India makes the most movies per year compared to anywhere else in the world. The Bollywood industry is ripe with big-budget, highly commercialised films which are backed by powerful media and production houses. In this cutthroat landscape, many low-fidelity, independent films get swept under the rug. 

​

The independent movement in India took root before the Golden and Classical Ages of Bollywood, with directors like Raghupathi Venkaiah Naidu and Dadasaheb Phalke pioneering the art. It was only in the mid- to late-1900s that Bollywood hit the road as a commercial industry, fuelled by incredible amounts of money coming in from all over the world. Despite the sudden drop in the number of independently-produced films, there was no decrease in the enthusiasm for watching movies on the big screen. Consequently, there was an Indian “New Wave” that germinated in Bengal in the 1960s, preceded by an equally-significant movement known as Parallel Cinema. Both of these came before the French New Wave and the Japanese New Wave, and were turning points in the history of the Indian indie scene.

​

The films of that period reflected man’s true nature; they were much like mirrors. Depicting such mature, and socially relevant themes as moral dilemmas and the constant search for purpose and meaning, they known for their realism, naturalism, representation of the socio-political atmosphere, and for the dismissal of the mainstream dance-and-music formula. Filmmakers like Satyajit Ray and Girish Karnad were inspired by the Italian neorealist movement, and sought to make gritty films that reflected the current political scenario; they were sceptical of the musical, almost fairy-tale nature of Bollywood, and wanted to their movies to show the truth.

​

The post-2010 period has been exceptional; we have seen masterpieces such as The Lunchbox, Dhobi Ghat and Aamis coming into the mainstream, and thus thrusting obscure actors and directors into the spotlight. This revival of Parallel Cinema has given rise to sub-genres like social cinema and the Mumbai noir. Independence in filmmaking has, once again, begun to be recognised and awarded, with most Indian films at international film festivals being independently produced. In the words of Mike Leigh, “Independent filmmaking has always been there, and it’s not to be forgotten”.

​

Speaking of the rise of independent films abroad, the West had a very different story, albeit just as compelling. In 1908, Thomas A. Edison made the Motion Pictures Patent Company (also known as the Edison Trust), which was, at the time, the wealthiest and most famous film studio in the world. It brought together multiple film companies, such as Biograph, Vitagraph, Lubin, and Kalem, along with the most prominent film stock provider, Eastman Kodak. George Kleine, who owned the largest conveyance and production house in those days, backed the Edison Trust. It was, at its core, an endeavour to commercialise—and have complete control over—the film industry.

​

Independent producers avoided the Edison Trust and continued making smaller, yet increasingly innovative movies out in California. Ironically, these “autonomous” producers eventually turned Hollywood into an oligopoly as soon as they became powerful enough to compete with the Motion Pictures Patent Company, vying for a shot to get to the top of the corporate film world. Louis B. Mayer, the Warner Brothers and the various other pioneers of the “Big Six” who battled Thomas Edison over his film patents all began as indie movie producers. 

​

In 1925, the Film Society of London came up. The gathering of the founders—H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Anthony Asquith, Maynard Keynes, Sidney Bernstein, Augustus John, and Ivor Montagu—happened at the New Gallery Kinema (indeed, that is spelt accurately with a “K”) on Regent Street. Their objective was to feature artistic accomplishments in filmmaking, and their initial meetings consisted of short movie screenings of The Waxworks by Paul Leni and Champion Charlie by Charlie Chaplin. People lauded foreign indie movie producers as well—like Sergei Eisenstein from Russia—for making films like Battleship Potemkin and Strike. German filmmakers during the 1920s made tense, psychological films that showed the internal struggles of their characters. These are widely considered the first “indie” films.

​

The industry saw a setback during World War II; film equipment was tough to find. In the years following the war, American crowds pined for more than just John Wayne and Audie Murphy war movies. They wanted intellectual stimulation, and films that addressed issues of culture and humanity. Although innovators like Howard Hawks had made many films often considered works of art (such as Scarface [1932], Only Angels Have Wings [1939] and To Have and Have Not [1944]) they were swallowed by the commercial Hollywood studio framework.

​

The independent movie scene truly began to gather steam in the 1990s. Jim Jarmusch, Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino and several other independent producers propelled their careers forward. Independent films flourish today on the festival circuit; more filmmakers than ever before are submitting movies to these festivals and making their voices heard. The so-called “stars” of Hollywood, and the autonomous divisions of the “Big Six” might be getting maximum coverage in mainstream media, but this doesn’t spell death for indie films. They do exist alongside the giants of cinema, but perhaps it is the saturated nature of the mainstream that is allowing them to gather a dedicated following. They are the David to Hollywood’s Goliath.

​

References: 

​

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_cinema 

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_India 

- India's New Independent Cinema: Rise of the Hybrid - Book by Ashvin Immanuel Devasundaram