For the second time now I’ve read a reference to indie movies. An article about a movie star (I forget who) said she’d be in an indie movie. Huh?
Indie is short for “independant”. With smaller budgets, some indie films end up being good acting showcases for performers, rather than slick special effects movies, so many actors will do them for scale to gain or increase a reputation as a serious thespian. Think “Clerks” or “Dogma”.
“Independent” of the big movie studios that is. Indie films are usually first shown at film festivals (Sundance, Cannes, etc.) where the indie-friendly studios (Miramax, Artisan, Lion’s Gate) can see them. If they like what they see, they buy the film, maybe polish the rough edges, then release it. Until the film’s bought, all the costs are paid by the producers, and if the film doesn’t sell, they’re screwed. Lots of risk, but they usually believe in the result.
Contrast this to a normal studio film. It is developed by producers, but is sold to a studio before a frame of film is shot. The risk to the producers is much less – because that risk is transferred to the studios. They pick up the whole tab. Since the studios are big old public companies, they are very conservative and try to avoid the risk by doing star vehicles, sequels and other such formulaic crap. This attitude is what makes indie films necessary (and what often makes them better).
Hope that makes sense…