The 1990’s was an explosively dynamic period marked by an increasing societal awareness of the power new technologies had on our lives. With the internet on the rise and the technology boom in full swing, massive social/financial uncertainty was evident. Industries were rising and collapsing at the click of a mouse and digitized forms of entertainment/media were becoming extremely pervasive. One sector of the American entertainment business especially concerned with these new technological advancements was the American film industry. So, how exactly did this industry cope with the “digital menace” at the time? Furthermore, what were the ramifications of the introduction of this new technology within the industry itself? Finally, how did this digital technology help transform the structure of the industry and strengthen the position of the American independent cinema movement? It is in this essay I will explore these questions by using both scholarly articles/books as well as the film Boogie Nights (1997) as sources to my investigation.
Digital technology had been in development for cinematic use for a long time (dating back to 1967 with the Synthavision system developed by MAGI). (Allen 202) Over time, newer digital imaging processes were being developed and eventually making cinematic breakthroughs such as those seen in Tron (1982). (Allen 203) In the 1990’s this technology was becoming more accessible and widely used such as those then seen in the mega blockbusters Toy Story (1995) and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991). (Allen 203) But these films were exploiting digital technology for the sake of its CGI and special effects capabilities. In 1998, the first feature to be shot, edited, and distributed digitally was the independent film The Last Broadcast (1998). (Allen 219) A year later, the sci-fi blockbuster Star Wars: Episode 1The Phantom Menace (1999) followed the same format (digital video). (Holmlund 2) Both major studio oriented filmmakers and independents recognized the importance of this technological advancement (digital video) as a means of image capturing. It appealed to these types of filmmakers on both a practical and financial level. This is because digital video is more transportable, cheaper, and easier to manipulate in post-production (editing). It also provides the filmmakers direct access to the shots as they are being taken with the camera and thus gives them a higher degree of control and is extremely cost-effective. (Allen 219) So, for films with limited budgets (independent films) this digital video format is ideal.
These technological advancements in cinema, although adopted by both ends of the spectrum with regard to filmmakers (major studio and independent), did give way to serious changes within the industry during the late 1990’s. To begin, this technology helped lower the barrier to entry for filmmakers interested in shooting smaller films on the pure basis of production. A good example of this is the digitally shot film, The Blair Witch Project (1998). This film had been shot on a mere 35,000 USD budget (in partly due to the cost effectiveness of digital video) and grossed 248 million USD. (Holmlund 2) This staggering figure worried the major studios (for a short period) as they recognized how this technology in conjunction with the growing American independent film movement (during the 1990’s) could begin draining their films’ audiences and thus profitability.
The American independent film movement, although ever present in the film industry since near its inception (United Artists), grew to full fledged prominence during the 1990’s. To begin, it is important to recognize that this mode of filmmaking includes varying definitions, mostly based on these following industrial, structural terms as noted by Staiger: “…the relations in its work process, its means of production, the financing of its films, its conception of quality films, and its system of consumption.” (Staiger 17) Therefore to begin to describe what differentiates a major studio film and and independent film is where things can get tricky due to this multitude of facets. On the other hand, film scholar John Berra provides this alternative, “Independent cinema could then be considered to be a form of production which is free of both the economic and cultural practices of the Hollywood studios.” (Berra 74) This provides a more concrete definition as Berra argues that independent films aren’t truly independent unless they are completely divorced from any relationship with the Hollywood studios.
So, what factors led to this rise of American independent cinema during the 1990’s? Well, according to Staiger, “…the video revolution, changing labour union agreements… and ‘new venues for this work, such as the Independent Feature Film Market’, a place to screen these films for the press…” (Staiger 20) were imperative for the success of American independent cinema at the time. But for our sake, we will focus on the changing technologies (rise of digital/video revolution) as a means of providing somewhat of an industry mutating catalyst as well as a support to the financial wellbeing of American independent cinema (during the late 1990’s and beyond). For Geoff King, “The part of indie discourse that focuses on the notion of ‘thriving’ includes an emphasis on the potential seen in low budget digital production.” (King 42) That being said, this technology was and is (to this day) extremely influential to the positioning of independent American film within the structural framework of the domestic film industry in general. Furthermore, to King, “Digital is invoked, again, as a potential savior, as either a means of delivery… or as a marketing and sales channel…” (King 43) Although, both independents and Hollywood films used this new technology it is clear that independent film would eventually rely heavily on this technology for its survival/longevity in the market place thus altering the structure of the industry in the long run (indie cinema solidifying as a means of relatively popular film practice and not just perceived as a ‘flash in the pan’ during the 1990’s).
With the potential seen in the American indie scene during the 1990’s, Hollywood studios began to attempt to tap into this market most fervently. This overlap became known as “indie-wood”. (King 43) While some major studios began opening specialty divisions dedicated to the production and distribution of smaller art films others found different methods of infiltrating the indie market. As Tzioumakis outlines, “…in the two year period 1993-94 the landscape of indie cinema was subjected to deeper structural changes. In 1994 New Line Cinema… was taken over by Turner Broadcasting System…while Miramax, the company most heavily associated by the cinema going public with the distribution of American independent films, was taken over by Disney in May 1993. If nothing else, these takeovers demonstrated that Hollywood majors were taking seriously developments in the independent cinema sector, especially the fact that an increasing number of relatively low budget films were finding substantial commercial success.” (Tzioumakis 34) During that time New Line Cinema had been a key player in the independent scene and was bought out by TBS which was then acquired by Time Warner in 1996 (present parent company of Warner Bros Studios).
These take overs and mergers of these film companies exhibited the anxiety/uncertainty felt within the independent cinema industry at the time (although independent film being rather popular among cinemagoers). In fact, Geoff King argues the position that independent cinema exists in both the state of thriving and permanent crisis. To him, its very definition implies its existence and essence as a marginalized film mode that isn’t “too stable and secure” (King 45). Furthermore, with the passing of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, due in part by the growing popularity of digital technology and its formatting, (digital being more compatible than film stock, hence, easier to distribute across the many platforms that the media conglomerates owned) strain and structural/ownership uncertainty was felt by the major Hollywood studios as well. Overall, these changes in the industry (ownership takeovers, emergence of “indie-wood”, and Telecommunications Act of 1996) generated uncertainty for both ends of the filmmaking spectrum (Hollywood and independents) and with the continued development of digital technology (and its use in cinema) the situation was becoming even more complicated.
In 1997, Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights was released. This film was produced by the Ghoulardi Film Company and Lawrence Gordon Productions and was distributed by New Line Cinema. This mix of independent producers (Ghoulardi Film Company and Lawrence Gordon Productions) and distributor (New Line Cinema) leads to the categorization of this film as an independent film product. This independent film tells the story of the rise of porn star, Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), and his eventual descent into self destruction as he navigates the late 70s/ early 80’s porn industry. When initially released, Boogie Nights was met to wide critical acclaim and was also considered a financial success (budgeted at 15 million USD and grossed 43.1 million USD in the box office). (Box Office Mojo) Yet what really distinguishes this picture from other independent films are its themes, which are: the embodiment of the worries/relative structural crises of the independent and Hollywood sectors during that decade (1990’s) and an allegorical message concerning the imminent digital technology (more specifically digital video) take-over that now dominates the film industry.
The identity of American independent cinema, according to film scholar Anna Backman Rogers, finds its foundation in its expression of the crisis image. For example, Rogers states in her introduction, “American independent cinema is certainly a cinema in crisis, but it is also a cinema of crisis.” (Rogers 1) On both a narrative and thematic level, Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights holds up to this image.
Boogie Nights is a film in which the multitude of characters undergo many transformations. Their states, both internally and externally, fluctuate with their respective changing environments that they inhabit and thus so do their relationships to one another. For many of these characters, in fact most, their futures are left uncertain (like that of 90’s cinema technologically/industrially speaking). Therefore, these characters, narratively speaking, are caught in an endlessly liminal space between the fixed and unfixed. For Rogers, this liminality serves to be a defining attribute of the cinema of crisis, “A body in crisis that is betwixt and between classifications therefore reveals the ontological instability of the image and, by extension, of categories of being.” (Rogers 7) She further remarks, “In a cinema of crisis, this state of ambiguity or uncertainty is apparent in manifold ways.” (Rogers 7) This idea is extremely prevalent in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights with relation to its narrative.
The narrative of this film highlights the crises of a vast array of its characters which, ultimately, leave them in a state of uncertainty/ambiguity for much of the film. The characters which best exemplify this uncertainty/ambiguity are as follows: Jack Horner (Reynolds), Buck Swope (Cheadle), and Dirk Diggler (Wahlberg). Each of them divulge on highly uncertain paths due to certain social/financial/technological catalysts. For Dirk, his drug/partying addiction leads him down a dark path with an increasingly unstable future. On the other hand, Buck, attempts to break free from the porn industry yet his social status with the banks leave his financial future in the balance. But, most importantly, it is through the character of Jack Horner, the porn director, Paul Thomas Anderson makes his critique/reflects his ideas on the state of 1990’s film industry and its introduction of the digital technology (digital video) format.
In the film, Jack Horner is an old school porn director who staunchly advocates the use and preservation of film-stock as a means of image capturing. Yet when he loses his producer, The Colonel, he is forced to use videotape as a substitute. This then leaves Horner in an ideological pickle (thus a state of ambiguity). Does he continue making “films” on videotape? Or does he retreat from the directing world and stay true to the film stock medium (even if that requires him to abandon filmmaking)? To parallel this bitterness for the technology, Paul Thomas Anderson has also refused to shoot any of his films on any other format other than celluloid (Boogie Nights is shot using 35mm film stock). Furthermore, there are moments in the film in which Paul Thomas Anderson (as filtered through Jack Horner) directly states his disdain for videotape technology and, ultimately (indirectly), to that of its successor (digital technology).
The moments which most clearly express Anderson’s attitude toward this threat (both videotape and digital technology [digital video more specifically]) to the viability of film stock (celluloid) are as follows: Horner’s conversation with Floyd Gondolli (Phillip Baker Hall), the limo porn shoot scene, and Dirk’s first porn shoot. Each of these scenes, through different methods, conveys, to Anderson, the beauty of film as a means of capturing images. For example, when Horner discusses the future of the porno film industry with Gondolli (after Gondolli states videotape is the future [alluding to the technological/industrial future of 1990’s American cinema]) he declares, “Wait a minute. You come into my house, my party, to tell me about the future? That the future is tape, videotape, and not film? That it’s amateurs and not professionals? I’m a filmmaker, which is why I will never make a movie on tape.” During this scene Horner also comments on the quality of videotape footage (in comparison to that of film stock), “If it looks like shit, and it sounds like shit, then it must be shit!” This fascination for film stock also serves to be a critique of the impending technological threat, during the 1990’s, that videotape was eventually replaced by: digital video. Furthermore, once Horner is obliged to use videotape he continues to express his condemnation for the medium. In the limo porn shoot scene Horner sarcastically iterates, “We’re about to make film history, right here on videotape.” Perhaps Paul Thomas Anderson is indirectly conceding that he too eventually will be subjected to digital filmmaking despite his strong ideals against it. In Dirk’s first porn shoot, the focus on the functionality of the multiple processes occurring within the traditional film camera almost portray it as a spiritual object (which it may be for Anderson). The artistry and precision required to shoot on film may and in fact probably will be lost as the spread of digital filmmaking continues over time. Perhaps this is what Anderson is attempting to convey (his adoration for a tradition of artistic excellence and precision required with manipulating celluloid film).
Ultimately, Boogie Nights’ portrayal of the porn industry being turned on its head with the introduction of videotape technology mirrors that of the American film industry’s changing dynamic (with regard to digital technology). This film not only reflects the industrial processes occurring within the American film industry at the time of its release but is also heavily influenced by them. Thus, Anderson’s Boogie Nights’ expresses the uncertain future (relative crises) of the structure of the industry for both ends of the filmmaking spectrum (Hollywood and indie film) through both very direct and indirect narrative means as stated in my investigation. To refer back to Rogers, “American independent cinema is certainly a cinema in crisis, but it is also a cinema of crisis.” (Rogers 1) In conclusion, Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights is an exemplary representation of crisis on various levels: narratively (through characters and plot), industrially (allegorical representation of the 90’s film industry), technologically (digital technology conversion), and even personally (Anderson’s worries about the uncertain future of film stock due to the impending digital technology takeover occurring at the time [1990’s]).
Works Cited:
Scholarly Books/Articles:
Michael Allen, “Fixing it in Digital,” in Contemporary US Cinema, ed. Alexander Ballinger (Routledge, 2002): 201-223.
John Berra, “Oppositional Fantasies: The Economic Structure of American Independent Cinema and its Essential Lineaments” in Declarations of Independence: American Cinema, ed. Holly Spradling (University of Chicago Press, 2008): 71-91.
Chris Holmlund, “Movies and the 1990’s,” in American Cinema of the 1990’s, ed. Chris Holmlund (Rutgers University Press, 2008): 1-23.
Geoff King, “Thriving or in Permanent Crisis” in American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood and Beyond, eds. Geoff King, Claire Molloy, and Yannis Tzioumakis (Routledge, 2013): 41-52.
Anna Backman Rogers, “Introduction: A Cinema of Crisis; A Cinema of the Threshold,” in American Independent Cinema: Rites of Passage and the Crisis Image, (Edinburgh University Press, 2015): 1-23.
Janet Staiger, “Independent of What?” in American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood and Beyond, eds. Geoff King, Claire Molloy, and Yannis Tzioumakis (Routledge, 2013): 15-27.
Yannis Tzioumakis, “Independent, Indie, and Indiewood” in American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood and Beyond, eds. Geoff King, Claire Molloy, and Yannis Tzioumakis (Routledge, 2013): 28-40.
Online Sources:
"Boogie Nights (1997) - Box Office Mojo." Boogie Nights (1997) - Box Office Mojo. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.