“I went into the movie business for money. Art just sort of grew out of it. If this leaves anybody disillusioned, that is not my fault. I am telling the truth”.
Charles Chaplin

When the first movie screening took pace on December 28, 1895, at Capuchin Nuns Boulevard, a ticket cost 1 franc. Can the movies “Arrival of a Train” or “The Waterer Watered” be considered a commercial success on this basis? Without a doubt, they were hugely successful with the public, becoming veritable blockbusters of the time. However, there is no doubt that Louis Lumiere invented his “moving pictures” not at all for profit’s sake. After all, his photo products factory prospered and yielded handsome income.

Since that time, the movie industry has experienced fundamental changes. Commercial movies are now clearly set in opposition to “pure art”. On the one hand, there are commercial, mainstream, mass movies, on the other – noncommercial, independent, alternative, vanguard, “underground” movies. A group apart are directors who have proclaimed themselves to be “independent of the independents”. The most active proponents of this trend believe it shameful to even receive money for their work.

Filmmaking is a very sophisticated and resource-intensive type of art. For this exact reason a movie director, unlike an artist or writer, cannot afford to create movies for art’s sake. Making a movie involves hiring actors, cameramen, editors, sound and light specialists. Besides that, one needs a screenplay, costumes, a filming location, expensive equipment, and whatnot. Naturally, all of this requires considerable investment. This is why the notion of “independent filmmaking” is of itself rather relative. When a director depends on so many factors, he or she can no longer work just for art’s sake. When a movie budget is limited, a director cannot afford expensive cinematographic solutions even if the screenplay so requires.