Okay, I'm catching up here on this whole blog thing, but I just read Anthony Kaufman's fine rant on The Passion of the Christ and figured I'd join the rumble.

First, let me also admit that I have not seen The Passion of the Christ nor do I feel compelled to do so (twelve years of Catholic school education is quite enough, thank you). I do, however, have problems with using the word "indie" to describe what the film is rather than as a description for how the film was financed and made.

"Independent" is not a genre. Independent films are comedies, dramas, horror films, thrillers, mysteries, documentaries, family films, and more. Some of them are profound, others are trite. Some of them are brilliant and many of them are terrible. A few of them even reflect "the experiences of those on the margins of society," as Anthony writes, but let's face it -- the vast majority of them do not.

In fact, the only thing that links "indie" films together is that they are financed and made outside the studio system. It is time to separate issues of quality from the term "independent." Hollywood has churned out a great film or two and independents have produced a lot of crap. Mel Gibson financed and made his torture-fest outside the studio system and that makes it independent, regardless of how much money he has in his bank account. Same goes for George Lucas. The man finances his movies himself, controls every aspect of production and has final cut. He is an independent filmmaker. You may not like his movies, you may think they are no better than the latest Hollywood flick hogging up the screens at the multiplex, but they are independent movies.

Obviously, movies like The Passion of the Christ and the Star Wars flicks are special cases when it comes to release patterns of independent films, as they do share more in terms of content and style with Hollywood than the typical indie film. I can understand why indieWIRE might decide not to track these movies in their charts, but if you attempt to apply the criteria of "indie" as a genre, then what of the Kill Bill movies, financed by Disney via Miramax? Should those movies be considered "independent?" I'd argue they are not.

Clearly this is an important discussion for a media outlet calling itself indieWIRE. So what is indieWIRE's official criteria for determining whether a film is "independent" or not?

Great Kaufman rant and a great post here. It clears a lot up in my mind about independent films and what qualifies them as such...

Very good points.

Thanks, Mike!