Indie in Name Only?

I hesitate to call myself an “independent filmmaker.”

Sure, that is what I am, but the world of independent or “indie” film has, for lack of a better word, been hijacked.

I struggle to consider what I do, making movies for under $20K, similar in anyway to someone making a $4M project (or $30M if you consider the Indie Spirit Awards eligibility budget cap to be what financially defines an independent film).

Indie film has become a genre and an aesthetic – something trendy “to do” – rather than a spirit and a drive, and the things making these films “independent” are really stretching the ethos of what this anti-industry once stood for.

BOTTOM FEEDERS – Now Available to Rent or Buy on Vimeo On Demand.

“…a low-key depiction of working-class Americana…with the main underlying idea of what people will do to get through the crushing existence of the now.”
-Cain Noble-Davies, FilmInk Magazine pic.twitter.com/66YcvqLhK9

— Vincent D’Alessandro (@VincentDaless) April 4, 2025

Independent film, as I see it, are movies that are not “supposed” to be made. Sometimes the stories are abrasive, the characters unpolished and too realistic for an audience to palette. They’re often backed by limited financial resources, and top billing is reserved for festival laurels as opposed to an actor’s name.

And yet, due to a filmmaker’s brute force and will, these movies are made. They represent, in some regard, the purest form of filmmaking, void of a bias or comfort an audience is afforded by the familiar faces and conventions of a studio film.

Celebrity influence on independent film was once reserved to a select few, Hopper-esque figures, who made it their mission to go against the grain. Once it became evident the work in indie film was often far superior to that being made by the mainstream, more marketable actors joined the movement, made some great work and brought exposure to some incredible filmmakers.

But that, too, had a price.

More actors wanted in on the action. Moreover, they wanted in on the acclaim. Indie film budgets started to balloon, making room for the comforts an A-lister might be used to.

Independent film festivals began embracing the idea of celebrity Q&As selling out screenings, programing not only films that had a marketable hook, but films that may have already acquired distribution prior to being programmed.

RELATED: THE UNSEEN STRUGGLES IN INDIE FILMS

As these films started to stack the deck, more and more projects whose main goal of being included in a festival was to acquire distribution, but lacked the big name and the aesthetic polish that was afforded by these much larger productions, were no longer in the programming conversation.

This led arthouse distributors, often autonomous sub-companies of larger corporations that once championed scrappy contributions to the medium, to respond similarly in what they acquired. Their inventory was based on what the festivals were programming, and once the film festivals stopped being indie, so did the distributors.

They made it clear they were no longer in the business of unvetted acquisitions, henceforth committing to their own version of the “indie”: more polished, more famous and a lot less risky.

This opened a door many non-industry filmmakers saw as an answer.

Aggregators parading as “indie” or “arthouse” distributors, with mission statements that were designed to make a low-budget filmmaker salivate, began popping up like crab grass, trying to fill the void these festivals and distributors created when they abandoned the films that once defined them.

This was a group of loud, brash and overly confident business school grads trying to capitalize on the hundreds of titles that no longer fit into the independent film model because they were too independent. They claimed to be the antithesis of the system; the punk rock last hope for the fruitful exhibition of bonafide indie cinema.

But if you take a moment to look through The Film Collaborative Distribution Report Card, an extensive library of anonymous experiences, written by filmmakers who’ve worked with a variety of these so called distributors, you’ll realize there was nothing punk rock about it. In fact, a handful of these first-hand experiences illustrate oppressive and highly disappointing behavior by these aggregators that in no way represent their respective mission statements.

But at least the films found distribution…right?

A fate similar to the arthouse distributors of yesteryear befell many of these aggregators. They shuttered their operations, but less so due to a refocusing of the industry, suffering fatal exposés of fraud and mismanagement.

Some still remain, and all who cross them should really question how much the clout of their film being “acquired” measures against its autonomy.

As the dust settles on these fading opportunists, it is the Hollywood-adjacent indie that is the last standing in the arena. An arena they own, operate, and manipulate to look like whatever they want it to. An arena they will maintain, polish and protect to their comfort, forcing an obscene amount of great work to remain obscure and unseen.

So now, J.Lo walks down a red carpet at Sundance, (the same festival that busted Richard Linklater onto the scene with the micro-budget “Slacker”), Cannes (where Larry Clark and Harmony Korine defined a generation with KIDS) feels inclined to screen the latest blockbuster mammoth, SXSW (the sacred ground where Joe Swanberg’s “Kissing on the Mouth” birthed the mumblecore genre) showcases the latest Apple TV+ pilots, and Netflix has the second most nominations at the Indie Spirit Awards.

They’re all indie, man!

So yes, I do struggle calling myself an independent filmmaker, as so many others are successfully using the moniker, being recognized by the media at large for their contribution to independent filmmaking, when there is nothing remotely close to independent in how they operate and make films.

Has the term been used and abused to the extent it is now meaningless? I hope not. I hope it can be reclaimed, because it is the truest and most appropriate indicator to emphasize the legitimacy of our independence from any mainstream entity or process.

Until then, I’ll try to channel my inner Hopper and continue pushing against the grain, shining a light on the absurdities of an industry that is in a constant state of conquest.

Vincent D’Alessandro is a micro-budget filmmaker, whose first feature film BOTTOM FEEDERS, is now available to rent or buy on Vimeo On Demand. He is a graduate of the BFA Filmmaking program at Rutgers University, and his short films have played at the BFI Future Film Festival, NFFTY, and NewFilmmakers New York. For more info, visit: www.vincentdalessandro.com.

The post Indie in Name Only? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.