What makes an Indie film? Although the conventions aren’t really set in stone, we could dig up a little history and see where it all started. What I learned from the films of John Cassavetes (the Godfather of Independent film) was that by making an Independent film you were going away from the ‘glamour’ of Hollywood, it’s trying to close the gap between the audiences and the magical world of the movies. It was the stark realism and truthfulness that makes these Indie films and not just the fact that they were low-budget (although it can add to the charm). Such naturalistic films were already being made in Europe; with Italian Neo-Realism, the concept of Cinema verite – making film more real almost documentary-like by not indulging in the shiny gloss and polish of Hollywood and in the films of Satyajit Ray that focused primarily on the human aspect in cinema. Cassavete’s described Indie films as ‘truthful’. So you could say that to make an Indie film it has to be naturalistic and truthful.
Now when talking about a film like The Royal Tenenbaums, is it truthful? Yes and no because it does deal with themes that Hollywood would shy away from, themes that are too risky financially such as looking at family relationships and love (and I mean this in a realistic way and not using formulaic Hollywood methods), the film uses subversive characters and doesn’t rely heavily on the narrative. On the other hand, the ‘feel’ or the ‘vibe’ you get from this film is anything but grounded realism, it’s almost like taking real people and real situations but setting it in a dream-like world. And this touches upon another idea, that Indie films give a filmmaker more freedom to be artistic and experimental (think of Eternal Sunshine). This adds a whole new dimension to the phrase ‘Independent film’ because yes it can and mostly is realism but there are two other extreme definitions and they are that Indie films are either art-house avant-garde or cheap exploitation. The Royal Tenenbaums I would say falls somewhere between the realistic and a (for lack of a better phrase) mildly surrealist art film and I can appreciate the irony in my statement but that is the best way I can describe this film in the ‘Independent film’ context.
However, the film can be described as Indie on a purely superficial level also, because of its relatively low budget and the fact that it was made outside of studio control and because the cinematography and music is just simply different from what would be expected from Hollywood. And again you could make the argument that the film had an all-star cast and that it was nominated for Academy awards and Golden Globes and made millions of profit in gross. But I think the gross and the awards don’t have anything to do with what a film is and it’s not the actor but the character that tells us what type of film a film is. Gene Hackman’s character in Superman or The French Connection is miles away from that of Royal Tenenbaum, actors are just the tools and you can make whatever you want out of them.
To wrap up, I believe structurally, thematically, financially and in terms of narrative this film is in one sense or the other Indie regardless of what definition you take up, be it of realism or of art-house surrealism. But in no way is this film a conventional Hollywood product.
The FilmGeek Files 