MEDIA ARTS: My Own Private Idaho: Are independent films ‘against Hollywood’?
by Samuel Harris
Sherry B. Ortner (2012) suggests that American independent filmmakers produce films that are, in many respects, ‘against Hollywood’. How does My Own Private Idaho both reinforce and problematise this proposition?
‘Independent’ is a term that has been used constantly to describe a huge range of films throughout cinematic history. Despite its frequent use in the industry for marketing, advertising, journalism and film studies, what classifies as an independent film is difficult to pin down. American cultural anthropologist Sherry B. Ortner (2012) suggests that American independent filmmakers produce films that are in opposition to Hollywood. This essay will explore what defines an independent film and investigate how Gus Van Sant’s 1992 cult classic My Own Private Idaho (Van Sant, 1992) both reinforces and problematises Ortner’s suggestion.
To be able to define what constitutes an independent film it is necessary to look at the history. Independent films have been produced since the inception of filmmaking. Professor Geoff King writes of independent film during this period; ‘at its earliest, the term was used to describe producers operating in the shadow of the three companies- Edison, Biograph and Vitagraph- that dominated the film business in the 1890s and 1900s’ (2003, p. 3). He goes onto explain that even these early filmmakers were constantly under threat of legal action. This meant that ‘even from this early stage, the term “independent” gained romantic connotation, signifying the brave efforts of rebels fighting against a powerful trust’ (2003, p. 3). While independent filmmakers are no longer under the legal threat, the rebellious attitude is a vitally important part of the identity of independent films to this day.
Filmmaker and Professor, Manthia Diawara, writes of another key period that shaped not just independent cinema but the whole film industry: ‘in the late 1950s a group of French youth, who were dissatisfied with commercial films and wanted to make their own films mobilized personal funds along with government funds to produce low-budget films’ (1993, p. 3). These filmmakers offered an alternative to commercial cinema which was much more focussed on story, acting, personality, technique, and film form. This group also changed the way the director was viewed, bringing them to the forefront. The way the relationship between the director and their film was treated much more like a painter to a painting, or an author to a book as a result. This lead the way to ‘auteur’ theory, a term coined by director François Truffaut, who was part of the group, in 1955. This group would be known as the highly influential French New Wave, whose approach to filmmaking would shape the way films are made to this day. The French New Wave came to their vocation for two core reasons: politics and art, reasons that many would argue are central to the making of any independent films. They were politically frustrated with ‘cinema’s lack of courage to address certain issues’, so they made films addressing these issues themselves and were keen to ‘explore new ways of telling stories… to experiment with the camera… and engage the infinite possibilities of storytelling’ (Diawara, 1993, p. 6). Diawara notes that this is not the only instance of important alternative and independent filmmakers making an impact of this kind. Other examples he mentions include Italian Neorealism, and the Brazilian Cinema Novo, and how they too ‘created alternative narrative techniques that were at first unknown to commercial cinemas, but are claimed today as part of traditional narrative practises’ (Diawara, 1993, p. 6). While these examples are important, the French New Wave was by far the most influential movement for independent cinema.
Sherry B. Ortner’s definition builds on Geoff King’s and the French New Wave’s concepts of independent cinema to put together an argument that defines an independent as ‘the antithesis of a Hollywood studio film’ (2012, p. 2). She goes onto explain that this contrast can be seen through a number of features that set independent films apart from Hollywood films: a low budget, subject matter and techniques that challenge viewers as opposed to solely entertaining them, a politically explicit and critical point of view, avoiding fantasy and illusion in favour of a documentary or highly realist approach, and few happy endings (2012, p. 2). This point is further developed with Ortner detailing that the American independent films of the 1980s onwards articulate and embody ‘cultural critique’, as a product of larger social changes in American society and culture. ‘Dark and violent films about the misery of work in the new economy, or about the dysfunctionality of families in a world of absent parents’, are examples of ‘stories that Hollywood is almost never willing to tell, about the fraying social fabric of American society’ (2012, p. 18). It is with regard to these elements that I will measure whether Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho (1992) can be regarded as an independent film.
My Own Private Idaho (Van Sant) is a 1992 drama that follows a gay street hustler who suffers from narcolepsy and is loosely based around the Shakespeare’s plays about Henry IV and Henry V. The film stars River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves, both of whom were already big Hollywood stars and teen heart throbs at the time. First and foremost, the film is widely regarded as one of the most prominent and successful films of the New Queer Cinema. This is a term coined by B. Ruby Rich (1992) with reference to a rise in ‘queer’ themed independent films being made and screened in the early 1990s. The term ‘queer’ is used in this context to films that follow gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender experiences and perspectives. The New Queer Cinema was a result of both the impact of HIV/ AIDS pandemic in the 1980s and the cinematic influence of queer filmmakers such as Andy Warhol, Jack Smith, and Derek Jarman. In the article, Rich looks at the kind of work being produced and shown at film festivals, and remarks that ‘suddenly there was a flock of films that were doing something new, renegotiating subjectivities, annexing whole genres, revising histories in their image. All through the winter, spring, summer and now autumn the message has been loud and clear: queer is hot’ (1992). While the article does not directly address whether the film should be classified as independent its mentioning would suggest that Rich regards the film as part of this ‘moment’ in independent cinema, as well as holding the film in high regard: ‘not that I’d begrudge Gus Van Sant one penny or remove a single frame’ (1992). The fact the film follows people that belong to a sexual minority, supports the argument that the film is ‘against Hollywood’, as Hollywood films rarely explore queer experience or identity or feature queer characters or actors.
However, this is not the only type of subject matter and story that My Own Private Idaho embraces that ‘Hollywood is almost never willing to tell’ (Ortner, 2012, p. 18). As mentioned earlier, one of the film’s central characters, played by River Phoenix, has narcolepsy. This is made instantly apparent with the film opening on a dictionary page which defines the disability as ‘a condition characterized by brief attacks of deep sleep’. This condition is used throughout the film and plays a big role in the narrative, giving the film an almost episodic structure. This amount of focus on the experience of somebody with a health condition is also very atypical with disabled people being another marginal part of American society that only seems to get explored outside of Hollywood. Yet another instance of this would be the nature in which prostitution is presented in the film. The film contains several sexually explicit scenes which would be controversial were they part of a mainstream Hollywood film. In the case of prostitution in Hollywood, the only examples would rarely be referred to with words such as ‘prostitute’ or ‘sex worker’, and even more rarely be presented without negative judgement by the filmmakers.
The honest and unfiltered view that My Own Private Idaho has on a number of these topics including mental health, murder, stealing, and drug use is another factor in supporting Ortner’s argument that the independent films of the 1980s onwards ‘represented a critical cultural movement, an attempt to critique the dominant culture (represented by Hollywood) through the film’ (2012, p. 3).
However, it is not just the subject matter itself that is ‘difficult’ for viewers, but also the cinematic form itself according to Ortner’s definition. Professor Christine Holmlund also addresses how independent film is synonymous with ‘aesthetic experimentation- a distinctive visual look, an unusual narrative pattern, a self-reflexive style’ (2004, p. 2). While My Own Private Idaho is not the most experimental film in terms of form, it does include examples of aesthetic experimentation. Throughout the film, claustrophobic cinematography that scarcely gets any more distant than a mid-shot, creates an almost uncomfortable amount of space and highlight characters’ vulnerability. Eery yodelling music is used throughout the film to give certain sequences quirky, dreamy tones that are perhaps inspired by One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Forman, 1975) which also uses music of this kind to similar effect and is critical of American culture and society. Strange dream sequences are used throughout the film to show the mental confusion and conflict within River Phoenix’s character, Mike. These sequences show sped up clouds moving through the sky, the American countryside where he grew up and other memories of his childhood with his mother that he cannot tell are real or imagined. This kind of commitment to a character’s psychology through film form is a rare sight in Hollywood.
The way the film approaches sexual scenes is experimental too. Early in the film Mike is receiving oral sex where only his face and legs are shot. The end of the sexual act is apparent when the shot of Mike’s face is cut with a barn dropping from the sky and shattering, in a similar setting to his dream sequences, representing the climax of the act. Later in the film there are two examples of experimental sex scenes presented in a very unique manner. These scenes are comprised of freeze frames of different moments and positions during the sexual activities. However rather than the scenes being recorded and individual shots being frozen onscreen, the actors are recorded standing still in the positions for very quick shots in succession, with the only sound being quiet classical music or strange whistling. However, the most famous sexually focussed scene is earlier in the film. King writes of the experimentation in the scene: ‘the figures on the covers of gay magazines on sale in a shop, including the two principals, come magically to life and talk to one another, a clear (and more unambiguously comic) breach of the usual rules of the fictional universe’ (2003, p. 154). This is precisely the ‘self-reflexive’ style that Holmlund (2004, p. 2) considers to be a big part of a lot of independent films. While this type of scene does not make up the entire film, their presence is a big part of the film’s identity and storytelling cements the film as challenging to the viewer in terms of subject matter and technique, requirements of independent films that challenge Hollywood according to Ortner.
My Own Private Idaho is a film that does not offer an escape from reality for the viewer, instead it has an almost documentary feel at certain moments and focusses on the reality of the situations that the character’s find themselves in. Nothing in the film is hidden or censored to make the experience family friendly. Even the slightly fantastical elements such as the talking magazine covers and the dream sequences are not there to offer escapism but rather to contrast and highlight the darker moments in the film. This is done purposefully to convey the actual experience of street hustlers and queer people in America. Van Sant was committed to this portrayal and uses actual street hustlers in the film. In the first half of the film there is a scene where some of these actual gay street hustlers talk about real experiences that they have had in their lives, which have seen them in great danger or in one case raped and assaulted. This scene is one of the hardest to watch throughout the whole film due to the detail and description that these men go into to describe the abuse they have received. The scene is made even more powerful by the fact that the men are talking to someone off screen beside the camera, like an interview. This is a case of Gus Van Sant ‘making films that display the dark realities in contemporary life, and that make demands on the viewer to viscerally experience and come to grips with those realities’ (Ortner, 2012, p. 4), rarely seen in Hollywood as this is seen as not fulfilling ‘the fundamental mandate to entertain’ (Ortner, 2012, p. 3).
The epitomy of My Own Private Idaho’s cultural critique is the way the film ends. Ortner writes, ‘where Hollywood films classically have happy endings, independent films rarely do’ (2012, p. 2) which is true of the Gus Van Sant film. The film ends in typical independent style with Mike being left on the side of the road where the film started, only to be robbed and then picked up by a stranger and put into a car while he was asleep due to his narcolepsy. This is following the death of Mike’s friend Bob and the betrayal of the man that he loves. This final shot calls back to a line earlier on in the film, “this road will never end” as the stranger’s car drives off into the distance and Mike’s fate is unknown. This line summarises the almost endless suffering and confusion of the character and perhaps in turn of the queer experience. While the car drives away a song begins to play, a song called The Old Main Drag by The Pogues, a song about homelessness, drug addiction and sex work, all of which play a big part in the story of My Own Private Idaho. Just before the credits play, a black screen with fluorescent blue lettering reads ‘have a nice day’, addressing the audience directly which forces them to connect the ideas displayed in the film to reality and American society, as well as Hollywood itself. The contrast with the heavy and hard to watch realities presented in the film, and this final message in the film creates real irony that shows the audience that this kind of life in America is real and cannot be ignored. It is a moment that is emblematic of the independent film, criticising Hollywood’s typical happy endings, a luxury that the type of person the film focusses on could not afford, reinforcing Ortner’s proposition.
However, one could argue that My Own Private Idaho problematizes Ortner’s hypothesis. The budget of the film was $2.5 million, a figure that many would consider to be too high to classify as an independent film. As Ortner details in her argument, ‘where studio films are very expensive, independent films are made on relatively low budgets’ (2012, p. 2), which could be case for an argument against Ortner. While the film was not produced by one of the major Hollywood film studios, it was distributed by Fine Line Features, a division of New Line Cinema owned by Warner Bros. Picture Group which is one of the major studios. Dr Yannis Tzioumakis writes of the problems this creates: ‘they might be operating with a large degree of autonomy from their respective parent companies but they are financially accountable to them. This means that their parent companies have the power to close these units, sell them, reorganise their management structures, decrease their production/ distribution/ acquisition budgets, interfere with their decision- making policies and so on’ (2006, p.3). This fundamentally goes against Ortner’s proposition. Despite this film academics have considered companies like Miramax and New Line ‘major independents’.(Tzioumakis, 2006, p.4) This term encapsulates the irregular position and nature of these companies and ‘distinguishes them from both the major conglomerates and the independent companies’(Tzioumakis, 2006, p. 4). Nevertheless, there are still more unique complications in the case of My Own Private Idaho. The film’s DVD release saw the gay-themed movie presented as a straight film with Keanu Reeves and River Phoenix with women on the front cover. In addition, Gus Van Sant wanted the film to have a wide release, saying he wanted the film to ‘play in shopping malls’ and was unhappy when the film ended up playing in select art house cinemas, which could arguably problematise Ortner’s argument as well. Ortner acknowledges reasonings like this, admitting that ‘there is widespread, even vast, skepticism among observers of the culture industries as to whether independent film has been able to remain truly independent, or whether it has not in fact become simply another kind of Hollywood product for a particular niche audience’ (2012, p. 5). Having acknowledged this, she goes on to explain that this is less of an interest to her as she is ‘more interested in exploring the oppositional political potential… in those films’ (2012, p. 5).
In conclusion, while the case of My Own Private Idaho may present minor complications to Ortner’s proposition, it largely supports it. The filmmaking methods, characters, plot, ending, and subject matter all support the argument. This cements My Own Private Idaho not only as a typical independent film, but also as a film that is ‘against Hollywood’.
Bibliography
Diawara, Manthia (1993) Black American Cinema, London: Routledge.
Holmlund, Christine (Ed.) (2004) Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream, London: Routledge
King, Geoff (2003) American Independent Cinema, London: I.B. Taurus.
Ortner, Sherry B. (2012) ‘Against Hollywood: American Independent Film as a Critical Cultural Movement’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2(2) pp 1-21.
Rich, B. Ruby (1992) ‘New Queer Cinema’, Sight and Sound, September 1992. Available at: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/features/new-queer-cinema-b-ruby-rich (Accessed: 21 March 2022)
Tzioumakis, Yannis (2006) American Independent Cinema: An Introduction, Rutger’s University Press.
Filmography
My Own Private Idaho (1992) Directed by G. Van Sant [DVD]. New York: Fine Line Features.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) Directed by Miloš Forman. Los Angeles: United Artists.
