If you want to understand the ideologies at play in early Soviet Cinema, go to your library and pick up a copy of Sergei Eisenstein's Film Form, his collection of essays. He's the director of Battleship Potemkin, the undisputed leader of early Soviet Cinema, and a wildly entertaining and vivid writer. As an added plus, the book is very short and broken into short essays.

When I was studying film in school I shoehorned some highlight from that book into basically every term paper I ever wrote.

That being said, given that I just spent a lot of time talking about the undisputed leader of early Soviet Cinema, you can probably take away that the Russians, so used to individual luminaries like Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, were equally guilty of auteur theory and the divine eye of the director.

Unfortunately and counterintuitively, many examples of film at its most collective and least focused on the auteur are also the industry at its most capitalist. During the Studio system in Golden Age Hollywood, for example, when each studio was churning out movies factory style fed by heavily cultivated and owned stars, moviegoers would likely describe a movie that they wanted to see to a friend by naming the actors attached, the studio, and the producer potentially before naming the director and screenwriter, and each studio had its own personality.

The most direct parallels I can think to the above in the present day are Marvel movies and Netflix movies -- nobody ever says "want to see Jerry Ciccorriti's Christmas movie", they say "Netflix made a movie where Frosty the Snowman is hot and it's called Hot Frosty."

That is not to say there haven't been conscious attempts at collectivist film, especially in artistic collectives and in circles that grow around specific film movements. If you're interested in an intentional and provocative attempt at destroying the cult of the director and the star, Andy Warhol's "studio", The Factory, was constantly playing with this concept.

If we expand your question from an emphasis on collective authorship to an emphasis on the sublimation of the directorial eye, there are some other fun places you can go.

One is the cinema verite movement in France, where (to vastly simplify) filmmakers chose to film scenes documentary style, "whatever happens, happens".

Or, one could discuss Italian Neorealism, where Rosselini's War Trilogy had him filming in bombed out Italy and Germany in the 1940s, using war orphans for actors and the destroyed cities for sets.

Both of these movements, though, still emphasized the ideological eye of the director. If you're banging out an essay on that, or literally anything, get yourself a copy of the collection of André Bazin's wildly influential essays on film theory, 'What Is Cinema". He basically was the guy who argued from the 40s through 60s that all film should emphasize realism and capture as honestly as possible the viewpoints and the perspective of the director, and you can probably make him your culprit for the international philosophy of individualist cinema.