10 Questions to Understand What 'Indie Films' Are

Independent Films or Indies are widely abused terms a lot of people use without really understanding what they mean. I hope the post below helps you understand the concepts better. Do comment if you disagree with any of my opinions.

Q1. What are Independent Films?
A. Independent films are those that are produced (almost) without any funding from major film studios. Once produced, these films try to reach out to their audience on their own, often also involving alternate distribution channels like the internet, unless they are picked up by a bigger distributor, with or without the backing of a studio.

Q2. Why the term 'independent'?
A. Movie-making has always been expensive. During the early decades of the last century, when cinema turned into a business, it were big production and distribution companies that soon started dominating the market. They were called studios. RKO, MGM, Warner Bros. etc were some of the major studios of Hollywood. It was almost impossible to make a film outside of the studio system and getting it released was even tougher. However, several factors around the 40s and the 50s, including the gradual weakening of the studio system and development of new aesthetics through film revolutions like the Italian Neo-Realism, saw the rise of film-makers who made their films outside of the control of the studios. These film-makers did not have to conform with the notions and formulae of the sudios and thus exerted greater control over their medium than even the most successful of directors working with the studios. This gave the feeling of a new-found freedom, to be able to make movies, and make them on your own terms. Hence, the term 'independent'.

Q3. Does 'independent' always mean low-budget? Also, if my film has no stars, is it an indie film?
A. Not necessarily. If you are a rich man (and not a studio), you can produce a big-budget film on your own, with your own money. That big-budget film will still be called independent. However, since not many are that rich to be able to make movies to fulfill their whims and fancies, and since several rich men are sensible enough to not get into this misadventure, most indie films are low-budget. And I think it will remain that way. It should. Similarly, if a studio funds and distributes a film that does not necessarily have stars, it is not an indie film. Gangs of Wasseypur (2012) was not a star-studded film. But it was not indie either.

Q4. Does 'indie' mean 'art-house' or 'experimental'?
A. Not at all. Most art-house and experimental films fail to attract studio financing and hence have to raise money on their own and thus be made independently. But an independent film can be as, if not more, entertaining and commercially viable as a manistream, studio film. Remember, Pulp Fiction (1994) was an indie film. It was super-successful financially, and is among the most watched films of all time, apart from being so critically acclaimed and a major landmark in film history.

Q5. Why do 'indie' films look poor and unattractive?
A. Not all of them look poor and unattractive. I just named Pulp Fiction. But since the production budget of these films is typically low, several of them cannot adopt the gloss that big-budget movies possess. In fact, the success of the indie movement is based on the conviction of the film-maker to rely on content, performances, and a new sense of aesthetic that goes well with the limited budget. The hand-held camera and shooting in natural light or with non-actors are widely popular trends in world cinema. These were all developed when cinema broke free from the absolute control of the studios. Most successful indie films either manage to look 'good' despite the low budget, or come up with an original and exciting design to please our senses. The really timeless indies, like all successful films, are big on content than anything else.

Q6. Is it easier to make an indie film than a big-budget film? If no, then why do some film-makers choose to go independent?
A. No way. How can it be? Arranging so much money on your own can never be easy. And even if you do manage that, making films on small-budgets is always tough. Most importantly, it is film-making at the end of the day, something that is a difficult job anyway. I don't believe any film-maker would choose to go independent if a studio/producer assures him of funding, complete creative control, and distribution. But since that does not always happen with all film-makers and with all films, going indie is the only way out.

Q7. What is the most important ingredient for a successful indie film?
A. The script.

Q8. I have managed to develop/acquire a kick-ass script. And I have crowd-sourced the funding for the film. Guess, now I am sorted, right?
A. That depends on how sorted you are in your head. Is it really a kick-ass script or your passion is too blind to judge it? Is the funding actually in place or these are just promises? Is your budget realistic? Is there a mechanism in place to use that funding in the most economical way? And most importantly, is your director (even if it is you) really capable of directing a film? Does he/she have the undertanding of the craft and the technique?

Q9. Why do so many indie films fail?
A. For the same reason why most films fail, indie or studio-backed. Because most of them are really bad films. Very few films, indie or otherwise, are really good. Plus, even several good indie films fail to reach out to the audience. Those that do manage that suffer from low publicity budget and fail to create awareness in the audience about their release. But the biggest reason is that most of them are bad.

Q10. When will we witness the prophecy coming true - a real indie revolution in Hindi cinema?
A. No one can really tell when and if it will happen. But I am hopeful that the change is already visible. To be honest, a real successful and long-lasting impact will be created only when we have a really handsome number of films that tell essentially good stories in interesting and involving ways, forcing the studios and the distribution model to take notice of us, backed by some important steps taken by the government, and the industry, to nurture the most deserving indie films. I very stongly believe that the easiest barrier to cross is support from the audience - reaching them might be tough, making them love a good movie is really easy. The toughest step in the entire process is to make that good movie. And finding the right script is the single biggest challenge film-makers are going to face, today and tomorrow, indie or not.

'Sulemani Keeda' is an indie film directed by Amit Masurkar and produced by Datta Dave and Chaitanya Hegde. It releases on 5th Dec in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Pune, and Ahmedabad. I have written a song called "Door" for the film. Please watch it and share your comments with us. Cheers! :) 

Getting Cinemate: #13 Realism versus Expressionism

You might believe that motion picture photography captures reality and hence it is honest and true and real. You also believe that as a filmmaker it is wrong to try to modify that reality. So, you will pay more attention to ‘what to show’ when you make your films rather than ‘how to show’. If you think like this, you are a ‘Realist’ filmmaker.

However, if you believe in using cinema as magic, and using your expression to alter reality to create a different reality, you are an ‘Expressionist’ filmmaker. ‘How to show’ gives you greater satisfaction than ‘what to show’.

If you are shifting focus in the running shot, you are directing the audience’s attention. This is Expressionistic. However, if everything in your shot is in focus and you leave it to the audience to focus on what they want, this is Realistic. The ‘unreal’ sets of a Sanjay Bhansali film can be defended by the concept of expressionism – it is the director’s wish to supersede reality with his own way of looking and showing. The complete lack of background score in various movies can be defended by the concept of realism – we do not have background score in real life!

It is difficult to find examples of films relying totally on either of the philosophies of filming. Generally, the best of cinema uses the best of both.

Getting Cinemate: #12 The Lens of the Camera

There are mainly four types of Lenses, based on their focal length (distance from the plane of the film to the surface of the lens):

1. For cameras that use 35mm film, the “normal” lens has a focal length of roughly 35-50mm. It distorts the least and most closely mimics the way the human eye perceives reality.

2. For 35mm film, any lens shorter than 35mm focal length is considered WIDE-ANGLE lens. In a cramped location, these types of lens are used to photograph as much of the subject as possible. Since they enhance the ‘angle of view’, they are called Wide-Angle lenses. (Eg. The fish-eye lens, an extremely wide-angle lens, with angle of view approaching 180 degrees). But it greatly emphasizes our sense of depth perception and often, distorts linear perception as well. Remember those visuals where the person close to the camera appears too large compared to those away; or a fist or a gun approaching the camera loom large!

3. Similarly, focal lengths more than 60mm (up to 1200mm) make TELEPHOTO or LONG lens. They, like telescope, magnify distant objects. They do not distort linear perception but do, and it is useful at times, suppress depth perception. Akira Kurosawa was fond of using this type of lenses. These lenses provide a flattened, staged appearance.

4. The ZOOM lens (focal length between 10 to 100 mm) has a variable focal length, ranging from wide-angle to telephoto, which allows quick changes in focal lengths between and also, during a shot. This effect permits the zoom shot to compete with the tracking shot.

‘Once Upon a Time in Mumbai’ is, as we know, set in the 70s. In spite of a lot of work on the costumes, the make-up, and the sets, and giving them the feel of that era, the film does not remind us of the 70s. It looks very much like a picture of modern times if we can see beyond the production design tools I just mentioned. And the reason for that is the use of Wide-Angle lenses. You will not find a movie from that era that has been shot with this type of lenses. We ‘know’ inside our heads that the distorted, exaggerated feel of a Wide-Angle lens is a modern cinematographic development. Our sub-conscious that relates an era or a place to the pictorial descriptions fed into our brains by images, and more effectively by ‘moving images’, ‘refuses’ to ‘feel’ that these visuals depict the same. Hence they look phony, despite all hard work put in by the production designer, art director, costumes and make-up departments.

That is the power and the limitation of film craft, essentially a collaborative art-form. Each and everything should fall into place in order to create great cinema.

(The technical details provided in this post are a part of my notes from this brilliant book by James Monaco – ‘How to Read a Film’.)

Getting Cinemate #11: The Three-Act Paradigm

The classical storytelling in cinema involves three distinct acts. All linear screenplays, more or less, knowingly or unknowingly, have this structure, which I would share briefly.

Act I or The Setup is the first quarter of the screenplay. The main characters are introduced, the dramatic premise is established and the main dramatic need of the protagonist is communicated - what he/she wants to win or achieve during the course of the film. All good scripts have an extremely tight and engaging Act I.

Act II or The Confrontation is the second and the third quarters of the screenplay. During this part, the protagonist confronts obstacles in the pursuit of his/her dramatic need. The attempt to overcome these obstacles creates conflicts that are essential for any good story. It is generally the most difficult part to write.

Act III or The Resolution is the last quarter of the screenplay. The story need not end, but must resolve itself, reach “the solution”. The protagonist succeeds (or fails) in achieving his/her dramatic need.

Both the acts – I and II, end with a Plot Point – a scene or an event that spins the story around into another direction, leading into the next act. Apart from the end and the beginning, these two Plot Points are the most important events in the film. Act II, the longest part of the film, can be divided into two parts, separated by the Mid Point.

It must be noted that Hindi cinema, due to its unique concept of Intermission, does not adhere to this structure. We tend to write our films in two halves, rather than acts, and for us the Interval Point is more important an event than the Plot Points mentioned above. And this, I believe, is a main reason why most of our screenplays are inconsistent and flawed. The Three Act structure discussed above is not an invention of cinema – just an adaptation of the classical storytelling pattern evolved by man. Adhering to it is not always desirable and all innovations like Memento, Pulp Fiction, 21 Grams, Amores Perros etc. have successfully managed to break the convention. But mostly, it is a pattern safe enough to result into a gripping narrative and powerful cinema.

I would illustrate this paradigm in the next post with an example.

Getting Cinemate #10: Film-Noir

Film-noir (pronounced ‘film noah’, literally ‘the black film’) is a broad film genre. Although the precise definition is debatable, the typical film-noir is a stylish, crime drama portraying cynical attitudes and sexual motivations and commonly pessimistic endings. The classic Hollywood film-noir period was the 40s and 50s and black-and-white cinematography with low-key lighting was the most striking visual trademark. Some of the best films belonging to this period and genre were by masters like Alfred Hitchcock (Notorious), John Huston (The Maltese Falcon), Otto Preminger (Laura) and Orson Welles (Touch of Evil). However, some are of the opinion that various colour films of the later period and even some science fiction films belong to this genre. Sin City (2003) is considered a neo-noir film.

Perhaps the best example I can give to illustrate film-noir would be Sriram Raghvan’s Johnny Gaddar (2007). Notice the dark, criminal psyche of characters for whom we actually develop empathy in spite of their anti-social behaviour and action. And the moment it ends, it detaches itself from its characters, reminding us that it was the story of ‘bad’ people. The pessimistic end seems justified but we find ourselves empathizing with the characters. We actually empathize most with the biggest bastard. And it is all so overtly stylish and thrilling. Now, just imagine the same film in black-and-white, with shadows and silhouettes. That is classic film noir for you.

Getting Cinemate #9: Film Stock

The photographic film on which a motion picture is shot is called Film Stock. There have been two major trademarks for colour film stock and processes and all of us remember reading these among the opening credits: Technicolor and Eastmancolor.

Technicolor was the most widely used color motion picture process in Hollywood from 1922 to 1952. It provided with top saturated* levels of color and was used commonly for larger-than-life films like musicals, costume dramas, and animated films, e.g. The Wizard of Oz, 1939. But it required bulky equipment, more technicians, and a high budget. And it used a dye-transfer process that was time-consuming. So, it was replaced by Eastmancolor films when Eastman Kodak introduced it in the early 50s. It was cheaper and easier to develop.

But over the period it was discovered that Eastmancolor prints have tendency to fade and many of the films of the 50s and 60s have lost their visual splendour. Hence we hear of ‘restoration’ of old classics, which involves various options, one of which is using the Technicolor dye-transfer. Technicolor prints have more stable colours and are considered of archival quality. Also Technicolour negatives are more suited for transferring to video formats for home viewing. Even today, some films use Technicolor, esp. those set in the 1940s, e.g. Pearl Harbor, 2001.

P.S. Saturation measures the amount of a colour in its shades. For example, the colour red has increasing levels of saturation from reddish black to blackish red to very dark red to very deep red to brilliant red- the most saturated shade.

Getting Cinemate: #8 Sound Recording

Film captures image discretely, frame by frame. And relies on the physiology of ‘persistence of vision’ to create the illusion of moving image. But this phenomenon has no aural equivalent. Sound must be captured in real time, that is, it must be recorded continuously. This basic difference did not allow the two to merge and thus cinema was born mute. Later, sound could be converted into electric signals and further into light signals, giving birth to the concept of optical sound and enabling sound films or Talkies. But this equipment of recording sound was noisy and thus recording sound on location that is while shooting, was discouraged. The artists were supposed to dub later in a sound studio, trying to match their lip movements, looking at the edited film clips.

In the late 40s, the development of tape, or magnetic sound recording enabled recording sound on location. Later, further improvements in optical sound also helped to achieve this. This procedure is called the Sync Sound technique. The equipment used to record sound is called Nagra. The device on which microphone is fixed to reach close to the actors is called Boom. Sound is recorded essentially separate from the film. The final print that is sent for exhibition contains the audio track incorporated in the film.

Aesthetically speaking, Sync Sound technique is a better alternative and adds authenticity to the film, and has been widely accepted. However, Italy and India – two major film making nations have been reluctant to accept it. In fact, the only technical drawback of Fellini and Antonioni films is the sound they use. In India, it is more to do with the professional discipline required while using Sync Sound, which along with its higher costs has been an important reason to prevent it from being the norm.

Getting Cinemate: #7 Sound Mixing

Sound Mixing involves editing the sound track of a motion picture, that involves three parts:

• The dialogue spoken by the actors, recorded on location or by dubbing

• The background score, i.e. the pre-recorded music

• The sound effects: All that constitutes the ambient sound of the scenes using pre-recorded sounds. To appreciate it better, look at a clip of a crowded market place from any good film. If you listen carefully, you will realize that there are layers of sound, not only corresponding to the visuals, but also relating to things we do not see, but can imagine being present in the scene around the frame. Each sound, from the movement of a cycle to the cry of a bird to the rustling of leaves to blowing of the wind, each little detail that we never really notice while watching a film, is created artificially. It has to be done because shooting in real locations also does not record these sounds- films are mute and do not capture sound! But when the scene is getting readied for presentation, the audience must feel the ambience as realistically as possible. Even in scenes with no music or obvious noise, you will find a layer of sound, making it real. Just sit quietly for a while in your room at night, when there is no obvious sound, you will still listen to the music of the ambient sound. Creating that beautiful effect is the job of the Sound Editor/Mixer.

These three elements of a soundtrack are modified or reinforced to alter the quality of sound. The levels are made appropriate. And then the sound track is ready to be merged into the mute film to create the audio-visual product called a movie.

Getting Cinemate: Aspect Ratio (Illustration)

Two more frames for you to compare aspect ratios. I have tried to find similar frames from two different films shot in different aspect ratios. In fact, being a cinemascope film is one of the reasons that make Pakeezah such a pure cinematic experience.
The funny thing is that the effect is subconscious and most of us do not know what is actually great about a certain film that appeals us. 'Getting Cinemate' is an attempt to understand such things better.

Getting Cinemate: #6 Cinemascope and 70mm

The ratio between the height and the width of the projected image is called the Aspect Ratio. The TV has the aspect ratio of 1.33:1. This ratio, arbitrarily, became popular since the beginning of cinema. It was eventually standardized by the Academy, hence being called as the Academy Ratio or the Academy Aperture. In the 50s, the television revolutionized audio-video media like never before and its growing popularity was a threat to cinema. So, to make cinema a unique experience, ‘Widescreen’ ratios came into practice, ratios ranging from 1.66:1 (common in Europe) to 1.85:1 (common in America) or even greater.

To achieve this ratio various methods are applied. One of them is the use of Anamorphic Processes. Twentieth Century-Fox made the process with the trade name of Cinemascope. But it is now used as a common noun for anamorphic processes in general. And although it is just one of the methods to achieve it, it is often used as the general term referring to the widescreen aspect ratio.

Paramount Pictures’ answer to Cinemascope was Vistavision. It is a non-anamorphic process and instead uses film two times wider than the traditional 35mm film. This film, with an increased width-height ratio is the 70mm film used for shooting. For projection it is reduced to 35mm print which enhances the quality by reducing the graininess.

Widescreen ratio provided so much of space around the subject that it increased the visual appeal of cinema. Action sequences, musicals, outdoor shots – everything looked better. Just compare the two pictures of similar shot compositions and see what a widescreen ratio does.

P.S. Since I was a child I wondered what Cinemascope is. And also, why they write 70mm on the censor certificate? 70mm is 7cms, and the screen is so huge! Poor me, I had no one to answer these questions.

Getting Cinemate: #5 FPS

When we look at a frame, the brain registers its image, which stays for a short while even after the frame has been removed. This physiological phenomenon is called the ‘persistence of vision’. If at least 12 such frames appear in a series before our eyes per second, a psychological illusion is created that forms the basis of motion picture. Ingmar Bergman called this phenomenon as a ‘defect’ of human visual process. But thanks to this ‘defect’ that the art of moving image was born.

FPS or Frames-per-Second is the number of frames exposed during shooting from a movie camera. It can also mean the number of frames projected from the movie projector. During the silent era, films were shot and projected at 16-18 FPS. But as the Talkies arrived, 24 FPS became the norm. This current standard is also called ‘sound speed’ and it is this FPS at which your TV or even your Laptop shows you the images. Thus, the silent films which were shot at 16-18 FPS look speeded-up. Chaplin’s comedy appears more comical today than to its original audience!

If shooting is done at 240 FPS, while being projected (at 24 FPS) the action seems to be taking ten times more time than normal. This is the basis of Slow Motion Photography. Similarly, to achieve Fast Motion, camera allows exposure of frames at a lesser rate, say 3 FPS, which on projection appears eight times faster. Also, you must have seen shots of Extreme Fast Motion or Time Lapse Photography in which a night sky gives way to morning, the sun rises and it is day – all in a matter of seconds. It is achieved by allowing camera to expose frames intermittently, say 1 frame per minute. When the series of frames is run at the ‘sound speed’, the desired result is achieved.

The modulation of FPS has made Motion Picture Camera play with time the way a microscope or a telescope plays with space to enable visual perception beyond human capacity. And going beyond the scientific study, it has revealed the psychological effect of altered sense of motion, resulting in the now-cliché slow motion love scenes, and more. Next time a movie moves you, thank the moving FPS.

Getting Cinemate : #4 Storyboard

When the screenplay is ready to shoot, it is called the Shooting Script. Each scene is then broken down to shots, as shooting is essentially a shot-by-shot procedure. After this, each shot is sketched: its subjects and essential elements within the frame. This series of drawings and captions that show the planned shot divisions and camera movements of the film is called a Storyboard. It greatly resembles a comic strip. And the art is called Storyboarding.

Akira Kurosawa used to paint his frames himself prior to shoot. But otherwise, most directors take the help of a Storyboard Artist who sits with him and gives suggestions and helps him in getting his vision documented in the form of sketches. This is the stage where cinema moves from written medium to the arts.

Note: The arrows in the storyboard signify intended camera movements.

Getting Cinemate : #3 Editing

The screenplay is the only document that exactly describes the narrative structure of the film. After that, it is broken down to pieces, in order to achieve what it describes. Even the shooting is not done chronologically, and it is a shot-by-shot process. There are many improvisations during shoot that go beyond the screenplay. So by the end of the shooting, the director is left with an enormous amount of footage, millions of shots preserved in cans (and several among them from various camera angles), and with a total loss of objectivity. Now, he needs a person who has been detached with the process to help him put these pieces together. Here comes the editor.

So, Editing is the process of re-constructing the narrative structure of the film, mainly based on the screenplay. But it also incorporates the improvisations, and makes certain decisions regarding the flow of the film, as it is now that the actual film starts appearing. Some scenes may have to go. Some extra shots may need to be added. And apart from ‘film editing’ or splicing the shots together, with the transitions like fades and dissolves, it involves the adding of the soundtrack: voices, ambient sound and background score. In fact, editing is the process that actually makes cinema a unique art-form. Writing, acting, photography, music, art-direction, choreography – all are contributions from other older forms of art. Editing combines them together to make cinema – the art of the moving image.

Getting Cinemate: #2 Cinematography

The cinematographer is the 'eye' of movies...

Cinematography can be best defined as 'motion picture photography'. And it is the most important job while shooting the film, because the film that will eventually appear on screen has to be constructed from the footage the camera has captured. All planning, all merits and demerits of the script, what the actor could or could not do - everything is immaterial after this stage. You can only see the film the way it was shot. Hence the 'eye'...

Apart from taking care of how and what to capture in the frame, how to light the set, selecting the colour tone, and creating a visual balance between the characters, the costumes and the set - all come under cinematography, just like still photography. But unlike still photography, cinematography has to take care of two more things:
1. capturing the movement of the characters with respect to the camera, i.e changing focus as the shot continues,
2. movement of the camera itself with respect to the ground, i.e panning, tilting, rolling, tracking etc.

A 'Cinematographer' is also known as the 'Director of Photography'. And in the creative hierarchy, he is just below the Director, along with the Writer and the Editor.

Getting Cinemate: #1 Screenplay

A Screenplay (aka Script) can be defined as the written document containing sequential arrangement of scenes of a film. It contains the action (instructions regarding what happens on screen) and the dialogue. It thus says a story, not from a third person narrative (as in written fiction), but in the language of cinema.

However, many films, esp. in India, split the credit of 'script' into three parts:
1. the Story: the original storyline, not necessarily in the language of cinema
2. the Screenplay: that converts the story into a sequence of scenes (aka 'Scenario' in some European films, also in Satyajit Ray films)
3. the Dialogue: which when added to the screenplay, completes the script.

This explains why Filmfare awards each heads separately, while the Academy covers it under 'Best Screenplay'. Thus 'Best Screenplay' in Filmfare generally goes to 'structural' films like Yuva (2004), Life in a Metro (2007), Mumbai Meri Jaan (2008). Note how important the scene structures of these films are. While a Screenplay Oscar can go to a Juno(2007) which has an extremely simple structure but great dialogues.

Getting Cinemate: Intro

A new series begins here. I hope series with shorter posts can be more fun. Please tell me what you feel.

I, through this series, would like to define certain terms that belong to the field of cinema, mostly theoretical and technical, but terms that cinema lovers should know. Or at least, terms that make us more 'cinemate'.

I begin with this term itself: Cinemate. It is a neologism, meaning 'cinema literate'. A person who is cinemate has developed a better understanding of the medium. And all cinema lovers, knowingly or unknowingly, are progressing towards increased 'cinemacy'.

I am usually asked by friends, the meanings of 'screenplay' and 'cinematography'. Through this series I would like to explain terms as simple as that to Mise en scene. And infinitely more words and concepts that I have to learn myself...