Are “Indie” movies really independent? Or is it just “Indiewood”???

Check out the this trailer for the remake of Funny Games I finally got to watch this remake, directed by Micheal Haneke. It's a frame-for-frame remake of his 1997 classic (one of my favs) of the same name. It was very interesting to see the contrast of the independent version, of 1997, to today's mainstream version with high-ticket stars like Naomi Watts. I could go on about how great both versions are, as you watch two psycho teens brutally terrorize a vacationing family. But there are countless other blogs and reviews that deal with that. Instead, I'd like to talk about how a lot of movies that pose as independent movies really aren't. Is that ok??? I'm big on movies and have no problem with the occasional blockbuster, but there's nothing like hitting the film festivals and discovering new talent pushing the boundaries of film making! Only that's less likely to happen as the big Hollywood studios take over these events. With the giants masquerading as indie's: 20th Century Fox (Searchlight), NBC/Universal (Focus Features), and Time Warner (Picturehouse), it's a lot harder for the real independents to be found. Especially when megabucks superstars like Jim Carrey and Bill Murray seek these scripts out because it's so cool to be indie right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Juno, Lost in Translation, or Sideways were bad movies, I just think we should come up with a new catagory for them like Indiewood, so that future independent movies that follow in the footsteps of Primer (with a $7K budget), Funny Ha Ha, and Amores Perros (backed by Lionsgate, the best of the indie studios) can still earn recognition.

About the Author

Check out CJ Guest on Twitter, FriendFeed, and Facebook