Author: Sepid Ghaemi

When we use the term “independent” in isolation, specific meanings take shape in our minds. It belongs to the category of words that require constant definition and redefinition to reshape their boundaries, and perhaps this is its fundamental characteristic.

Living in Iran, the concept of independent cinema is genuinely challenging. Not only due to pervasive censorship and suppression but also because of the distortion of this term and others. Many of us have read countless articles, heard statements, and listened to speeches in recent years, in which many have referred to themselves as independent. Some of them, by claiming independence from government institutions, have not only collaborated with private institutions affiliated with power but have also pursued the same approved policies with a newer facade that stands in stark contrast to any form of independent cinema.

In the midst of all this, many have mistakenly believed that anonymous private institutions are more independent and radical than government institutions, but what a false illusion!

Therefore, it seems necessary for us to return to this term repeatedly and contemplate its meanings and precise usage more cautiously than before in order to establish clearer boundaries. But before doing so, I would like to ask, in a world where the unlimited exercise of power by governments casts its shadow over every aspect of human life, whether in totalitarian regimes or seemingly democratic ones, and where technology has subjugated all their actions, thoughts, and even shopping habits, how can we discuss the concept of independence of action in any sphere?

In a capitalist world, riddled with institutionalized discriminations, where their ubiquitous platforms, driven by their algorithms, control and shape the visual preferences of the audience, discussing independence appears exceedingly challenging and intricate. After the events of the 1960s, when the world gained a newfound spirit and there was hope for fundamental transformation, the emergence of 8mm and lightweight cameras birthed a militant form in cinema where filmmakers could lay claim to independence in their production methods. However, they still encountered difficulties in distributing and disseminating their works. They took the initiative, rolled up their sleeves, seized control of their films, and, much like wielding a weapon for battle, brought them to the realms of labor, rural, and academic communities. The situation now, despite the convenience of production tools with the advent of smartphones, still grapples with the issue of distribution. Independent cinema lacks access to official cinema halls. Nevertheless, it must judiciously harness the resources of readily available platforms, which have generated consumerist and frivolous tastes.

Independent cinema is not all-encompassing, but it must transcend the limitations imposed by the narrow confines of festivals that have come to define it. This form of cinema needs to rejuvenate its spirit and establish a fresh definition for itself.

What we must not forget is that today’s independent cinema, instead of being absorbed by neoliberal artistic institutions that assimilate everything, should carve out a distinct framework and ethos. This way, it won’t easily become entangled with other concepts. In simpler terms, independent cinema must embrace its inherently political nature and engage its audience with historical awareness, political dynamics, and self-awareness. Here, I’d like to echo a quote from Teshome H. Gabriel, a theorist of Third Cinema from decades ago: the objective of independent cinema is not to merely revisit the aesthetics of traditional cinematic symbols or to replicate the styles of underground, alternative, and experimental cinema from past decades. Instead, it’s about politicizing cinema to the extent that it forges new cinematic codes that align with contemporary needs.

Author: Sepideh Ghaemi

Independent cinema must remain in a constant state of evolution, oscillating between creation and deconstruction, while consistently drawing inspiration from the cinematic medium. This process should open up new perspectives on a changing world. It’s a cinema that, while accurately portraying reality, remains adaptable, as Bertolt Brecht once expressed: “Realism is evolving, and for its representation, the methods of representation must also evolve.”

In his words, “Nothing comes into existence from nothing; the new emerges from the depths of the old, and precisely for this reason, it is genuinely new. Our interpretation of realism is both comprehensive and political. Realism, in essence, involves delving into the intricacies of cause-and-effect relationships within society. It entails writing from the standpoint of a class that offers the most comprehensive solutions to the challenges confronting humanity.”

Therefore, I firmly believe that independent cinema, in its truest essence, transcends mere independence from financial and governmental institutions. It is a cinema that remains self-sustaining, critical, introspective, and thoughtful. It rises above the commercialization of cinema and the relentless pursuit of wealth. Independent cinema is self-aware, continually scrutinizing the raw material of cinema and challenging the dominant cinematic language. Its purpose is to forge new forms of cinematic expression while faithfully portraying the socio-political and economic realities of its time.

International cinema reconstructs cultural codes, drawing from the lives of marginalized and silenced communities, including those in the global South and minority groups whose stories have been misrepresented by powerful Western media. It deliberately disrupts conventional production relationships and explicitly questions the entire process of social reproduction of the workforce, which underpins the capital relationship and dismantles any ensuing hierarchies.

To achieve something like this, independent filmmakers are unavoidably compelled to forge common connections. Independent cinema, for its sustainability, depends on resolute communities and platforms that are rooted in their determination and initiative. It’s a cinema that should serve as an enlightening force, in the words of Marx: “Consciousness is nothing more than the being of humans, which is determined by their real existence.” In essence, social consciousness is moulded by the social existence of individuals.