week thirteen - independent cinema

1. According to Murphy, what are the two major faults of the traditional screenwriting manuals in their treatment of independent cinema?

According to Murphy, the two major faults of the traditional screenwriting manuals in their treament of independent cinema are their reliance on formulaic principles to produce a "good" Hollywood script, and their non-understanding (and thusly, unappreciation) of this type of film. Murphy says that the "three-act paradigm" proposed by many of the screenwriting manuals is both too rigid and too traditional to work for many independent, "art cinema" influenced films, and by trying to fit these movies into that structure, it is thereby negating their purpose. He also says that since many of these authors were not "well-versed in the historical tradition of independent cinema" there is a confusion that comes along with trying to write about them, and their "explanations" are often times inept, misguided, or simply wrong.



2. How are Murphy's claims about act structures in independent films different than McKee's model or Thompson's model?

McKee sticks to the three-act structure, but when it comes to independent films, uses phrases such as "miniplot," and "antiplot" (as opposed to "archplot" in classical design) to describe their non-linear, non-causal, and coincedental style. Although he does concede that certain films (namely Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover ) may have up to eight acts and be successful, he doesn't spend much time giving them credit. Thompson's model is, of course, the four-act structure, in which each of the four acts lasts approximately 20-30 minutes. Only one of Murphy's noted independent films, Mulholland Drive, seems to fit that model. Murphy's claims about act structures in independent films are different than both of these models, claiming that acts need not necessarily be defined, and although many independent films have a definable number of acts (often times fitting into either a three- or four-act structure), they are often time causally opposite and/or flexible and asymmetric.



3. According to Murphy, how are independent films different than classical Hollywood in the following areas? Protagonists / Antagonists; Dual plotlines (romance); Character Motivation (goals); Dialogue; Closure

According to Murphy, independent films are different than classical Hollywood films in most ways. In classical Hollywood cinema, protagonists are often times individuals, with clearly defined goals who undergo some sort of character arc. In independent films, however, protagonists are often times passive and ambivalent, undergoing little to no change, and many times there are more than one. Antagonists in classical Hollywood oppose the protagonist to create tension and conflict. In independent cinema, the antagonist may be something as broad as an idea ("fate" for instance), or may be non-existent, adhering to the non-cause/effect relationship of these films. The romance plotline is typically one of the two in most classical Hollywood movies, and typically have a happy ending. Independent cinema, on the other hand, holds no causal connections for romance, and doesn't often times end up being "upbeat." Whereas in most movies, characters have clearly-defined goals, and their behavior is motivated for any number of reasons, the art-cinema model (which independent films draw largely from) often times have aimless characters simply meandering through life, and much of the drama is spurned through psychological complexity. Dialogue in classical Hollywood cinema is taught to be purposeful and propelling, whereas independent cinema will include "everyday chitchat" meandering and sometimes even non-sensical lines. Closure is perhaps one of the biggest distinctions, with classical movies always tying up loose ends, and often times in an upbeat fashion. Independent cinema prides itself on open-ended ambiguity as a cornerstone of it's style, with its meaning being left up to the viewer.



4. According to Ed Guerrero, what were the three phases of the black image in Hollywood films?

According to Ed Guerrero, the three phases of the black image in Hollywood films are: a pre-blaxploitation era (in which a mainstream image of black submissiveness prevailed), followed by a blaxploitation era of resistance and co-optation (largely dominated by black action films employing strategic reversals of mainstream ideology), and then finally the new black cinema (which was more of a cooperation between the Hollywood studio systems and black filmmakers).