Youtube.com A New Independent Independent Cinema
The creation of Internet video forums like YouTube.com over the past two years has arguably redefined what has reach to be favorite as the “independent film” genre. These Internet video forums are swiftly supplanting the independent film genre with a newer and arguably more “independent” type of film by providing an alternative that better fits the generally accepted definition of the genre than does the fresh. The fade in which the truly independent film available on sites like YouTube.com begins to bear the space previously inhabited by independent film provides a contemporary example of what can result from the tension that exists between the two perspectives for approaching cultural studies outlined by Rivkin and Ryan in Literary Theory: An Anthology.
Before examining the plot in which this trend within the film community illustrates such tension, however, we must first establish the fact that such a trend exists. In contemporary discourse, independent films are generally those films that have minimal production budgets, are produced by small film studios, are less commercially driven and are more artistic than mainstream Hollywood films. Specifically, movies are considered “independent” if they are produced at least in allotment by a subsidiary of a larger studio, such as the specialty film division of Sony Pictures called Sony Pictures Classics, as long as less than half of the overall production budget comes from such a major motion picture company subsidiary (“Independent Film”). Independent film first appeared as a recognizable entity in the United States in 1909 when nickelodeon owner Carle Laemmle founded the Independent Motion Picture Company as a reaction to the oligopoly Thomas Edison had over the film industry (Thompson and Bordwell 40-41). From there, the independent film genre grew, fueled by the work of pioneers like Oscar Micheaux. As Paula J. Massood writes in Black City Cinema:
Micheaux self-financed his early films, retaining complete control over every stage of their production, distribution and exhibition. He remained fiercely independent, refusing to accept White financial befriend until he declared bankruptcy in the post-Depression 1930s, when he was forced to solicit outside backing. (Massood 47)
As Massood’s statement illustrates, even in the face of financial ruin a hardcore independent filmmaker, though he might solicit monetary help from a member of the dominant racial status, would not submit to the major motion picture companies, unlike the worn “independent film” genre of our contemporary moment (47).
Using the better-known Internet video forum YouTube.com as an example, the way in which the main function of this Web community, specifically as a distribution site for independent independent films (those created by your average Joe), now better fits the popular notion of independent film than the term’s traditional occupant does becomes increasingly clear. YouTube.com, founded in February of 2005, promotes itself as, “the premier destination to watch and share original videos worldwide through a Web experience” (“About YouTube”). According to the site’s literature, “Everyone can watch videos on YouTube,” and combined with the fact that everyone can also share videos on the site, YouTube.com is now the modern-day equivalent of the control afforded independent filmmakers like Oscar Micheaux over all aspects of the film process-production (conception, financing, etc.) and distribution-during the 1920s and 1930s (“About YouTube,” emphasis added).
For students of film-whether self-taught or produced by a college, university, or film school-the birth of YouTube.com was the birth of a tall distribution network for the explosion of films being produced due to the advent and increasing affordability of digital video cameras over the past twenty years. As Steve Chen, a co-founder and the CTO of YouTube.com, pointed out in an interview, “YouTube has removed the barriers for people to move their videos off their devices and onto the Internet. As well as making it easy to upload, our advanced video-clustering and highly-scalable technology is ensuring that watching and sharing videos is fast and fun anywhere on the Internet” (“YouTube opens…”). If the popularity of such an Internet independent film distribution network (by its second active month in 2005 the site was already serving over three million videos, the majority of which were original features created by individuals) isn’t evidence enough that these Internet video forums are snappy replacing the traditional independent circuit, then the fact that the site is following in the footsteps of the traditional independent film genre in recently establishing its own video awards, the YouTube Video Awards, should do the trick (“YouTube Rolls…”).
Now that we have reasonably established the fact that a trend in which Internet video forums are supplanting the independent film genre as more independent independent film, we can question how this trend serves as a contemporary example of what can result from the tension that exists between the two perspectives for approaching cultural studies outlined by Rivkin and Ryan in their discussion of this particular literary theory. As Rivkin and Ryan assert, “Cultural Studies can thus be approached from two quite incommensurable perspectives,” in the simplest terms, the perspective that views culture as created by society’s elite, as trickling down from the top, and the alternative perspective that views culture as created by the masses, constituted from the bottom up (1234). The design in which Internet video forums like YouTube.com and Break.com are taking over the previous position of “independent film” within the broad discipline of film medium as “independent film” becomes increasingly more mainstream as previously discussed provides us with an excellent example of the result of tension between these two cultural studies perspectives.
In the current context, Internet video forums like YouTube.com represent culture as constituted by the masses, while the old independent film genre has now moved out of that perspective and into the one in which culture trickles down from the elite members of society. “Culture comes from below, and while it can be harnessed in profitable and ultimately socially conservative ways,” write Rivkin and Ryan, “it also represents the permanent possibility of eruption, of dissonance, and of alternative imagination of reality” (1234). The idea of culture coming “from below” presented by Rivkin and Ryan is exemplified by the novel independent film movement promoted by Internet video forums that ultimately have created a new type of distribution space as previously discussed for budding filmmakers working out of their own homes, offices, and dorm rooms. As the founders of sites like YouTube.com assert, these Internet video forums are for the people, of the people and by the people, not speed or owned to any degree by major motion picture corporations, a claim that films of the traditional independent film genre can no longer make.
The original level of involvement of major motion picture corporations in the production of “independent film” as well as the overall popularity of these films and the frequency with which they are now being included among the nominees for prestigious Hollywood awards like the Oscars and the Academy Awards is evidence of the move made by the genre since its idea from being a tool of the people to being more representative of the trickle-down perspective on cultural institutions. Rivkin and Ryan address this trickle-down perspective in their discussion of cultural studies, writing that it:
[S]ees the media, television, film, and the like as instruments of economic… domination. Owned by large corporations and largely run by men, the media and the entertainment industry in general cannot help but succor the reproduction of the social system by allowing only certain kinds of imagery and ideas to gain access to mass audiences. (1234)
Arguably the fact that films deemed “independent” by the traditional definition of the genre, including a diverse body ranging from Pulp Fiction (1994) to the unique hit Little Miss Sunshine (2006) that was nominated for several Academy Awards, films that are now generally thought of as mainstream Hollywood pictures due to all-star casts and box office success, have become so popular over the past fifteen years among U.S. citizens indicates the way in which the genre is increasingly working to “assist the reproduction of the social system by allowing only certain kinds of imagery and ideas to acquire access to mass audiences,” as Rivkin and Ryan assert. In other words, these “independent” films are celebrated because they look more and more like the films out of Hollywood produced by major motion picture corporations.
It is fortunate for aspiring filmmakers living in our contemporary society that Internet video forums like YouTube.com exist. Without these innovative sites, these forums for the new independent independent genre that is promoting the bottom-up production of culture, those individuals who do utilize these communities would be out of luck as far as the widespread distribution of their independently made films is concerned. In the wake of the increasing control being asserted over the traditional independent film genre by the powers that be in Hollywood, opportunities for young, aspiring filmmakers are diminishing as the trickle down effect of cultural institutionalization takes hold. Without Web forums like YouTube.com, the types of opportunities once available to individuals like Oscar Micheaux, individuals that ultimately become some of the most influential figures in the history of cinema, would be lost forever. The expect that remains unanswered, however, is what the future holds for the new independent film and whether it, too, will be a victim of the trickle-down forces of our society’s elite?
Works Cited
“About YouTube.” YouTube.com. 2007. YouTube, Inc. 28 Mar. 2007 .
“Independent film.” Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. 29 Mar. 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 Mar. 2007 .
Massood, Paula J. Black City Cinema: African American Urban Experiences in Film. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003.
Rivkin, Julie, and Ryan, Michael, eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2004.
Thompson, Kristen, and Bordwell, David. Film History: An Introduction. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2003.
“YouTube opens Internet video to the masses.” YouTube.com. 2007. YouTube, Inc. 28 Mar. 2007 .
“YouTube Rolls Out the Red Carpet in Celebration of the Inaugural YouTube Video Awards.” YouTube.com. 2007. YouTube, Inc. 28 Mar. 2007 .
Related Posts
Filed under Monopoly Bankruptcy by on Mar 19th, 2011. 
Leave a Comment