There was an article over on The Hollywood Reporter today examining the past year in independent film. The interesting thing, and something that hadn’t really occurred to me until now, is that the general consensus seems to be that there weren’t many successful indie flicks in 2006. There were no Brokeback Mountains, no truly independent horror movies like the first Saw, and very few breakout hits like March of the Penguins. But here’s the confusing thing: there were a lot of fairly successful low budget, artistic films that were released by major studios. Movies like Borat, United 93, and even Little Children have an indie feel but were all backed by major studios themselves, rather than their independent release arms.

Little Miss Sunshine is probably the only major indie success story this year (okay, maybe An Inconvenient Truth is worth mentioning too). So what does this all mean? I’m bit unsure myself. There are more than a few people predicting that independent film as we know it will not be around much longer. And I realize there’s always a debate about what constitutes an independent production, but I think it’s safe to say that we’re not seeing as many truly independent movies in theatres anymore. When studios aren’t even bothering to go through their indie subsidiaries anymore, I would imagine there’s very little insulation from the so-called “suits” when it comes to creative decisions. The other problem is that big studios are also stealing all the talent from the indie scene, although that’s certainly nothing new. Maybe I’m misinterpreting the point of the article, but give it a read and see what you get out of it. Are independent movies a dying breed? Do you even care? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.