all film is indie film. It's just a matter of scale.

However, if you're looking to get into the more under the radar, low-budget cinema, your best bet is to get to know the filmmakers. Personally, possibly. These folks don't have secretaries. I know I don't. There are small screenings/festivals constantly in every major city. Attend those. There is no litmus test for a "scene." Just show up. Watch movies. Talk to the people whose work you like.

They'll be thrilled to talk about their films and the things that have influenced them.
posted by brundlefly at 3:21 PM on October 14, 2005

"the scene." And not the cheapened version that trickles down to the mainstream--you know, where "indie" means "quirky romantic love comedy about life" and not "independent."

I think you're confused about the term itself.

"Indie" films are films not made or financed by the big movie companies. If it's not made by a company on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hollywood_movie_studios, it's an "independent" movie.

Presumably you mean a kind of "indie" sensibility, as in, subject matter or movie-making/storytelling in an unconventional way?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:36 PM on October 14, 2005

Well, my favorite independent, non-Hollywood, low-budget film is Festen, aka The Celebration. It's a Danish movie shot according to the rules of Dogme 95, a set of restrictions that were meant to stimulate filmmakers' creativity by forbidding the use of Hollywood-style crutches in movie-making. That may sound very pretentious, but the story is incredibly compelling, and the actors are ace--you don't notice the process.
posted by statolith at 4:28 PM on October 14, 2005

My girl Marcy has a list here that I don't agree with all the way, but it's a start.
posted by muckster at 5:45 PM on October 14, 2005

Could you give a little bit more guidance here? I mean, just for a start, which of these films (chosen off the top of my head) do you consider "indie", and which cheapened crappy filtered-down-to-the-mainstream whatchamacallit:

- Werckmeister Harmonies
- Brown Bunny
- 2046
- Undertow
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
- I ♥ Huckabees
- Garden State
- That one about the slightly alienated teenage boy that really exposes the dark underbelly which lies just beneath the mundanity of American suburbia
- Anything Korean
- Anything French
- Anything Canadian
- Revenge of the Sith
posted by flashboy at 5:53 PM on October 14, 2005

Actually, just remembered: Empire did a feature on their 50 Greatest Independent Films recently, which may or may not be of interest, depending on what you mean by "indie". There's a bit of British bias there, and several choices that are just plain daft (it is Empire, after all), but it's not a bad primer.
posted by flashboy at 6:04 PM on October 14, 2005

To try to answer the question: Jim Jarmush's Down by Law, obviously. I've always liked Hal Hartley's stuff, which has, I think, all been independent. My favorite is Simple Men. John Sayles is great too. (Was Lone Star indie?)

Then there is a boat-load of foreign stuff, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as indie.
posted by booth at 9:41 PM on October 14, 2005

Well, in the US, Sundance is where it's at. Back up a decade and Sundance was this film aficionado's wet dream -- dozens of indie films, introduced by the filmmakers themselves, in quiet screenings. Today it's a mini-Cannes, with A-listers and D-girls in abundance, everybody trying to be the next Napoleon Dynamite. There's a certain problem in that -- as flashboy's list shows -- there are certain types of films that do well in this market. This has predictably led to indie directors making films that will sell well in this market, and a glut of "indie" films seeking Hollywood distribution deals that will get them into at least hundreds, rather than dozens, of theaters. So now you have "real indie" which is indie that isn't even trying to get this type of deal -- brundlefly's answer.

Yeah, it's a lot like indie music and the whole sell-out debate.

Back to what brundlefly said: that's probably the "scene" in the sense of people working for little to no pay on something they just love, but it isn't necessarily the way to find the best movies. What gets made in that scene is generally shorts rather than features, which may be quite sufficient for the ideas at hand.

The Empire link is a good starting point. If you're too familiar with the material on that list you wouldn't be asking this question. There's a lot of quality stuff there that used to not ever get near a cineplex, but today with 30-screen theaters in metro areas there's always a closet somewhere for a Run Lola Run. Now, a lot of those indie films did get distributed; don't let that throw you, they were often made for pennies, and since they were the lucky ones they made somebody -- mainly the distributor -- a ton of money on their investment.
posted by dhartung at 10:26 PM on October 14, 2005

I think it has gotten somewhat more complicated than that. Miramax, once the purveyor of a certain kind of "art house" film, was swallowed whole by Disney, it's almost impossible to get a movie without a star into Sundance, and every studio has its own boutique distributor (Warner Independent, Sony Pictures Classics.) Still, there are the more authentic upstarts Focus, Wellspring etc. Does "indie" mean that the movie cost no real money whatsoever (like Clerks, El Mariachi, or Blair Witch), or does it mean that the director could make creative decisions independently? (In which case Revenge of the Sith is the most expensive indie ever made.) Alexander Payne says he likes working with Fox Searchlight--they give him complete artistic control. Many of the "indie" directors who get their break with a visionary cheapie apparently couldn't wait to make brainless blockbusters (Christopher Nolan.)

The lines have gotten blurred pretty badly. Seems to me that now, "indie" refers to a certain sensibility rather than an economic model.

To get back to the question, classic indie directors would include John Cassavetes, John Sayles, Jim Jarmush, Tarantino, Richard Linklater, Spike Lee....
posted by muckster at 11:33 PM on October 14, 2005

Peter Biskind's book "Down and Dirty Pictures" has a worthwhile take on the development of the "scene" in the Nineties, with discussion of many milestone films.
posted by muckster at 11:37 PM on October 14, 2005

I won't dredge up titles; there's so many... One way to get "entrenched" in independent films is to fund one; you'll be all kinds of entrenched. Short of that, there's no end of websites and mailing lists. Try starting at, oh, filmarts.org and just follow links out from there. Or go to a festival or any screening of an indie, and scoop up the abundant fliers.

And welcome to the semi-subterranean new Golden Age of film, a world entirely separate from "major motion pictures" (which you have understandably abandoned), but happily coexisting with it. Parallel universes, never touching. Good luck.
posted by clicktosubmit at 4:52 AM on October 15, 2005

That's what I mean: "indie" is a vague term, but what I meant by "scene" is like any other: websites, places, communities that update on indipendent movies and their news: and independent meaning strictly that, independent.

And yeah, I did mean non-mainstream movies, as in non-hollywood movies.

Thanks so far, though. You guys have helped.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 10:26 AM on October 15, 2005

meaning: i'm not looking for a self-righteous debate about "true indie." I just want to know good indpendent films of all kinds, which technically comprise the independent scene.

ps: foreign movies aren't technically indipendent, but for my purposes of "movies that aren't popular/well-known here (US)," foreign movies are valid. No, I'm not trying to watch as many movies as possible so I can say I've seen things you haven't. I just want to break out of the mainstream, and fast.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 10:29 AM on October 15, 2005

If this thread is still alive, then I'd say: there are great 'indie' movie reviews at Deep Focus and the Chicago Reader. And you should check out the seriously indie tradition of avant-garde filmmaking. Stan Brakhage, some of whose movies were recently collected on the Criterion DVD By Brakhage, made amazing movies, and there are many more like him. If you live in a city with an art school or a university, find out what their film courses are showing.
posted by josh at 10:00 AM on October 16, 2005

Flashboy's 50 greatest films link is a great place to start. I disagree with a few of their choices and find their rankings baffling but it's a really good list that covers a pretty wide range of what it means to be "indie" in the sense you mean it.

When I'm introducing someone to something that's a little more challenging than the latest Rob Schnieder crap fest at the multiplex, I always like to start off with the "crowd pleasers." Things that are fun and smart and less likely to fall into the love it/hate it categories. In that sense, I'd recommend things like...

Swingers
The Usual Suspects
Being John Malkovich
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Run Lola Run
Before Sunrise
Barcelona
Pulp Fiction
posted by aaronh at 6:42 AM on October 17, 2005