REVISITING THE TOPIC OF INDIE MOVIES AND YOUTH
By Scott Macaulay
This is perhaps the longest gestating blog post in Filmmaker Blog history.
Back in December, Ted Hope commented on the graying of the arthouse audience in a post entitled “Can Truly Free Film Appeal to Younger Audiences?” He asked:
What is it that new audiences want? What must the indie community do to engage them? It is really surprising how few true indie films speak to a youth audience. In this country we’ve had Kevin Smith and NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, but nothing that was youth and also truly on the art spectrum like RUN LOLA RUN or the French New Wave (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY not withstanding…). Are we incapable of making the spirited yet formal work that defines a lot of alternative rock and roll? And if so, why is that?
The post inspired a long comments thread, much of which focuses on the issue of marketing, and whether today’s independent films are marketed to youth correctly, or whether today’s indies are giving young audiences the experiences they want. Amongst these comments is one by producer Cotty Chubb, who tackles the issue of young content. An excerpt:
If there’s no reason to go to the theater to have an emotional (comedic, dramatic, it doesn’t matter) experience that answers questions you have — about being a child of divorce, about how to figure out how to live or love, or about what happens you become intimate and it’s all too much — whatever it is that you’re living — if you lose the habit of seeing movies because the people that make them don’t give two shits about you except for your ability to spend money — you stop going, except for the thrill rides or the exceptional rude boys.
That’s why I thought Judd Apatow was going to matter when I saw Knocked Up. That’s why I think 500 Days of Summer is important. It was honest and funny and smart and generous and Joe Gordon Levitt is uniquely transparent in his emotion. And it grossed 32+MM$.
I think Ted and Cotty combine to make a great point here having to do with what’s needed to regenerate independent film audiences — formally innovative work that addresses the issues unique to each generation. (I use the word “formally innovative” in a very broad and inclusive sense, meaning that I think it’s important that this work feel and be apprehended by audiences differently than studio films.) Unless independent work gives younger audiences insights that feel more honest than the ones they get in studio films, independent films won’t be perceived by a new generation as being valuable enough to make and see outside of a studio economy.
(An interesting paradox here is that some would say that the whole definition of “teenager,” its historical creation, is bound up within the story of consumer culture… but that’s another blog post.)
After reading Ted’s post I suggested to Anthony Kaufman that he explore the relationship of contemporary youth culture to independent film in his “Industry Beat” column. From his piece:
IFC Films’ marketing head Ryan Werner says American indie films with a younger bent, whether the work of Joe Swanberg, Andrew Bujalski or Barry Jenkins, are the hardest to connect to their audience, and not just in theaters, but on VOD and DVD, as well. “There isn’t a tougher breed of film right now,” he says.
Many industry insiders had hoped Lynn Shelton’s Humpday, distributed by Magnolia, would break out, but the film underperformed. “The main thrust was about married people getting older,” says Magnolia Pictures’ Eamonn Bowles, so younger audiences stayed away.
What is the consequence of this disconnect between millennials — those aged 18 to 29 — and today’s American indie cinema? As New York Times critic Manohla Dargis wrote in a piece that picked up on Hope’s blog, “Any future alternative film culture will depend on the cultivation of younger patrons,” she wrote. Not only that, but this is a demographic, she added, “who are used to receiving much if not all of their entertainment at home and on handheld devices.”
Kaufman concluded his piece by quoting Eammon Bowles, who offered a counter viewpoint, arguing against the position that independent filmmakers should target the youth audience:
Magnolia’s Eamonn Bowles says he’s never relied on young audiences. “Independent films are more complex, more intellectual, so it’s really always been the domain of people that are older,” he says. “I can’t speak for the ’60s when Antonioni was blowing people’s minds, but since I’ve been doing it, the younger audience has always been the most overrated.”
After reading these various pieces, including Manohla’s, I decided to do a little bit of casual research to investigate this question from another angle. Specifically, are today’s young audiences inspired by the current group of independent films? Do these films resonate with them on a deep enough level to inspire their devotion to — and investment in — the practice of making films outside of the studio system? If so, what are these films? Or, is an earlier generation of films and not the current one the ones that resonate most deeply with young viewers today?
I sent out a bunch of emails and got a few responses. Mostly, I queried the members of our staff who are in their 20s and some filmmakers I know, and I also encouraged people to forward the emails to their friends, a few of whom emailed me back. So, I can’t say that I got enough responses back to make this scientific in any way. But there were still some interesting trends, namely that with few exceptions this list could have been compiled a decade or even two ago. David Gordon Green is the only director on the list who arrived on the scene in the ’00s. The twenty-somethings surveyed here were personally moved by the acknowledged classics of independent film, the ones that have inspired not just one but several generations of moviegoers. Lots of more current work — the films of Darren Aronofsky, David O. Russell, Kelly Reichardt, Andrew Bujalski, Phil Morrison — got votes, but the people who responded coalesced around the titles list below. (Some of the filmmakers I just listed were hurt by split votes across their various titles.) Is that simply because these admittedly great films are “better” than more recent ones? Or because their perceived value is enhanced due to their classic status? Maybe it’s that they created the templates that others have followed? Or perhaps today’s audiences are too splintered these days, so that the person for whom Momma’s Man is life-changing is not the same one who watches Junebug twice a year? What your thoughts? And if you’re in your ’20s or younger, what independent films have changed your life? Feel free to comment below (or email me at editor.filmmakermagazine AT gmail.com). If enough people respond, I’ll retabulate the list and publish it again.
Below, in alphabetical order, are the top votegetters. In the next few days I’ll run a few of the longer responses that give specific reasons for the choices.
1. A Woman Under the Influence
2. All the Real Girls
3. Buffalo 66
4. Chasing Amy
5. David Holtzman’s Diary
6. Do the Right Thing (Okay, a studio film, but it should be on this list…)
7. Down by Law
8. George Washington
9. Gummo
10. Happiness
11. Husbands
12. julien donkey-boy
13. Kids
14. Killer of Sheep
15. Minnie and Moskowitz
16. Stranger than Paradise
Categories News, Uncategorized | Tags: Anthony Kaufman, Charles Burnett, Cotty Chubb, david gordon green, harmony korine, jim jarmusch, john cassavetes, kevin smith, spike lee, Ted Hope, Todd Solondz, Vincent Gallo
You can follow any follow up comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Leave a Comment
By submitting a comment here you grant The Filmmaker Magazine Blog a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.
21 Comments
Laughing at the list. All three early Korine films!?
I lean towards Eammon Bowles’ comment because as a struggling filmmaker who writes his own screenplays I cannot relate to the youth of today in order to appeal to their tastes. In my area of eastern Canada the youth market gives me the impression they are only interested in excessive graphic violence, toilet humor, dumb & dumber shtick and comic book aesthetics all of which do not apply to my work in development. My target audience is the market who are beyond the high school and college/university phase of their lives and seeking something more in their viewing habits. I say this with authority since I am a member of my own niche market and I don’t appreciate my age group being ignored in terms of new films being produced exclusively for the youth market. We want to see new films but it is hard when the contents do not appeal to our sensibilities. I would love to have part of the youth market seeking the type of work I am developing so my response is not meant as a reproach but only an acceptance of where I find myself in the independent film community.
Thanks, Konrad, for your comment.
David: re Korine, yep. And I don’t think it was because I produced two of them. Everyone who answered is beyond the point of trying to curry favor. But, like I said, it was a relatively small sample so only a few mentions got a film on the list. (Which, by the way, is casual blog list, not some kind of Grand Statement.) That said, if I get more responses I’ll revise and maybe some films will fall off.
If those are the films that resonate most within the younger members of the indie community, then the list itself is the answer why indie films made by young filmmakers aren’t connecting with larger audiences.
With the exception of Do the Right Thing, pretty much every film on the list is a lo-fi character study of life on the margins. When did Cassavetes ever have popular appeal? Even DDG’s movies never made a dime until he switched to Apatow.
I’m not knocking the quality of these movies. I’m just pointing out that if your model is a movie that wasn’t commercially popular, then why would you expect that your movie would be popular?…
Just to elaborate… Pi, Reservoir Dogs, Heathers, Easy Rider, Halloween, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Primer, Eraserhead, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Mean Streets, The Killing, etc. — are all independent films.
So why don’t we see movies like that one the list?…
Mine… Being sick of Hollywood
It’s funny that your list is almost the exact one I’ve show in the college courses I teach. I’m always surprised by how many students enjoy Killer of Sheep or A Woman Under the Influence. I’m equally baffled when the same students tell me Close Encounters of the Third Kind is “slow and nothing happens.” I remember my friends and I being hooked on Harmony Korine in college. Even before seeing his films, his David Letterman interviews made me think, “who is this guy?” I thought he was hilarious.
By the same token, many of those films would not have been made for or marketed to youth culture. I also think that music tends to lead the mindset – it seems no surprise that the music and cultural environment of the 60′s lead to a diverse film going public in the 70′s, and that the punk and underground scene of the late eighties and early nineties merged with the burst of independent film during that decade.
I taught at a high school before teaching at a college and found students like independent film when they are introduced to it (same goes for classic films) (I remember showing my high school film club Gerry with great results), but otherwise write them off off as stuffy or academic. I think many of the above films have a visceral impact that young people can ‘get’ even if they don’t understand formal conventions, theory, or historical/political significance. I don’t know if you can bring film to young people, you just have to make exciting quality work and eventually they will come to you.
Thanks for the comments.
Eyjafjallajökull. i don’t think the question was so much about the commerciality of the films but about their inspirational power. I think one can make popular films having been inspired by less popular ones — witness Woody Allen, whose references in interviews are always European art films. Also, many of the films on your list weren’t that popular in the commercial sense either. Still, it was funny to look at your list because it mirrors a lot of my favorites — particularly “Man who Fell to Earth” (one of my top ten films) and “Eraserhead,” which was the first film I ever saw in New York City.
Tom, great post, and it touches on something I was actually going to ask in the original piece, which is, are some of these films inspiring because they’ve been taught in a classroom setting where all their subtleties can be focused on and revealed? I think back to some of my favorites in literature and art, and I realized that they were works I was taught. Barnett Newman, for example, has long been one of my favorite artists, but if I had encountered him cold and not in an art history course where his work was situated precisely, would that have been the case? A great point too about music, which makes me wonder if the splintering of the music scene into micro-niches has its mirror in the indie film scene as well.
Step outside of the established boundaries of “Indie Film”, the 10-15 Film Festivals that you report on and those 25 New Faces Filmmaker Magazine presents annually who are essential the same 25 every year just different names and new titles to the same old film/animation/production.
The indie youth film revolution is taking place on youtube, facebook and mobile phones across the planet while you rush off to Sundance, Berlin, SXSW, Toronto and Cannes. Sending your email to your list and your friend’s friend is hardly effective to gage or engaging youth on indie movies.
In May, I showed my indie film at a high school in Queens, NY. About 30 students, ages 14-18 years old, turned out and they are well aware of independent film and the power of their youth.
It would be easy to say you are alienating the youth and indie/low-budget/no-budget/independent film BUT the truth is we are not even on your list – none of your lists.
I think the hypnotism of watching films on handheld devices (youtube, etc.) most likely will wane. They are great for trailers but just can’t compare to the group viewing experience on a larger screen. The youth are distracted by this at the moment, along with everybody else. Youth in particular are highly social. Drinking, smoking, talking, and debating about a film is equal to the viewing experience. And I agree, Scott, the films have to have more honesty than the studio systems’.
One thing to take into consideration is that the younger folks who work at Filmmaker Magazine would be a very self-selecting sample, and certainly not reflective of the youth audience at large. I also think that informal polling tends to produce results that the participants feel will impress that people that are doing the polling. That said, I’ve been ruminating lately on the fact that once again we are getting confused by the fact that so many divergent interests are being lumped together under this “independent” label. Some thoughts are slowing inching their way from my brain to my typing fingers. Hopefully I won’t challenge Scott fot all-time longest gestating blog post.
Ira, your points are all well taken. To be honest, I solicited a bunch of people back in December and got a handful of responses — not enough for any kind of scientific sample. But I liked what Brandon and Lena along with the people I am posting tomorrow wrote, and decided to post anyway. The takeaway from this for me — don’t let these blog ideas linger on my to-do list. Get them out quicker!
As far as unscientific samples go, I offer my own experience. I don’t feel I really “got” art films/independent cinema until my mid-30s, really. When I was growing up in the Midwest in the 80s, you got what you got at the local cinema or nearby mall (30 minutes away), and that was it – and, it was Hollywood stuff.
When I was in college, I remember beginning to see more non-mainstream stuff, notably “Stop Making Sense,” and beginning to feel like I was finding cool, hip stuff outside of my upbringing. But, then, ironically, I saw “Down By Law” while living in Paris (in French, no less!) in 1986, and I thought, “I must be too pedestrian for this, b/c I’m confused, intrigued, impressed by how challenging this is, but I am not entertained.” Thus, I assumed for about the next decade that I wasn’t arty, cerebral, provocative, or hip enough to realistically enjoy non-mainstream movies.
I’ve come around since, yes. But, I’m not 21 anymore, and my frames of reference and interest and hopes/expectations for movies are much wider now, too.
I’m echoing what Eamonn said above; I don’t think that looking for or hoping for a surging trend of Youth Viewership for indie films should be that worrisome or a priority for filmmakers.
I was reading through the rest of these comments and was reminded of how surprised I was when teaching a pre-college film class for high school students last year. Many of them were very excited to talk about Paranoid Park, which they had caught on TV (I always have at least one or two students who are huge Van Sant fans, which is cool to see – I think his work continues to connect with a young audience because of his subject matter). A good deal of them tuned in to IFC regularly to catch random films and made cool discoveries that way – a great resource for them and a lower commitment than finding a theater that plays smaller or less mainstream films.
Tom, I’m trying to remember who I had a conversation about “Paranoid Park” with just last week. It was someone else who, like me, loved that film. It’s one of my favorites of his. In terms of the span of his work, his ability to pursue what he wants, his refusal to be deterred by the broader American industry, I think Gus has the best director’s career out there. I can’t wait for his new one, which is sort of like a 70′s American teen movie with a Murakami-esque spin.
Really glad to see Husbands on the list. I have argued that this has always been the most under-appreciated Cassavettes film.
Mr. Macaulay,
I’ve been following this topic since you mentioned Ted Hope’s post a while back and was eager to read this follow-up. I am age 31 and find the topic particularly interesting as an unknown indie filmmaker on the cusp of the age group you are discussing. I have a lot of thoughts on each angle covered by the articles/posts you mentioned above. I just wanted to get clarification on your particular angle of investigation.
I understand the survey you did was rather informal, but was curious as to exactly what the list represents. You listed a number of questions you were interested in asking. I just wanted to clarify is the list answering the question – (to those between age 19-29)”What films resonate with you deep enough to inspire you to create your own film outside of the studio system?” or rather “What independent films resonate the most with you?”
Thanks for any clarification you can offer!
Hi Geoff,
Like I said, the survey was kind of an informal, so I’d caution drawing huge conclusions from it. But I guess the question is two-fold, and it is based on a couple of assumptions. First, that people who want to make movies are inspired by particular movies. And second, people who are inspired to make independent films have in addition to an aesthetic appreciation of certain titles a kind of “I can do that!” moment when something they are watching strikes them as being achievable outside the Hollywood system. In other words, people whose favorite films are Star Wars or Avatar probably don’t become independent filmmakers. Back in the day, I was inspired by films like Eraserhead, Stranger than Paradise, and Eric Mitchell’s Underground USA. So, I wondered, are people inspired by the work of their own time to make independent film? Or are their inspirations from the past? I think without a renewable source of inspiration independent film will suffer.
Mr. Macaulay – sorry for the extra long comment – maybe would’ve served better as a direct email or something – i don’t do this much (blog commenting) so I’m unsure of the etiquette…
Thanks for the clarification. Your first assumption is undeniable. After reading the other blogs/articles you’ve referenced in relation to this topic again, it seems that their main concern is that there are currently no American independent films that are finding a youth audience and therefore the market for independent films in the future may suffer unless these young people find these films later in life. However, my understanding is that you are concerned that a lack of current American independent films which young people draw inspiration from, will result in the suffering of future production of independent American films.
Of course I can only speak from my own experience and point of view as someone on the later cusp of this generation of concern. I feel that some of the current “no-budget” films like “Breaking Upwards” and “Medicine for Melancholy” served the ‘I can do that!’ inspiration not for content, but the idea that they made a film on this level and it was distributed. In terms of content though (or the “aestheitc appreciation” you mention), the only “current” films that have really inspired me to make something outside the studio system as of late, have been foreign films. Although budgets may be larger, many of them still offer stories, characters and styles that I feel Hollywood would never fund.
Definitely, some of the films on your list serve both of these categories for me, but when speaking strictly about “current” films, there is definitely this split happening between what films are inspiring for their content and those that are inspiring because they received distribution deals in the current market with a low production budget.
That being said, I found the film “Trash Humpers” inspiring on both of these levels (budget, aesthetic/form), but it’s hard to believe that this film would see the light of day if it didn’t have Harmony’s name attached to it. Of course, even with his name on it, distributor’s were wary to put it in theaters.
Maybe this leads us back to the former concern I mentioned. Perhaps the marketing fear is ultimately the culprit for our general lack of very inspiring films of our times, thus creating a catch-22 of safe films that young folks don’t talk about.
Either way, thanks for the inspiration to think about it and all your great work.
Trackbacks