Klawans, Stuart, Michelson, Annette, Peqa, Richard, Schamus, James, Turvey, Malcolm. "Round Table: Independence in the Cinema". October, Vol. 91. (Winter, 2000): 3-23.

This roundtable discussion features the five above-named film scholars who gathered to discuss independent cinema. Specifically, the scholars wanted to make an attempt at defining independent cinema and discussing how it came to be over the course of the past forty years. It is noted that in recent times, the film industry is more horizontally integrated than it several decades ago. For this reason, Richard Peqa argues that American cinema has really become a single body and that independent and .dependent. cinema are not truly separate entities, because the smaller studios that put out independent films are being absorbed by big name studios. James Schamus notes however that there are still tensions within the film industry that create distinction between these two types of cinema. The discussion turns to French New Wave cinema at one point and it is noted how the movement and how it spurred independent cinema by offering the public an alternative to the domineering American film industry. The movement was aided by the French government who offered subsidies to independent studios and rewards for directors making their first films. This governmental compensation drew a crowd of younger directors who, in turn, attracted younger audiences. On a large scale, the movement can be seen as a reaction or act of rebellion against the more streamlined big budget movies from big name American studios.

Robert Redford founded the Sundance Film Institute in 1981. Since then it has developed into one of the major outlets for independent filmmakers.  Ironically, the name Sundance refers to the name of the area in Utah in which Robert Redford set up the film institue and has a house, not to the film Butch Cassiday and the Sundance Kid  in any way.

            Joel Super describes A Man For All Seasons as a documentary fiction, with recurring themes appealing to the director. He also elaborates on the film’s production and appeal.

            Super notes that AMFAS was, in part, an independent film because Columbia felt the film had limited appeal. Thus, the film had a small budget and was filmed in England, much to Zimmerman’s delight because it limited influence from the studio. Zinnemann took advantage of location in shooting this film. He shoots in bucolic environments to help the audience gain a sense of the underpopulated world(168) and uses mise-en-scene techniques to emphasize the gravity of developments.

            Though his works may seem to be genre films, he largely avoids them. Furthermore, Super argues that Zinnemann consistently had a broad appeal because of his respect for the audience and interest in the subject. Along those lines, filmgoers enjoyed that his films broke from the relentless and nonsensical innovation of his contemporaries and the strong acting and directing he offered.

            More than anything else, this film reinforces Zinnemann’s interest in the theme of a “solitary individual of integrity against the corrupt and cowardly world” (158).  Though More is like other Zinnemann protagonists in that he is left without friends, he is of the upper strata and suffers at the whim of a powerful bureaucracy. The success of the film draws on Zinnemann’s strength as a documentary fiction technician. Zinnemann casts unknowns in the lead parts, like Brando in The Men and Montgomery Clift in The Search to create an element of freshness due to his firm belief that stars detracted from the story. So to in A Man For All Seasons, Zinnemann cast relatively unknown actors, and they all give fresh, powerful performances.

            Ultimately, A Man for All Seasons is a Zinnemann film that utilizes politics to provide a narrative to a story largely devoid of action, stars and genre appeal that engenders itself, largely with the power of precise and intelligent dialogue, to a large audience.