I know that independent films are generally constituted by who is distributing them, but...I find it hard to believe that films like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine are really considered "indies." I mean, think about it: Juno has a nearly identical plot to Knocked Up, the year's highest grossing comedy. Just because it has "Fox Searchlight Pictures" at its back doesn't really make it an indie film: it's got a bunch of huge names attached, a story that can appeal to a mainstream audience, and it's probably gonna gross a lot more than many mainstream films do. Same goes with Little Miss Sunshine: Just because it's about a dysfunctional family and plays a bunch of indie rock songs doesn't really make it an indie, does it? Steve Carell? Greg Kinnear? Alan Arkin? These are big names in Hollywood, and I thought "indie" was supposed to refer to those movies that almost nobody sees and don't rely on big names or pleasant stories/characters to be great films. I liked LMS, and I'm sure Juno will be great, but I don't like how people think that they represent what "independent cinema" really is.

Someone mentioned The Crying Game?!

Juno was one of the least indie indies I've ever seen. And it constantly tried to show how indie it was. And failed (at that).

I think films like Juno and LMS are indie films for people who either don't like or seek out indie films. What I'm saying is the vast majority of movie-goers don't seek out or have access to truly independent films. And even if they did how many of them are going to actually pay money to see a film with no recognizable stars, director or heaven forbid in a foreign language. As most people who go to the movies say "I don't go to the movies to read or think, I want to be entertained," which is the opposite of indie cinema, minus the entertained part.
So the studios are successfully carving out a niche market of psuedo indie films with stories that are relateable to a wider audience and have some recognizable faces. Thus people can go to the movies and be entertained and yet sadly claim they are fans of independent cinema. That and the studios seem to have convinced people that any film that costs less than $25 million to make and/or is directed and/or written by a first timer is an independent film.

Juno was hipster crap trying to come across as authentic.

Almost. Juno was trying to come across as hipster (crap) that was trying to come across as authentic.

It's amusing to me that with every new wave of "indie," a group of people who come across as almost desperately negative to me manage to bash.

Juno is the newest victim of this, as evidenced by plenty of reactions here. And don't even get me started on the hate it gets over at Awards Daily.

It happened to Quentin Tarantino's movies in the 90s, and it will continue happening.

Juno isn't a new wave of indie...it's a mainstream rehash of indie that actually, mostly worked...but it's nothig exceptional or groundbreaking like lots of people seem to think.

I would consider these films indies that eventually become mainstream.

Also was Steve Carell big when he shot LMS? I dont think so...

Of course they're fucking not.

I don't get the "Juno has huge names attached" argument.

It was written by a stripper & directed by a "who?"

Ellen Page was in Hard Candy, which hardly anyone saw.

Jason Bateman & Michael Cera were on Arrested Development - beloved by many, but watched by few.

Jennifer Garner's last big "I'm the next Julia Roberts" film flopped, hard.

JK Simmons has a recurring bit part in the Spiderman films. I really doubt he has a massive following. I bet Rosemary Harris has a bigger fan club.

Allison Janney is a well-respected, supporting actress, but a huge name? Uh no.

These people are only big names to those who are more likely to watch indie films.

Margot at the Wedding would be a recent example of huge names attached to an indie, but no one saw it or liked it so nevermind.

Not exactly. And it doesn't have to do with the plot or who's in it either. An independent film is a film that was financed outside of the studios system, typically without distribution in place.

However, there is some substance to the argument that the term "indie" has been misapplied to refer to a certain GENRE of film, that is typically low budget, often with more controversial subject matter handled in a certain style.

This is, btw, why they call it the Independent SPIRIT awards and not just the Independent awards. Because there are a surprising number of films that would not qualify. Juno is not a true independent film because it was financed by Fox, whereas five of the six Star Wars films are truly independent, financed by the filmmaker with his own money.

It was directed by Jason Reitman, director of Thank You For Smoking and son of one of the most well-known and most successful comedy directors of all time. It was almost certainly his involvement that got the movie made.



That she was in a flop is irrelevant. All three are big name stars. Batemen is known mostly for TV but still a name. Cera was in one of the biggest comedies last year. And Jennifer Garner is...Jennifer Garner.

Explain.

These films are essentially financed by studios, but made in the same way as any other indie movie. The only difference is the finance comes from a studio rather than investors.

Juno and LMS are both indie movies. The fact that they have attracted major name stars to the fray does not change that. Indie defines a production proccess which differs from blockbusters. I can guarantee you if you were on the set for a fox searchlight film that no-one in the set would be sitting around thinking their movie is a lock for $50m+. If profitibility is even in the heads of these people, it's "Well maybe we can break even" or "maybe it will break out and make $10m or so!"

As for big name actors. Any indie director who has prestiege gets access to big names. Big names are usually big because they are exceptional performers, and if you have the option of exceptional performers who are going to get your movie noticed or a bunch of nobodies with a small track record but potential, the choice is clear.

On a blockbuster film set, everything is geared towards profitibility. The scale of everything is a constant reminder that films are made to generate cash.

These are movies which are comissioned by a studio, so they are different from indies in the sense that many indies have to be shopped to festivals before a studio will even consider wide distribution, whereas Juno and LMS' creators knew at some stage their movies would be seen in over a hundred theaters.

But the distribution of Juno and LMS being wide and agressive is not the responsibility of the film-makers, its a studio desicion which is made during and after the productions in the can. Likely, JUNO would not have been scheduled for such a wide release, but its intensely positive response meant a rapid expansion and agressive marketing campaign. Same with LMS.

Allison Janney is a very famous television star who is constantly in the media for winning awards and was in peoples living rooms weekly for a period.

Michael Cera is a rapidly rising star. Jason Bateman is also a known name in the indie niche because the indie film audience demo is almost identical to the arrested development demo. Jennifer Garner is one of the more famous actresses around right now and is on big bucks. She makes tabloids and magazine covers frequently. I don't understand how those people aren't big names. I would say the only real a-lister is she i can't speak of, but just did. The rest are definitely near that area though.

2 questions:

a) Michael, accordng to you, so what the difference between an indie like Juno and a blockbuster. You mentioned Juno was made in a similar style as indie. I'm just trying to figure out what you mena by that. My impression, as Beeblebrox posted was that an indie is described as non studio financing generally.

b) Wasn't LMS featured at Sundance before it was picked up by a studio? I remember that being the case.

What Loyal said.

These movies are not really indies anymore. Hell, the first Saw film is much more of an indie.

There are indies... those films that go to Sundance and try to get sold for distribution would count.

But Juno wasn't "picked up" by Fox Searchlight, it was funded by them.

So no, it's no indie.

Indie is more like a genre though, in that sense, it is a "indie". But really the word should be more like "hipster".

Awesome post. Agree with everything.

But I don't think any Star Wars movie would be legitimately given an award for its Indie status.

Q: Are films like JUNO and LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE really indies?

A: No.