By Ben Bussey
Watch out – Ben’s been thinking again.
You might have noticed just over a week ago we ran a news item on Sushi Girl, a new movie from first-time feature director Kern Saxton. At the time of writing I have not seen the film, nor do I know anything of Saxton or anyone else involved in the production (actors aside). Based on the premise, the trailer and the cast, I thought it looked promising, hence I ran the item; I would not have done so if I had no confidence in the film. However, though for the sake of prudence I bit my tongue about it at the time, the manner in which the filmmakers chose to launch their film raises a few questions which I feel compelled to address. Oh, the burden of conscience, and so forth.
To bring everyone up to speed – this past week, on November 27th, Sushi Girl premiered to VOD. This was already set in stone, and the film had long since been in the can. However, a Kickstarter campaign was in force for the film’s benefit. Here’s what they were asking for, in their own words:
“Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood is one of the oldest and most respected movie houses in the world. It is one of the birthplaces of blockbuster cinema as we know it today. Sid Grauman was a showman – he knew that to make a splash with a film – you either go big or go home (…) when a movie opened at one of his palaces, the film along with its stars and filmmakers truly were larger than life – even for just one night. We want this tradition to continue, and to make it possible for quality independent films like Sushi Girl to get the same treatment deserving of so many Hollywood classics, and for you to be involved in a truly egalitarian way.
“Help us bring Sushi Girl to Grauman’s Chinese Theatre on November 27th, 2012 in classic Hollywood style, with a full on red carpet premiere that treats our stars, veteran actors Tony Todd, James Duval, Noah Hathaway, Andy Mackenzie and Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill, as well as our fantastic crew in a way that respects their enormous artistic contributions to our film and to the legacy of motion pictures. It will cost us $20,000 to make this happen, and we have less than two weeks to make our dream come true! We want to give you the opportunity to not only make some Hollywood magic happen, but be a part of the entire event as well. This event is not just for our actors and our amazing crew – but for YOU, the fans of high quality independent cinema.
“A big premiere like this will help ensure that our film will get much wider media coverage than ever before, which in turn will enable Sushi Girl to get into more theaters around the world, especially in the USA and Canada, keeping alive the theatrical experience in general for indie films and making sure quality independent films will keep coming to a theater near you.”
They were successful in their aim. If memory serves, at the time I posted about Sushi Girl on 23rd November, their total was a little over $5,000, but by the end of the campaign on the 25th they’d made more than their target. The premiere happened as planned, and recieved the desired media coverage.
Okay, where to begin with this… let me reiterate, I have yet to see Sushi Girl, and I have no prior knowledge of the filmmakers or their work; for all I know it may well be a great film, and I hope it is. As such I have no real grounds to doubt the sincerity of the filmmakers when they say their intent was to promote ‘quality independent films’ as a whole, and ‘(keep) alive the theatrical experience in general for indie films,’ even if I do have to question what exactly is ‘egalitarian‘ about asking fans to part with cash so the filmmakers can enjoy a moment in the spotlight. No, it doesn’t strike me as an appropriate thing to ask fans to pay for, but many people clearly felt otherwise; fair enough, it’s their money to do with as they please, and – as is the norm with Kickstarter – they’ll get something back for their contribution, usually some unique memorabilia and/or their name in the end credits. It wouldn’t be sufficient for me to dig into my wallet in this instance; but still, this is not my greatest issue with the whole thing.
The real crux of my problem is this: why does a small, cult-oriented, independent film need to seek validation from the mainstream bombast of Hollywood?
Okay, so more attention generally means more money, and I realise that’s one thing independent filmmakers are not generally flush with. David Anthony’s recent open letter to the horror community at Couchcutter – which seems to have ruffled a few feathers in the last couple of weeks (can’t think why, given its not-remotely incendiary title) – really underlined just how tough times are for low-budget filmmakers, and how now more than ever the indies need our support. I’m not blind to that. Nor, for that matter, am I stringently pro-indie and anti-studio. As I’ve detailed at length in the past, I’ve seen innumerable low-budget independent productions that were even less competent and imaginative than your average multi-million dollar production line job. But, as David emphasises, even a studio production that might be deemed a flop, like the Fright Night remake, still winds up making tens of millions worldwide, whilst even that most notorious of indie horrors The Human Centipede manages only a few million. Is the latter film inherently better because it’s an indie? Absolutely not – but one look at the premise makes it clear it is at least making an effort to do something new and different.
That, surely, is the key reason to support independent film above Hollywood: because it is the domain in which real risks can be taken, new voices can be heard, and – on occasion – genuine innovations can be made.
So with that in mind, once again – why should independent filmmakers covet endorsement from the Hollywood system? Isn’t that a rather self-defeating gesture?
Take the recently aborted campaign to get George A. Romero a star on the Hollwood Walk of Fame. Devin Faraci made a very strong case against the move at Badass Digest last month (whilst the campaign, which it should be noted Romero was not a part of, was still in motion), arguing thus: “George A Romero is one of the great indie film pioneers, and he should be recognized as such. The Hollywood Walk of Fame memorializes those who toiled within the system, and Romero never had time for that. While he has made some movies that had the touch of the majors on them, his best and most identifiable work was independently financed, independently made and independently distributed.”
The religious among us might say amen to that. Romero made his name on his own turf and on his own terms, and the few times he played with the big boys he didn’t come out of it too well (and I say that as one of the few to actually quite like Land of the Dead). For the most part, all Hollywood has done with him is rip him off, creatively and otherwise – and plenty more indie filmmakers can say the same. Why, then, should he add his name to their supposed path of glory? Why should his own triumphs be counted as theirs? Aren’t his achievements impressive enough on their own?
My feeling is that independent film is at its best when it revels in its independence. The Hollywood seal of approval is not required; nor do I believe that we, as cult film fans, really want it. It goes against what cult film is all about – and largely what horror is all about.
(Okay, perhaps I’m over-generalising slightly here using independent/cult/horror as pretty much interchangable terms, but just bear with me.)
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think to a large extent the draw of horror is that it’s countercultural. Yes, plenty of ‘regular’ people enjoy going to see the odd horror movie now and then, more often than not as a surrogate for flopping out their dicks on the table and seeing whose is biggest (but therein lies another editorial); however, the real hardcore fans, the ones for whom it becomes a way of life – i.e. most of us reading this now, or so I assume – we watch these films because they resonate with us on a deeper level. These films, this genre, are a thumb of the nose to the façades and hypocrisies of polite society. We embrace them because we do not want what the mainstream has to offer. As such, trying to ingratiate cult and/or horror into the mainstream is really missing the point. This was one of the key failings of that now thankfully-long gone ‘upmarket’ British horror magazine we all loved to hate: it was based around the assumption that horror has become mainstream, and as such that horror fans want to be bombarded with celebrity gossip column codswallop. A grave misconception, I should hope we all agree.
Think of it this way: how betrayed did we all feel when Ally Sheedy stepped back into the library post-mall chick makeover in The Breakfast Club? Or when Winona Ryder became another peachy-keen preppy girl at the end of Beetlejuice? Isn’t dressing up a little cult movie in big fancy Hollywood pants much the same thing?
Sure, there’s something to be said for subverting the system from within, like Russ Meyer did at Fox with Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, or David Fincher did with Fight Club. (Also at Fox. Hmm, maybe there’s something to be said for fucking with Fox in general. But I digress.) Then there are the occasional one-offs like del Toro, who manage to work within the system whilst maintaining an independent spirit and creative drive (when the bloody films get made, at least). But for the most part, the indies and the majors remain very distinct entities, and that’s not a problem, is it? Who knows; maybe a few souls out there who’ve never seen an independent movie have caught wind of Sushi Girl as a result of their Grauman’s Chinese Theatre hullabaloo, and already their eyes are being opened to a broader universe of cinema than they ever knew existed. If so, great. But I see no reason to put on airs and graces, trying to scrub up our dirty little films to suit the squeaky clean ideals of the mainstream. If we’re quite happy with them as they are – and we should be – then that should be quite sufficient, thank you very much. We don’t need their approval, and we don’t want it.
And if anyone has seen Sushi Girl, do let me know how good it is, hmm?