Why the Coen brothers still consider James Cameron an independent filmmaker
The clash between independent and studio directors is a tale as old of time, with people (including myself) endlessly discussing the friction between both forms of filmmaking and the repercussions this has on creativity and art itself. Some people think that studio directors are sellouts, especially if they had beginnings in the independent filmmaking scene, and others think that this is ultimate achievement of any director; that the level of funding you’re granted is reflective of your power and conviction of your vision. And when the Coen brothers were asked about this age-old debate, they had an interesting take on the argument.
The Coen brothers occupy a niche spot in Hollywood – they make independent films that are critically very successful, but exist less within the mainstream strand of films and cultural zeitgeist. While they have made one film that was given the status of ‘cult classic’, with The Big Lebowski unexpectedly taking the world by storm and becoming a beast of its own, many of their other films have existed slightly more under the radar, such as Barton Fink, Inside Llewlyn Davis and Burn After Reading. Many of these projects were created independently, and while they have a dedicated fan base, they do not reach the same level of viewers as someone like Christopher Nolan, Ridley Scott or James Cameron.
However, when the filmmaking duo were asked about their thoughts on the subject, Ethan said, “If you’ll pardon me, the indie thing might all just be a journalists’ thing. James Cameron makes huge movies that are what he wants to do, and they’re financed and released by studios. Indie is like, a term of praise that you use for us, fortunately, and some of you bash Jim Cameron for not being, although he kind of is”.
This is an interesting perspective, and perhaps one that many would disagree with, but Ethan is implying that the label of independent director does not come from the funding level or studio associated with the project but from the director’s originality and conviction.
According to Cohen’s theory, this would make James Cameron, the iconic director behind Titanic and Avatar, the director who became one of the highest-grossing filmmakers of all time, an independent director, purely because he made something he wanted to make that was entirely his vision, yet happened to be funded and distributed by a studio. Could there be any weight to this theory?
While the idea is certainly interesting, it slightly dismisses the work of truly independent director who are making daring work and putting everything on the line to make it, having to demonstrate a level of resilience and innovation at every level in order to get it made, faced with countless barriers as they struggle to bring their vision to life. This is the essence of independent filmmaking.
One might argue that studio/commercial filmmakers cannot take risks in the same way, because the level of funding means they are always restrained by the high investment that the studio ultimately wants to recoup, and if they’re presented with a truly risky idea that will risk their chances of pleasing thousands of viewers, they won’t agree to it.
This is the unspoken elephant in the room that many studio directors try to avoid, claiming that they have full freedom and the voice of the studio doesn’t affect their work, when its very presence naturally filters away their creativity because when you’ve already lost everything by just trying to get a film off the ground, what’s the harm in being a bit weird with it?
