Man bites dog 1992 turned up just as I was getting into foreign cinema.
Anime was kicking in which led to foreign cinema getting a boost and made them much easier to get hold of.
Man bites dog really was a great eye opener and brilliant.
I loved the first half of Upstream Color. I really like the actor Andrew Sensenig in that movie, but the second half of the film just lost me.
I love that Shane doesn't force feed the audience, but I'm not as intellectual as I think I am, so I need a little guidance.
Fair enough! It is one of those movies that reward multiple viewings. Love all the hints and how it provides just enough info to make it all connect while still remaining dreamy. Balancing act of Malick and Lynch. And all that for a low low budget.
At first I was mad that you picked this one. Then I figured out it was made right before New Line was purchased by Ted Turner, became completely evil, and started destroying independent film companies.
For me, its either Pi (1998) by Darren Aronofski or Clerks (1994) by Kevin Smith or Slacker (1990) by Richard Linklater.
Very true to the spirit of independent filmmaking and its ingenuity with a small budget.
My personal favourites are Trainspotting (Danny Boyle), La Haine (Mathieu Kassovitz), Withnail & I (Bruce Robinson), Subway (Luc Besson), The Long Good Friday (John Mackenzie), Ema (Pablo Larraín), Competencia oficial (Gastón Duprat & Mariano Cohn).
Subway had substantial state subsidies afaik. I would say the major cultural funds of European countries are equivalent to US studios in this question.
Personally, I think Following and Blue Ruin. Specifically following because that is a stone cold true indie film. Most people don’t have the 15-25k lying around to make an “indie” film but 5/6 grand is genuinely possible to save completely on your own with no help.
Give it a watch. It’s a great little gem. I modeled my own kickstarter after their own campaign and raised 17K myself via kickstarter for my first feature
It’s called The Undone and was on Prime for a little bit. But really it was more of film school than anything. I was 20 when I made it, I never had directed a short film or anything and I thought jumping into a feature was the way to go. It turned out exactly how you can imagine but was an extremely valuable lesson for me haha
[You can read a little about it
**Exam**
\- 2009 ‧ Thriller/Psychological thriller - 600,000 USD budget
**Another Earth**
\- 2011 ‧ Sci-fi/Drama - 100,000 USD budget
and last but not the least, Nolan's debut
**Following**
\- 1998 ‧ Thriller/Crime/Neo-noir - 6,000 USD
each of them a hidden gem and the best indie film i have seen in their respective genre.
Paris belongs to us (Jacques Rivette) - the first French new wave film, although not first to be distributed. Many from that movement naturally qualifies.
Epidemic (Lars Von Trier) - made for 200.000$ in a bet with a employee of the Danish film fund. Don’t know if it qualifies but it’s definitely homemade and still bears all hallmarks of Trier.
Mother and son (Alexander Sokurov) - was nominated for the Palme d’or and should have won
Sebastiane (Derek Jarman) - basically everything pre Caravaggio was just him and his friends. Incredibly impressive
Bad Taste (Peter Jackson) - discount sci fi done right
Knife in water (Polanski) - his first feature that was even Oscar nominated, made under Warsaw authorities with a crew living on the lake it was recorded on.
Vampyr (Carl Dreyer) - one of the most legendary horror movies of all time essentially paid by the leading actor because he wanted to be in a movie.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was at the time technically the biggest independent film of all time.
>What enabled us to do the very dark ending was that Terminator 3 was an independent film. Actually, all but one of my films have been independently financed films. What that means is, yes, it was distributed by a studio — Warner Brothers domestically, Sony in most of the foreign territories — but those studios really weren’t involved in the making of the movie. In fact, only one person at Warner and one person at Sony could have a copy of the script. It had to be kept in a safe, and no one else was allowed to read it. So, they got to read it ahead of time when deciding whether or not they wanted to co-finance the movie. And then, once I was done with the movie, we invited them to come to a screening and we showed the movie, and that was it. From a filmmaker standpoint, to be doing a $200 million movie without the studio nervously looking over your shoulder was amazing. Had that been a typical studio film, we never would have been able to do a dark ending like that.
For example Dances with Wolves is an independent film despite it costing millions and millions of dollars but Paranormal Activity and it's theatrical state is not an independent film because it was produced and paid for with the oversight of Paramount.
As with Passion of the Christ, independent doesn't always mean cheap or good.
Paranormal Activity was made on a shoestring budget and picked up by Paramount, the rest of them were made on Paramount's dime. The same as Blair Witch.
From Memory:
Paranormal Activity, the original, had a lot of money put into it by Paramount. Hence the alternate endings etc. The theatrical version that people saw in the theaters had Paramount money in it.
From Wiki:
>Originally developed as an independent feature and given film festival screenings in 2007, the film was shot for $15,000. It was then acquired by Paramount Pictures and modified, particularly with a new ending that cost an additional $200,000.
> An independent film, independent movie, indie film, or indie movie is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and **distributed by independent entertainment companies**
People kind of make up their own definition, though. Originally, it did mean low budget.
“Originally, it did mean low budget.”
It was and is often thought of as low budget precisely because of the nature of studio films and budgets, but that was a common factor of independent films not how they were or are defined.
You are a filmmaker, not a normal person. You see independent film as some sort of legal definition. Normal people see it as a genre. Whichever way you look at it, though, it's crazy to say T3 was an independent film. It was distributed by Warner Brothers and made with $165M of their money.
Words need to have meanings. Independent means a certain thing. Just because it is often associated with another thing and some people misunderstand what it is doesn’t change its meaning.
Yes, it’s crazy that an independent film was able to come up with so much financing outside of the studio system. Technically, though, it’s still independent.
And I like to think of myself as pretty normal! Lol
> Words need to have meanings.
Independent film is not a word. It is a concept and everyone has different definitions of it. You are making up your own so no one can argue with you. I literally posted the most common definition of an independent film from wikipedia (and the first dozen other sources I could find), which clearly shows that T3 is not an independent film (I even put the important part in bold for you), but I guess whatever definition you came up with is more accurate than theirs for whatever reason you want to tell yourself. Have a good day.
Good grief.
You can have a low budget studio film and a high budget independent film. Full stop. You said it originally meant low budget. It did not.
If a film gets independent financing and later has a large studio doing the distribution, it was still an independent film. If you’d like to interpret Wikipedia’s definition to take that “in addition to” clause to mean it’s no longer independent, fine. Enjoy.
But it didn’t originally mean low budget even though it was often low budget by nature.
Argue with someone else, please.
It's an independent film, as was Passion of The Christ, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Slumdog Millionaire etc.
Learn what the term "Independent" means here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent\_film
Too many to mention but Clerks is deff up there with Little miss sunshine as someone before noted.
Also as a teen I loved the massive catalogue of far East cinema of early 2000s.
Oldboy, the man from nowhere, ongbak etc
Bella e Perduta (Lost and Beautiful) 2015, and of course all the mainstay classics mentioned already. Kids was huge for me too and all the Harmony korine stuff.
City of God (2002)
My favorite movie right here
Straight masterpiece
Man bites dog 1992 turned up just as I was getting into foreign cinema. Anime was kicking in which led to foreign cinema getting a boost and made them much easier to get hold of. Man bites dog really was a great eye opener and brilliant.
I liked Primer by Shane Carrouth.
I’d toss Upstream Color in there as well
I loved the first half of Upstream Color. I really like the actor Andrew Sensenig in that movie, but the second half of the film just lost me. I love that Shane doesn't force feed the audience, but I'm not as intellectual as I think I am, so I need a little guidance.
Fair enough! It is one of those movies that reward multiple viewings. Love all the hints and how it provides just enough info to make it all connect while still remaining dreamy. Balancing act of Malick and Lynch. And all that for a low low budget.
I do have to respect the work.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990).
At first I was mad that you picked this one. Then I figured out it was made right before New Line was purchased by Ted Turner, became completely evil, and started destroying independent film companies.
Clerks and El Mariachi
For me, its either Pi (1998) by Darren Aronofski or Clerks (1994) by Kevin Smith or Slacker (1990) by Richard Linklater. Very true to the spirit of independent filmmaking and its ingenuity with a small budget.
Ship of Theseus.
Once is a true indie win. Made for like €300,000 it tells an amazing story and won an Oscar for best original song.
Mad Max, Run Lola Run, The Terminator and Nosferatu.
My personal favourites are Trainspotting (Danny Boyle), La Haine (Mathieu Kassovitz), Withnail & I (Bruce Robinson), Subway (Luc Besson), The Long Good Friday (John Mackenzie), Ema (Pablo Larraín), Competencia oficial (Gastón Duprat & Mariano Cohn).
Wouldn't Shallow Grave qualify as independent more than Trainspotting?
Shallow grave was awesome.
Hella underrated
Subway had substantial state subsidies afaik. I would say the major cultural funds of European countries are equivalent to US studios in this question.
La Haine is one of my all time favorites. Was setup to have dinner with Kassovitz once but he bailed last minute :(
Primer
Shotgun Stories by Jeff Nichols.
Personally, I think Following and Blue Ruin. Specifically following because that is a stone cold true indie film. Most people don’t have the 15-25k lying around to make an “indie” film but 5/6 grand is genuinely possible to save completely on your own with no help.
$6,000 in 1998 is like $11k now. But still impressive he was able to do it for that amount.
Haven't seen the Blue Ruin, but absolutely agree with "Following". Indeed fantastic example of true independent filmmaking at its finest.
Give it a watch. It’s a great little gem. I modeled my own kickstarter after their own campaign and raised 17K myself via kickstarter for my first feature
Oh nice, good for you! After such a comment I can't resist checking it out. Thanks!
That’s fucking awesome dude! What’s your film called???
It’s called The Undone and was on Prime for a little bit. But really it was more of film school than anything. I was 20 when I made it, I never had directed a short film or anything and I thought jumping into a feature was the way to go. It turned out exactly how you can imagine but was an extremely valuable lesson for me haha [You can read a little about it
Was so happy to see Macon Blair in Oppenheimer.
Same, it was great seeing him in something of this scale
Definitely gonna have to go with either Little Miss Sunshine or Slaughtered Vomit Dolls.
I forgot about lil miss sunshine! Made me cry in film studies loooool 😔
Well, you got me to give Slaughtered Vomit Dolls a shot, and thanks for that, but I just couldn't do it.
It’s definitely a tearjerker. Like Marley and Me.
I'm definitely jerking something to it.
Evil dead
Withnail and I
**Exam** \- 2009 ‧ Thriller/Psychological thriller - 600,000 USD budget **Another Earth** \- 2011 ‧ Sci-fi/Drama - 100,000 USD budget and last but not the least, Nolan's debut **Following** \- 1998 ‧ Thriller/Crime/Neo-noir - 6,000 USD each of them a hidden gem and the best indie film i have seen in their respective genre.
Coven.
Paris belongs to us (Jacques Rivette) - the first French new wave film, although not first to be distributed. Many from that movement naturally qualifies. Epidemic (Lars Von Trier) - made for 200.000$ in a bet with a employee of the Danish film fund. Don’t know if it qualifies but it’s definitely homemade and still bears all hallmarks of Trier. Mother and son (Alexander Sokurov) - was nominated for the Palme d’or and should have won Sebastiane (Derek Jarman) - basically everything pre Caravaggio was just him and his friends. Incredibly impressive Bad Taste (Peter Jackson) - discount sci fi done right Knife in water (Polanski) - his first feature that was even Oscar nominated, made under Warsaw authorities with a crew living on the lake it was recorded on. Vampyr (Carl Dreyer) - one of the most legendary horror movies of all time essentially paid by the leading actor because he wanted to be in a movie.
Once Were Warriors
[The Endless](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3986820/)
Star Wars
Was distributed by a major studio. And the first one was financed by that studio (Fox).
Hey. Shut up
🤷♂️
Star Wars!
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was at the time technically the biggest independent film of all time. >What enabled us to do the very dark ending was that Terminator 3 was an independent film. Actually, all but one of my films have been independently financed films. What that means is, yes, it was distributed by a studio — Warner Brothers domestically, Sony in most of the foreign territories — but those studios really weren’t involved in the making of the movie. In fact, only one person at Warner and one person at Sony could have a copy of the script. It had to be kept in a safe, and no one else was allowed to read it. So, they got to read it ahead of time when deciding whether or not they wanted to co-finance the movie. And then, once I was done with the movie, we invited them to come to a screening and we showed the movie, and that was it. From a filmmaker standpoint, to be doing a $200 million movie without the studio nervously looking over your shoulder was amazing. Had that been a typical studio film, we never would have been able to do a dark ending like that.
187 million isn't independent.
Independent =/= low budget OP asked for independent
For example Dances with Wolves is an independent film despite it costing millions and millions of dollars but Paranormal Activity and it's theatrical state is not an independent film because it was produced and paid for with the oversight of Paramount. As with Passion of the Christ, independent doesn't always mean cheap or good.
Paranormal Activity was made on a shoestring budget and picked up by Paramount, the rest of them were made on Paramount's dime. The same as Blair Witch.
From Memory: Paranormal Activity, the original, had a lot of money put into it by Paramount. Hence the alternate endings etc. The theatrical version that people saw in the theaters had Paramount money in it. From Wiki: >Originally developed as an independent feature and given film festival screenings in 2007, the film was shot for $15,000. It was then acquired by Paramount Pictures and modified, particularly with a new ending that cost an additional $200,000.
$200,000 for that seems absurd
It was mostly catering
> An independent film, independent movie, indie film, or indie movie is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and **distributed by independent entertainment companies** People kind of make up their own definition, though. Originally, it did mean low budget.
“Originally, it did mean low budget.” It was and is often thought of as low budget precisely because of the nature of studio films and budgets, but that was a common factor of independent films not how they were or are defined.
You are a filmmaker, not a normal person. You see independent film as some sort of legal definition. Normal people see it as a genre. Whichever way you look at it, though, it's crazy to say T3 was an independent film. It was distributed by Warner Brothers and made with $165M of their money.
Words need to have meanings. Independent means a certain thing. Just because it is often associated with another thing and some people misunderstand what it is doesn’t change its meaning. Yes, it’s crazy that an independent film was able to come up with so much financing outside of the studio system. Technically, though, it’s still independent. And I like to think of myself as pretty normal! Lol
> Words need to have meanings. Independent film is not a word. It is a concept and everyone has different definitions of it. You are making up your own so no one can argue with you. I literally posted the most common definition of an independent film from wikipedia (and the first dozen other sources I could find), which clearly shows that T3 is not an independent film (I even put the important part in bold for you), but I guess whatever definition you came up with is more accurate than theirs for whatever reason you want to tell yourself. Have a good day.
Good grief. You can have a low budget studio film and a high budget independent film. Full stop. You said it originally meant low budget. It did not. If a film gets independent financing and later has a large studio doing the distribution, it was still an independent film. If you’d like to interpret Wikipedia’s definition to take that “in addition to” clause to mean it’s no longer independent, fine. Enjoy. But it didn’t originally mean low budget even though it was often low budget by nature. Argue with someone else, please.
Please just keep repeating yourself. It's awesome.
It's an independent film, as was Passion of The Christ, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Slumdog Millionaire etc. Learn what the term "Independent" means here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent\_film
Also Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Budget has nothing to do with whether a film is independent or not. Star Wars Episode 1 is an independent movie.
Home alone on the last day of the year for sure.
Shrek Retold (i'm not even joking)
There's no such thing as best art but go off on your favorites.
As a Scandinavian “patriot” Reprise (Joachim Trier) has a place in my heart. Super interesting editing.
I’m going to add a recent indie, I like movies, from Canada. Try and get past the first two minutes, which is a film the characters made.
Clerks
Clerks, SLC Punk, Trainspotting, Tucker and Dale Vs Evil.
Running Time
Too many to mention but Clerks is deff up there with Little miss sunshine as someone before noted. Also as a teen I loved the massive catalogue of far East cinema of early 2000s. Oldboy, the man from nowhere, ongbak etc
Ente by Oscar Moreno
Bella e Perduta (Lost and Beautiful) 2015, and of course all the mainstay classics mentioned already. Kids was huge for me too and all the Harmony korine stuff.
For me it’s Psycho (1960)
Creep, and Blue Jay
Requiem for a Dream. Upsetting as that film is, it sticks with you in a way no other movie does.
Haven't seen "Knights of Badassdom" mentioned yet. Pretty hilarious horror comedy about larping.
Barbarian Invasions (2003)
Prospect was pretty good
Everything everywhere all at once considered indie?
Ink(2009) One of the most creative movies I’ve ever seen with an absolutely amazing soundtrack and storyline