A Guide to Self-censorship

I believe the predominant issue of independent filmmakers today is self-censorship. It’s everywhere, just in different disguises. I am not talking about challenges (censorship attempts) by powerful authorities. Fighting authority is possible as their actions are predictable. They can even boost our creativity when we try to find alternative ways to pass their boundaries (Iranian cinema was a great example of this, they have created a new form of cinema under authoritarian pressures). So, the real danger is when we censor ourselves without even realizing it. Filmmakers often shape their ideas to fit institutional validation (funds, festivals, streaming services, etc.), just to get the opportunities for their films. Over time, this compromise becomes part of their style, and, we have got a bunch of films that all feel the same. They look different on the surface, but they are just variations of the same viewpoints.

Aside from the funding and festival system, there is also this habit of following in the footsteps of successful filmmakers which is just another form of self-censorship. If a topic or filmmaking style wasn’t a hit in festivals, filmmakers would probably dismiss it, but since it worked for someone successful, they adopt it without question.

Now, don’t get me wrong, finding artistic inspiration and being influenced is totally normal. This is how creativity works and art evolves. What I am talking about is looking at success through a narrow lens and deciding that it is the way forward. Moreover, this approach doesn’t align with all those bold claims indie filmmakers make about their indie art. It seems just to follow the rules of populism. Even seeking authenticity has become a cliché in its own right. Because we set our intentions reactively: We determine that something is wrong and take the contrary action. We forget that we own unique circumstances and strengths. And then, we lose sight of why we are making a film.

Extremes to Understand

Let’s imagine an extreme example: A debut filmmaker wants to make a film in North Korea, and aims to portray the regime there from a sympathetic perspective, truly with an artistic intent. No tragedy, no criticism, no struggles, no everyday life, no documentary, no interviews. Now, ask yourself. Would international institutions that dominate global art and culture, support this film?

Let’s say the film gets made. It offers a fresh perspective and has a real cinematic quality and depth. Would it get a spot in a major film festival? Or even if it’s just an average film, could it slide in under the diversity quota and sit next to other mediocre films?

Now consider an opposite example: A film secretly smuggled out of the country on a USB stick. Despite lacking artistic depth or a distinctive style, it is a perception of life and real people under oppression. I envision a prestigious festival’s opening film without even evaluating it.

Or, without even considering this example, just imagine a film with all the diversity checkboxes ticked. Seems like a guaranteed way to success. And, please, don’t try to prove me wrong. I know anything is possible. It was just a thought experiment about extremes.

Okay, enough imagining, let’s talk about an extreme reality. We live in a world where innocent Russian scientists are shut out of CERN just because of the Russia-Ukraine war (I heard it directly from a scientist involved and verified it through multiple news sources). And, in the world of art, it seemed like the whole of Russian culture was being sidelined at one point. Of course, it is not limited to one side of a conflict, it occurs in various directions depending on the political stances of different countries, institutions, and individuals. But really, what does Tolstoy have to do with any of this?

Scapegoats and Witches

What I want to point out is that political, social, and professional expectations affect our intentions more than we realize, and the spectrum of perspectives we can access is often a controlled diversity rather than truly diverse. While we focus on specific authorities or problems (scapegoats and witches), we don’t even notice that there is an invisible influence guiding what we think and don’t think. Because we are so sure that our way of thinking is the only way. That’s self-censorship. And, it is slowly suffocating cinema, and art as a whole.

Understandably, this phenomenon exists in mass media, but I don’t even feel like it’s worth discussing, that’s just how it works. But then, it’s quite ironic to see similar effects among artists who consider themselves free, critical, and empathic. Perhaps, it is less about being deceived but more about becoming a fanatic. Because what I observe is that human interactions like networking, gatekeeping, and favoritism are always in the game. If you have the right connections or use the right labels, you are in. But if you don’t fit their expectations (or aren’t already a well-known name), you are seen as a problem. So you start holding back. Then, when you are finally accepted, you become obsessed with staying in. Where is the space for free expression and independent art in that?

The Glorification of the Mediocre

I am troubled by the evaluation criteria used by many decision-makers, which often seem overly focused on certain socio-political issues, identities, trends, styles and so on and so forth. Sure, they might intentionally narrow their perspective to explore a specific subject, but when the films are shaped by those expectations, what I often see is the glorification of the mediocre in the guise of critical engagement and artistic freedom. Here, I use the term mediocre on purpose. Because bad films are already filtered out as they are easy to spot. But mediocre ones can be dressed up as masterpieces. So the problem is that while the mediocre gets all the spotlight, true merit is (might be) overlooked.

Now, I hear my common sense: It’s just the way things are, you have to accept it and make the best of it. Yes, I should just keep my mouth shut and stick to my lane. Talking about this stuff might not do me any favors, and it’s not like I have to. But then it feels like just another way of self-censorship. And people will label me anyway, whether I am involved in a group or ideology or not.

And most importantly, I feel the need to protect my mind from being violated, as I am also subject to self-censorship.

No Common Sense, Please

Self-censorship is sneaky. It can quietly creep in and mess with an artist’s work without them even realizing it. I often have moments where I feel like I am censoring myself, but when I try to pinpoint it, I can’t seem to find anything concrete. That’s the thing about humans, we adapt so easily. We gravitate toward acceptance, and before we know it, we set up camp there. But, to me, that’s the kiss of death for independence. The risk is too high to rely on our common sense. We have to approach everything in a cynical way because any influence can cause self-censorship.

So, I don’t put anything on a pedestal. I try to view everything with a balance of realism and a cynical attitude, without giving anything too much importance. And, to stay grounded, I sometimes reflect on some thoughts to address a self-censored filmmaker. Of course, I address an imaginary person, but if you are a keen observer, you can sense the presence of these minds all around (especially in the festival-or-fund-oriented-film-industry). And, of course, I don’t think these thoughts change anyone’s world. As I said, we are all experts at self-deception, whatever we hear, we twist it to fit our own version of reality. But I still want to expose my naivety by sharing these ideas. So, here are my reflections:

A Guide to Self-censorship

• You believe you are breaking boundaries, but you might actually be adopting the unwritten rules of your artistic community.
• You might think you are giving a voice to the voiceless, but you could be speaking over them and imposing your narrative on their experience.
• You believe your work is universal, but you might be excluding perspectives that don’t align with your own worldview.
• You might be shaping your authentic narrative or style to fit what is currently marketable, rather than what is true to you.
• Your activism in art might be more about self-promoting than truly challenging power structures.
• You might be appealing to a niche audience under the guise of being authentic and avoiding perspectives that could disrupt your comfort zone.
• You focus on social issues because they are popular, not necessarily because they reflect your own experience.
• Your art could be more about promoting your shallow intellectualism rather than exploring complex ideas with curiosity.
• You could be mistaking controversy for meaningful impact and thinking shock value equates to artistic merit.
• The activist stance you hold dear in your art might not drive change or awareness, but rather be a byproduct, a result of broader human advancements like even engineering and technology.
• You might think you are critiquing society, but you are actually just echoing popular criticisms that are already widely accepted.
• You believe you are radically honest, but in reality, you might avoid topics that could alienate or challenge you.
• Your work might be more about achieving recognition within activist circles than actually practicing effective activism.
• You may think you are raising marginalized voices, but you might be doing so in a way that is suitable to the mainstream.
• You could be focusing on social critique because it’s safer than introspective critique, which would require deeper strength.
• You might be avoiding true innovation, subconsciously adopting the tastes and expectations of the art establishment.
• You might think you are resisting commercialization, but your work could still be shaped by the desire for institutional validation.
• Your radical stance could be more about fitting in with a counterculture than truly challenging your own beliefs or the beliefs of those around you.
• You might see your work as a call to action, but it could be more about making your audience feel good for agreeing with you.
• You might be avoiding certain narratives, topics, and styles not because they are unimportant to you, but because they are not currently in the spotlight.
• Your art might be more about maintaining your status within a certain community than about self-expression.
• You could be simplifying complex issues to make your work more accessible, and losing depth in the process.
• You might be reinforcing stereotypes by trying to subvert them without fully understanding their origins.
• Your art might be more about creating an image of yourself as a rebel or outsider than creating a meaningful dissent.
• You might believe your work is challenging power, but it could be aligning with prevailing ideologies in a way that feels safe.
• Your narrative might be constrained by the fear of losing support from those who currently agree with you.
• Your work might be more focused on impressing critics and peers than on conveying something deeply artistic, personal, or challenging.
• You could be using political or social themes as a shield to avoid more vulnerable subjects.
• Your activism in art might be more about being seen as on the right side of history than about making a change or increasing awareness.
• You might believe you are creating art for all humanity, but you could be shaping it to the tastes of cultural elites of your time.
• You may present yourself and your thoughts as marginalized by society, but it might just be a way to position yourself for affirmative action benefits, instead of reflecting on your experiences.
• Your desire to be seen as a serious artist might be leading you to dismiss light-hearted inspirations.
• Your self-critique might be more about disarming critics than about pushing your creative boundaries.
• You could be sticking to certain themes or styles because they’ve brought you success in the past, rather than exploring new ideas.
• Your portrayal of certain issues might be shaped more by what you think will be praised rather than by what you truly want to explore.
• You think you work on complex themes, but you might be complicating it just to create the illusion of depth rather than exploring complexity.
• You consider your film a festival piece, but you might be limiting its potential.
• You believe the general audience won’t grasp your film, but you might be underestimating them.
• You think winning an award is necessary for recognition, but you might be focusing more on praise than on creating masterful work.
• You believe building connections is important, but you might be shaping your work to please those connections rather than following your vision.
• You think sticking to a style is the safe route for the X festival, but you might be limiting your creativity.
• You believe seriousness is more artistic, but you might be overlooking the value and depth that humor can bring to your work.
• You think minimalism defines your art, but it could be a superficial choice driven by trends or financial restrictions, rather than a true stylistic development.
• You believe film festivals define what qualifies as art, but you might be shaping your work to fit their narrow criteria.
• You think critics determine what is art, but you might be overvaluing their opinions at the expense of your creative freedom.
• You believe you are making a film for festival-goers, but you might be excluding others who could also connect with your work.
• You believe that criticizing your homeland reflects your independent mindset, but you might actually be doing it to create an image or to appeal to certain audiences.
• You believe following advice from established figures is important, but you might be compromising your voice to meet their expectations.
• You think trimming your film for successful distribution is necessary, but you might be cutting out what makes it unique and powerful.
• You believe lengthening your film to match masterful styles is a mark of quality, but it might just be padding rather than adding substance.
• You think using labels helps you to identify your vision, but you might be limiting yourself by confining it to narrow definitions and fitting into specific groups.
• You believe your film will impact humanity positively, but you might be prioritizing a perception over an artistic expression or exploration.
• You think adopting a certain paradigm makes your art universally relatable and humane, but you might be conforming to what’s popular with those who shape history and sacrificing the other worldviews.
• You believe that you are sensitive to the world around you, but you might actually be adopting a socially accepted sensitivity without truly considering the issue.
• You think including human rights themes is essential in your art, but you might be doing it to gain approval rather than out of concern.
• You believe using metaphors and symbols adds depth to your film, but you might be relying on them to hide your inability to create a true meaning.
• You think focusing on abstract concepts deepens your work, but you might be using them to avoid confronting more concrete, difficult issues.
• You believe framing your uncertainty as poetic expression is right, but you might be using it to hide your artistic inadequacy.
• You think Master X’s approval validates your work, but you might be compromising your vision to align with their expectations.
• You believe accepting Master X’s help is wise, but you might be giving up some of your creative independence in the process.
• Your search for artistic success might just be another step toward mediocrity.
• Your commitment to originality might bring you to the clichés you seek to avoid.
• Your film may appear as an act of diversity, but it could just be another product for a system that relies on controlled diversity.
• In attempting to be a voice for the voiceless, you might silence your own.
• You think admiring great masters honors you, but you might be romanticizing them and their struggles, instead of learning from them.
• You think committing to your art is about passion, but you might be underestimating the dedication it requires.
• You enjoy the inclusivity and unique voices, but you might be participating in a herd mentality that marginalizes those who don’t fit the current definition of identities.
• You believe you are part of a diverse and free community, but you might be reinforcing a uniform worldview that restricts true diversity and quietly enforces conformity under the guise of solidarity.
• You might believe living in X country will grant you artistic freedom, but you could just end up adopting the dominant perspectives of its society.
• You value the methods of film analysis and symbolic reading, but you might be contributing to a culture that favors superficial meanings and trends.
• You might support the idea of films as tools for socio-political discourse and activism, but you might be participating in a cycle where cinema becomes an echo chamber for certain groups.
• You might align with the industry’s diversity agendas, but you could be sacrificing your own creative freedom and artistic vision for the sake of acceptance and visibility.
• You might support diversity, but you could be reinforcing a superficial trend that focuses on labels and stereotypes rather than providing true cinematic variety.
• You believe your personal experience is deeply embedded in your film, but it could be just your over-interpretation.
• You might use anti-capitalist rhetoric in your art, but you could be ironically benefiting from the system you are criticizing.
• You might include anti-capitalist themes in your art, but you could be doing it just to appeal to a specific audience.
• You might be reluctant to label yourself as a capitalist, but you could be reinforcing a hypocrisy that ignores how filmmakers inherently participate in the capitalist system.
• You might use social media for validation of your art, but the superficial attention and praise it offers might not be worth it for constructive feedback and artistic respect.
• You might use social media for self-promotion, but it could lead to a network of people who support your art just because they know you in person, which might pressure you to fit your artistic vision to their expectations.
• You might be drawn to underground festivals for their potential awards and recognition, but you could be overlooking that these festivals might prioritize profit over meritorious evaluation, which leads to awards that lack real significance.
• You might appreciate the empathic drive behind your decisions, but your choices might be politically calculated and aligned with trends and audiences rather than addressing underlying facts.
• You might believe you’ve created a good film, but the praise you receive could be more about your film’s timely socio-political discourse than its artistic merit.
• You might consider your cinema independent, but the funds and festival expectations might shape it.
• You might assume that telling stories of rare events reflects society, but you could be adjusting your narrative to match outsiders’ expectations of how they want to perceive that society.
• You might think you are being brave by announcing your cinema as political, but it could simply be a way to attract praise from those aligned with your ideology.
• You may feel you are standing up for equality, but the institution you collaborated with could be unfairly and quietly dismissing peers with greater merit than your own.
• You might think your cinematic language is appealing, but it could just be a tool for your socio-political message, much like an NGO promotion.
• You may see your cinematic insights as independent, but they might be the exact same ideas you absorbed from other filmmakers.
• You might think that using terms like time and space shows depth in your art, but you could just be repeating empty clichés.
• You might believe your approach is empathetic, but it might actually be a superficial adoption of others’ viewpoints without critical analysis.
• You might believe that the complex language in your rhetoric reflects your film, but it could simply be your own over-interpretation that makes no sense.
• You might believe that the complex language a critic uses reflects your film, but it could just be an overanalyzing.
• You might be honored with a prestigious award, but the merit of your film or your talent might be the last thing considered in the evaluation.
• You may feel that building relationships with other filmmakers is for valuable communication, but it could just be about seeking favors.
• You might think you are helping other filmmakers, but you could be seeking favoritism in return rather than seeking mutual collaboration.
• You might think requesting free or low-cost labor from people is acceptable, but you could be exploiting them under the guise of independent filmmaking, which harms your reputation.
• You might think you are making an experimental film with abstract visuals and sounds, but it could be that you are simply lost, with no real contribution to a style or cinematic evolution.

Surely, I could add “or both” to the end of all these sayings, because life might not be just black and white. But then my message might get muddled, as common sense might be a barrier to spotting self-censorship. Besides that, I might be part of this picture too. So I just drop the thoughts below to ease my guilty feelings a bit (and, I let the cinema historians figure out the rest).

• You might believe you are presenting different thoughts, but you might be repeating the same themes (this might apply to all the sayings here).
• You might think you are doing self-reflection, but your focus could be more on presenting a polished version of yourself that aligns with your desired public persona (and this might apply to the whole post).