(FORTUNE Magazine) – INDEPENDENTS' DAY IN OSCAR RACE --Daily News of Los Angeles

INDEPENDENTS' DAY HAS DAWNED --San Francisco Chronicle

INDEPENDENTS' DAY --Time; Chicago Sun-Times; Sacramento Bee

Aside from a certain lack of imagination among headline writers, the theme of this year's Oscar coverage has been the dominance of independent films over traditional studio fare. Indies, the standard line goes, got 70% of the nominations in the top categories, proving that independent films are classier and more intelligent than their crass, studio siblings. Now is a perfect time to ask whether this accounting is correct. In short, it is not.

Why is everyone getting it so wrong? Let's begin with the definition of "independent film." Like art and pornography, independent film is easier to describe than to define. A film like 1993's El Mariachi, for example--the $7,000 budget of which came out of filmmaker Robert Rodriguez's pocket--is obviously an independent. But what about, say, Marvin's Room, a pat tearjerker starring Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton, which was financed with Disney's money but produced and released by Disney's Miramax subsidiary? In award-time analyses, this movie falls under the indie-film header, thanks to Miramax's artsy indie rep.

The confusion stems from the fact that studios have been spending heavily to acquire independent films and studios, even as independent studios now routinely produce their own movies with their corporate parents' money. Other "indies" such as Fine Line, Gramercy, and Sony Pictures Classics are also owned by big corporations (Time Warner, Polygram, and Sony, respectively). The grosses from movies that come from these "indies" appear on the income statements of the corporations that own them. The only major indie without corporate backing, October Films, is rumored to be a prime acquisition target for Universal. Even the filmmakers are confused. "I don't really know if there's anything that can truly be called independent right now," says Lawrence Bender, who produces Quentin Tarantino's films, among others. Says October Films co-head John Schmidt: "There's no question that the indies are evolving or migrating toward a sort of mini-studio status, and that's to their credit. There's no negative judgment involved in that; it's a sign of the times."

While most of the indies are still mainly engaged in buying and distributing those nickel-and-dime movies, there is one "indie" studio that should probably shed the label: Miramax. The studio now finances 60% of its slate--including such mainstream fare as Emma, The English Patient, and the horror hit Scream. It even frequently reshapes and edits the films it acquires to make them more palatable. While Miramax is still treated as an indie, thanks to its roots in releasing scrappy little independent pictures, at present the studio resembles nothing so much as the United Artists of the Seventies or Orion Pictures of the Eighties--a filmmaker-friendly mini-major spending moderately to produce and acquire superior movies.

Harvey Weinstein, Miramax's head, is not keen to see Miramax lose its indie-outsider status; "I like the indie label more than anything," he says. As well he should: Being in the indie-film business is akin to having a critical halo, and Weinstein has thus generated a considerable amount of good will from filmmakers and the general public. And yet, perhaps stripping Weinstein of his indie stripes amounts to high praise: He's made it into the majors and still puts out the good stuff.

Weinstein concedes that his studio may no longer be independent in the traditional sense, and as long as he maintains a touch of independent attitude, everyone--filmmakers, filmgoers, Disney--should be happy. But if the studio brings us English Patient 2: The Count Strikes Back--it will be "Independents' Day" no more.

--Tim Carvell