A Lie Detector for Independent Cinema

I created a scale. It’s not objective, but I believe it’s highly rational and reasonable. It uses public information about films to help you figure out one thing: is a film actually independent?

I have experienced this enough: how a film gets financed dictates what it is allowed to be. It creates pressure and quietly forces creative teams into self-censorship, just to keep the institutions and a certain audience happy. You can’t separate a piece of art from the spreadsheet that funded it. And you can actually read it by looking at the structural DNA of a film, even without watching it. Because today, the word independent has been hijacked. Many films labeled independent today are actually formulaic and safe productions that have been shaped by script labs and institutional approvals. Even major film studios now claim to be making independent films, but they produce imitations of them to get a share of this growing market.

So independent cinema is no longer a spirit or a rebellious method; it’s just an exploited marketing term, which is exactly why I designed this scale: to cut through the noise and expose the exploitation. You can think of it as a lie detector for independent cinema that everyone can operate.

Film Independence Scale

1. Financing

• 0 Points: The credits feature logos from national/international film funds, major streaming platforms, or major studios.
• 1 Point: The budget was mostly supplied by independent producers, but the credits still include logos for minor local funds or additional support grants.
• 2 Points: There are absolutely no institutional, fund, or platform logos in the credits or on the poster. The film is 100% self-funded, crowdfunded, or backed by private investors.

2. Development Process

• 0 Points: The credits officially include logos or acknowledgments for international script labs, co-production markets, or pitching workshops.
• 1 Point: The film bypassed major international platforms but still received local/national script consultancy or project development support.
• 2 Points: There are zero credits for development labs, pitching markets, or workshops. The screenplay was produced organically without passing through any institutional filters.

3. Crew & Post-Production

• 0 Points: Key creative roles are filled by popular industry professionals. Post-production was completed at major industry studios.
• 1 Point: The crew is a mix of established industry professionals and independent talent.
• 2 Points: The crew consists entirely of autonomous talent operating outside the mainstream industry. Post-production was handled via independent or DIY facilities.

4. PR & Marketing Strategy

• 0 Points: The official synopsis consists of “issue-bait” marketing, focusing on the year’s popular fund/festival trends (such as migrant crises, identity politics, ecological collapse, trauma).
• 1 Point: The film has a strong socio-political backdrop, but the marketing strategy focuses on character, narrative, or style rather than a sociological manifesto.
• 2 Points: The marketing is built around aesthetics, form, or independent storytelling. The film has neither won nor been nominated for specific NGO or humanitarian awards.

5. Distribution & Exhibition

• 0 Points: The film premiered at an A-list festival and sold to major industry distributors or streamers to become part of the mainstream arthouse market.
• 1 Point: The film played at festivals and found a limited theatrical and digital release.
• 2 Points: The film was released directly to the audience via alternative distribution networks or DIY digital platforms.

Evaluation Results

• 0 – 3 Points – Institutional Independent: An industry-approved independent. The film was produced via formulas, funded by institutions, smoothed out in labs, and remains safely within the boundaries of the arthouse market.
• 4 – 7 Points – Semi-Autonomous Independent: While some concessions were made for visibility or funding, the creative core was largely preserved, preventing institutions from completely hijacking the film’s vision.
• 8 – 10 Points – Radical Independent: A fully autonomous work of art that sets its own rules with zero concessions, requiring no validation from institutions, state funds, or market trends.

Test It Yourself

Here’s an actual tool I created that you can play around with. Select the options for each section and click the Calculate button to see where the film lands on the scale (please note that this scale applies exclusively to films that claim to be independent or are marketed and promoted as such).

Nobody Beats the System 100%

I am not exempting myself from this game. I ran two of my own feature films through these exact criteria, and here are the results:

	A Hero of Our Time (2023)	Marriage A-la-Mode (2026)
Financing	0	2
Development Process	0	2
Crew & Post-Production	1	2
PR & Marketing Strategy	2	2
Distribution & Exhibition	1	N/A
Evaluation Results	4 points: Semi-Autonomous Independent	8 points: Radical Independent (as the distribution process is still ongoing; depending on circumstances, the score could climb to a 9 or 10)

As you see, making a dependent film isn’t actually the problem here, as I also made one. Nobody can beat the system 100%, and actually, they shouldn’t. We don’t live in an ideal world. The real problem here is the LIE: dressing up an institutionally backed, dependent film as independent art for the audience that doesn’t know the backstage mechanics.

So, I refuse to call my films independent anymore, even if they actually are. Because the term has become completely meaningless. It just doesn’t mean what it used to. And it doesn’t reflect the kind of cinema I make, or rather, I don’t understand the same thing by an independent film when industry people talk about it. Instead, I defined the terms I was interested in and published them in this post (though I don’t know if it will work for others, but at least it’s honest).

And you, my friends, next time a film is sold to you as an indie film, just think twice.