(Un) Indie Film: Rethinking Independent Cinema

Independent Cinema is seeing a great deal of interest nowadays precisely for it’s name—independent. This claim sure has a lot of problems for it is not inherently clear as to what one means when referring to it. It should only mean that there is a profound interest in anything that goes beyond the ordinary. There is an obsession for anything that tries to break out of the system and this may be good or bad for Philippine cinema. We’ll attempt to crack into these possibilities.

The question of independence deserves a more elaborate theoretical framework—we’ll not attempt it here. The task at hand is to identify sites of contestation in the label independent and possibly see the reason for the need for such.

It is important to understand that independent filmmaking essentially started with Manuel Conde’s effort to break out of the studio system. While he did it successfully, it is unclear if he was aware he was being “independent” or if he’d even appreciate the label. It is possible that he didn’t even care. He just wanted to make films and found more freedom outside the studio system. In any case, the label is understandably a postmodern construction for the era is addicted to labels and is multifarious.

It’s also interesting to look into the dichotomy of art as art and art as catalyst for social change which I think should not be mutually exclusive at all. For the sake of discussion, this dichotomy has the very essence of why independent films exist. It is in defying the extremity of either pole that filmmakers wanted to break out of. But it is this dichotomy that positions the form in an awkward situation where the art is reduced to merely just being for art’s sake or for social change. Although potentially powerful, the dichotomy must be rethought.

Also within the postmodern take is the blurring of tasks. Because the technology of independent filmmaking is more fluid in terms of its production process, a one-man film (a definite impossible task of the past) is now possible. The obscure relations and forces of production in the independent film process is consistent with the postmodern discourse of democratization of art and how to effectively permeate cultural dimensions within the globalized world. Between these lines, we see a consistent pattern of present world cultural systems that rely on exchanges and assimmilation. It is, thus, important to look into film without the burden of the label and with a watchful eye.

The critic is then interrogated. How do you valuate a film based on such relations of production? If there is a blurring of tasks, if there is democratization of art, how does one set the standards? The role of the critic in valuation is to identify consistencies and relevance in such works. No art is independent from the subject and the subjectivities that translate through the artwork should be examined apart from the formal production and exclusivity. The aestheticization should be born out of the experience and not the system of production although the latter would definitely play a part in the judgment.

The star system cannot be neglected by any attempt to breakout of the mainstream. The cultural potential is just too powerful. This is why independent films still subscribe to it (although indirectly) to fuel interest and be recognized. It is crucial for any attempt at divergence to recognize the potentially useful in the current system and integrate this to the newer form. It is this rationale that may explain why independent films’ popularity is still dependent on big names and big names dependent on independent films. This relationship is symbiotic and is essential.

It seems to me that an unspoken importance in independent filmmaking is the need to exploit the gay discourse. The need is logical. It is controversial (to stir interest), it is “empowering (for justification),” and it is “relatively accepted (to sell).” If anything in independent cinema is pretentious, this would definitely be it. The obsession to record a person kissing (or more) of the same sex in a film that formally claims its deviance to the mainstream does not empower the homosexual but associates the gay discourse to secondary status. What it does is further isolate the gay argument to a state of irrevocable immorality and unacceptability while overshadowing this with the label “independent.” The homosexual is then reduced to a mere marketing tool and entertainment with his “unusual ways.”

In more ways than one, the concept of independent cinema in the Philippines (or any country for that matter) is a contestable one. It is not merely technology determining the relations of production but more of intersubjectivities being reduced to a monolithic one. The art form must be relieved of this label if film in the Philippines is to be truly independent.