Indie filmmakers

As an independent filmmaker myself (“Born to Lose” 1997), I couldn’t disagree more with New York magazine critic Peter Rainer’s comment that the filmmakers “don’t really show anything besides a desire to create a resume for studio work.” (“Rebels Inside the Gates,” by Scott Timberg, Nov. 16). I’d theorize that each year, close to 2,000 feature films are created by first-timers, independent of the studio system. The only place that producers, agents and development executives from Hollywood go to find the directors and writers of tomorrow is the Sundance Film Festival, and more specifically, the American Spectrum section of the festival. This category has few slots, and I’ve noticed that over the years the pictures selected for this prestigious category are shoestring versions of pictures that executives can easily plug into their system. “The Brothers McMullen” showed execs that Ed Burns could direct romantic comedy; “El Mariachi” -- Robert Rodriguez can do action; “Laws of Gravity” -- Nick Gomez can direct Mafia pictures, on and on. It’s not the filmmakers’ fault that these “gatekeepers” aren’t really looking for noncommercial filmmakers.

Peter Rainer is wrong. We’re out here. It’s just that the “above-ground” film world isn’t looking for us.

Doug Cawker

Los Angeles

*

I read with great interest Scott Timberg’s story about the status of independent filmmakers, but I was disappointed to see a relevant dimension largely unexplored.

Mr. Timberg at one point casually refers to the group of directors under discussion as “Gen-X auteurs,” then never returns to this key link binding Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino and a host of others.

I’m keenly aware of this link, because it is the subject of my second book, “The Cinema of Generation X.” Through years of research and analysis, I discovered that the maverick directors who have infused modern independent cinema with their provocative styles and ideas were in many ways shaped by the shared factors (social fallout from Watergate and Vietnam, the high divorce rate of the ‘70s, the emergence of MTV) that defined Generation X.

Deification of the ‘70s “film brat” generation, which includes George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Peter Bogdanovich and so many other leading lights, has become commonplace. But I remain amazed that so few authors and journalists investigating the directors who have inherited the film brats’ mantle acknowledge that these new filmmakers share as strong and important a generational identity as their predecessors.

Peter Hanson

Beverly Hills

*

Scott Timberg’s piece on so-called indie filmmakers let them off the hook. The simple fact is Generation X, and the directors he cited, have nothing to say. It is a generation devoid of politics, and therefore their art is without a point of view.

The ‘70s stands as the greatest era in the latter half of the 20th century for film because the stories and imagery were infused with the politics of the time. Most of the stories were not overtly about politics, but the films had added depth due to their point of view. Paddy Chayefsky would never have believed the crass materialism and dumbing-down of culture he so brilliantly lampooned in his Oscar-winning film “Network” would be surpassed by miles in reality.

Whether one is talking about Neal LaBute, Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, Richard Linklater or my personal favorites to despise -- Kevin Smith and Paul Thomas Anderson -- it must be pointed out that they make films with weirdly unrealistic characters, often pretentious dialogue and with stories that are self-indulgent trifles. I’m convinced that Spike Jonze’s only aesthetic influence is hours and hours of “Mannix” reruns, and that Paul Thomas Anderson frames his shots based on things he once saw on “CHiPs.”

Jeff Softley

West Hollywood

Jeff Softley wrote the “I Hate Gen-X” satire Web site at

www.geocities.com/ihategenx