'Indies' overtake big studios at Oscars

In this year's Oscar race, familiar Hollywood names have been replaced by previously unknown writers, producers and directors, many of whom gained attention through their work in small-budget films.

Directors Joel Coen (Fargo) and Anthony Minghella (The English Patient) are just a few of the new names on the director's ballot. Billy Bob Thornton's effort, Sling Blade, launched him into fame and into the running for both best actor and best screenplay.

As a result, this year's awards are being hailed as the Year of the Independent Film. But just how "independent" are they?

"The question of what is an independent film is getting more hazy," said Pat Trimble, associate professor of integrative arts. "The major studios are beginning to realize that there is a market for small, prestigious art films."

Of the five films nominated for Best Picture, only one, Jerry Maguire, was completely financed and supported by a major Hollywood studio, Columbia TriStar. The remaining four -- The English Patient, Fargo, Secrets & Lies and Shine -- were made outside of the conventional studio system.

The English Patient was produced by Miramax films after Twentieth Century Fox, withdrew financing. Fargo's $7 million budget was supported by Gramercy Pictures, a small distribution company. Secrets & Lies and Shine were both produced without studio assistance and were picked up for distribution by October Films and Fine Line Pictures, respectively.

Each one of these studios, with the exception of October Films, is backed by a large corporation. Miramax is a division of Walt Disney Pictures; Fine Line is owned by Ted Turner's New Line Cinema; and Gramercy is part of Polygram Filmed Entertainment.

Because of the association with big companies, some members of the film community have said many of these movies are not as "indie" as they seem.

Heather Hartley, instructor of film and video, said her experience working on small-budget films led her to arrive at her own definition of independent films.

"A true independent film means that the filmmaker raised the money themselves and has ultimate control over how it's cut and presented," she said.

By that criteria, she said, The English Patient, since it was financed Miramax Films, is not actually an independent film.

Student Film Organization president Rich Cottrell (junior-film and video), said independents don't require a strict definition. He noted that mainstream movies such as John Carpenter's 1978 horror film Halloween and George Lucas' upcoming Star Wars movies are independent productions.

"People perceive independents as low-budget and badly acted, yet that's not necessarily true," Cottrell said. "A lot of them are actually big movies."

The blurring of the lines between what is "mainstream" and what is "independent" has caused some controversy in Hollywood.

In a year in which big studio films such as The Crucible and Evita were overlooked in the bigger categories and small movies gained prominent nominations, some studio executives have complained that independent movies are not quite what they seem.

One anonymous executive, whose studio had only a handful of nominations this year, complained to The New York Times that films backed by big companies are not independent.

"All the major studios have some small branch which produces small art films," Trimble said. "That doesn't mean they are always real independent films."

Major studios, and often their divisions, are not capable of really understanding certain filmmakers' needs, Hartley said.

"I don't think that Hollywood can scale back to do small films," she said. "Hollywood will try to incorporate good ideas that come from the independent film world."

Cottrell, however, said despite Hollywood's newfound attention for the independent market, the two worlds can coexist.

"The big movies usually tell a different type of story (than the independents)," he said. "As long as other stories are being told, that's fine."