Writing an annotated bibliography has always seemed to me like a massive waste of time – why spend hours writing hundreds of words on the pros and cons, the usefulness within one’s intended project, when you could just do the exact same thing in your head, much quicker, and with much less pressure? It seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul – you spend time analysing sources that could have been spent actually doing the work that the sources are intended to inform. But, I digress.
Finding sources to analyse was relatively simple; our topic of focus is film sequels, and serendipitously, the day before we began assigning sources to analyse in our group I found an online oxford bibliography of at least ten sources pertinent to this exact topic. I decided, of these ten sources, to chose a book by Carolyn Jess-Cooke – Film Sequels: Theory and Practice from Hollywood and Bollywood – to analyse for the bibliography. It was an exhaustive book focused entirely on sequels, with chapters on different genres, economics and different industries and how these interact with sequels. Reading the whole book would lend the group a great insight into our chosen topic; though it is possible that relying on one whole book as a source may lead to many similar opinions and perspectives as it is all authored by one person. In the end, I chose to read and analyse Adventures in Indiewood: Sequels in the Independent Film Marketplace – which discussed a very different film industry to the mainstream hollywood industry we are accustomed to watching and analysing as a majority. Independent film sequels are worlds apart from mainstream sequels, in intention and form – commercial and financial gain are often secondary to ideological and artistic growth through a secondary film. It also discussed the rise in the popularity of independent films being part of trilogies; and how trilogies seem to be more ‘authentic’ and better received than simple sequels as their intentions are perceived as more noble – three films in a series allows for a much more expansive exploration of the film’s themes and topic. Independent films also use sequels to explore similar themes and content, but sometimes do not continue a narrative as a mainstream sequel does.
It was pretty interesting to read about how sequels can differ in the independent market, as it is worlds away from mainstream sequels. This could definitely add some breadth to our discussion in group work as well as in our general research. I’m going to attach the annotation I did for this particular source as part of my bibliography below.
Jess-Cooke, C. (2009). Adventures in Indiewood: Sequels in the Independent Film Marketplace. In: C. Jess-Cooke, ed., Film Sequels : Theory and Practice from Hollywood to Bollywood, 1st ed. e-book, accessed 03 May 2016, <http://RMIT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=420679>.
Jess-Cooke’s chapter Adventures in Indiewood: Sequels in the Independent Film Marketplace in her book, Film Sequels, serves as an insight into how the distinction between independent films and Hollywood films is currently blurring, with indie films slowly gaining more traction both in audience numbers and in budget, while also exploring the key differences in how independent films approach the creation of sequels compared to Hollywood. It provides multiple examples and ways in which sequels in the independent film industry are formulated, as well as the intention behind these sequels, and how it differs from mainstream filmmakers.
The chapter provides examples for every kind of sequel or concept it discusses as evidence to further support the topic Jess-Cooke discussed, while also going into great detail into the differences between independent film sequels and how the creation of them is approached as compared to mainstream film sequels, exploring the different ways in which indie filmmakers include aspects of the previous films into their successors and how this works for or against them both critically and financially. However, it does labour slightly on the generalised distinctions between independent and mainstream, and the discussion of the blurring between indie and Hollywood somewhat detracts from the overall contention that independents create sequels of substance and differ greatly from mainstream sequels. She also provides multiple definitions of what independent film is, but does not then highlight one definition as her boundary for what films will be classed as ‘independent’ for the purposes of the chapter, and thus categorises Wes Anderson as being indie, which although it could be argued due to a unique and original way of film making and story telling is true, due to the budget and financial aspect of Anderson’s career it could also be debated that his films are mainstream. Though, perhaps a discussion of whether he is or is not independent in his film making would detract more from the topic at hand.
This chapter provides my group’s topic with a semi counter argument to our discussion of the critical failures many sequels experience in the mainstream film industry. It provides a context of a vastly different film industry to the one we have focused on thus far, therefore could be used to add breadth to our argument and knowledge. The exhaustive descriptions of the ways in which indie films differ in their use of sequels as a more creative and ideological outlet rather than for commercial / financial gain could be used to describe the exceptions to the usual financial ambitions that pressure film makers into creating sequels.
