Are distributors interested in short films?

[Jan Tore Soerensen]

 

 

(NB - if anyone's wondering what I'm doing at the moment, I instinctively hit the control+return key combination when I'd finished typing that sentence, which is the add-to-render-queue keystroke in After Effects. Kill me. Kill me now.)

Haha!

[John E Clark]

I guess it depends on definition, but people are making good money on music videos and commericials, and I think we could agree that they both are short films.

 

Yes people make 'good' money, doing commercials and music videos.

 

But 'end product' of a short film is the film... the end product of a commercial or music video is not the short film, it is the product or singer/music. And I think many 'music videos' are written of as 'advertising'...

[Landon D. Parks]

I agree with John... Music Videos and Commercials are not 'short films', at least not to me. Call me old school, but in my mind a short film is a narrative work, much like a feature film only shorter. A commercial is a form of advertising and nothing more, while a music video sits somewhere in the middle - but given that it doesn't really contain a whole story arch necessary for narrative, I don't consider that a short film either. There might be some limited music videos that try to make use of a narrative story form, but they are far from the norm.

 

I also don't believe that 'web series' are equivalent to short films either, as many think. Web series are more a direct parallel of a television series, which are not really short films at all, but rather episodic in nature.

 

Bottom line, a short film tells a full narrative arc in a short span of time. Commercials have no narrative, and music videos are designed to follow whatever song lyrics they are being made to.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Field]

But couldn't song lyrics create a narrative? In turn if the video played out to the song lyrics it would create narrative video. Just to clarify I don't believe every song has narrative lyrics and that every video follows them.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes, it is certainly possibly. Though I don't think many songs tell a complete story, and as such most music videos probably don't contain enough narrative for me to consider them a short film.

[Tyler Purcell]

Bottom line, a short film tells a full narrative arc in a short span of time.

WOW what a limited vision of filmmaking.

[Landon D. Parks]

Limited? Hardly. A 'film' should tell a full narrative arc, just like a book should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. A short 'film' should have the same narrative arc as any other story.

 

Now, I'm not saying one cannot make filmed entertainment without such arc, but such a creation would not be a 'film' by my definition.

 

Please don't tell me people are lining up to see films with no traditional narrative arc? When I see a film of any length, I expect it to begin a place - reach a climax, and then receive a resolution. Calling a commercial selling a product a 'film' of any sort is just odd to me - considering it is simply a sales tool and not designed to tell a story. As for music videos, I also don't consider them short films because they are music videos. Same was I would not call a TV series a feature film or a feature film a short film. Each name has it's attached meaning in the traditional sense, and I'll stick with that for the time being.

 

Feature film: a narrative film that can stand on its own, aka be 'featured'.

Short film: a narrative film that cannot stand on it's own.

Web Series: an internet version of a TV series, be it drama, comedy, dramedy, or reality.

Television Series: a series of shows in which each show contains a story within an overall story arc. (even most episodes follow a limited traditional story arc)

Commercial: Designed to pitch a product, usually has no narrative.

Music Video: Designed to bring a song to life, might have limited narrative in some cases - but stands on its own, and rarely tells a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end. There is just not time in 3-4 minutes given.

Documentary: a feature length, non-narrative piece.

 

People don't buy books that fail to follow the narrative arc, just like people pan films that fail to follow the traditional arc. I may be younger, but I still prefer the classic definition of narrative fiction. I guess I was just raised in a different culture that enjoys the classic methods more than the modern, new-age avant garde trend of messing up what has worked for years.

 

The books I have written and continue to write will have that narrative structure, as will the movies I make. And my opinion of other such works will not change.

 

I would also add that I'm not defining 'filmmaking', I'm defining what a short film means to me. Short films are not the only type of filmmaking.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Carl Looper]

What interests me the most are not those films that allow you to make a living, but that living which allows you to make films - narrative or otherwise.

 

C

Edited April 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Max Field]

 

WOW what a limited vision of filmmaking.

I agree. That sort of thinking prevents the experimental sector from reinventing the mainstream.

[Carl Looper]

 

I agree. That sort of thinking prevents the experimental sector from reinventing the mainstream.

 

 

Yeah for sure. Music videos, as we understand them today, grew out of non-narrative experimental film making. The experimental film makers demonstrated that a film didn't need a narrative (in the traditional sense) to produce something that works as a film. Visual music one could it. Doesn't need to sell musicians.

 

This kind of film making goes all the way back to the beginning of cinema, and Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera is a really good example.

 

Myself I'm very much a proponent of narrative, be it linear, non-linear or some other kind of narrative. But I also have a very deep affinity with non-narrative work (so called).

 

However it's not necessary to make experimental films just to re-invent the mainstream. There are plenty of other much better reasons.

 

C

Edited April 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Landon D. Parks]

Well, it still stands to reason that mainstream is mainstream for a reason: it works. People know it. The three-act structure has worked for thousands of years, far predating cinema, all the way back to the Greeks. experimental filmmaking, much like experimental anything, is a very small niche. Tell me what was the last time an experimental film became a commercial success? Back when I did theatre, we had this self-proclaimed 'experimental' theare group who put on these odds, non-narrative, quasi-weird performances that to me felt like an affront to what everyone else knew as solid entertainment.

 

Funny thing was, they played in 30 seat house - we played (with out mainstream shows) in a 200-500 seat house. Apparently, most members of the general public agreed with my assessment of experimental.

 

Experimenting and everything is fine as a hobby, but it won't pay your bills - nor will it pay your distributors bills. Until something becomes mainstream, the market is not there. And let me tell you, 'mainstream' doesn't change all that fast.

 

I fail to see what any of this has to do with calling a commercial and music video a short film though... Are you saying that because I would not classify a commercial as a short film, that it somehow prevents people from experimenting with film? I wouldn't classify as a feature film as a television series either, but I doubt that will affect it's development in any way. Calling an Escort a sports car will not make it a sports car, either. does that mean that the Escort cannot be developed into something else or even survive as it's own model of car? No. Heck, maybe there is some experimental cause to call all non-sports cars sports cars, so we can 'shake up' the mainstream.

 

Mainstream has worked for thousands of years, and it still works. It's proven. I'll stick with it until something comes along that really deserves to 'shake up' the mainstream.

 

As for experimental filmmakers not need a narrative... did they need much of an audience? I doubt they drew too large of crowds. 'weird' is cool to a percentage of the population... Just happens it's not a large percentage.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Carl Looper]

The mainstream is mainstream by definition. Not by reason.

 

The three act structure is thousands of years old. But so too are many other structures, equally supported by various schools in Ancient Greece and come down to us through the ages.

 

Throughout the medieval era was a practice known as "marginalia" in which monks bored shiteless of copying out the same manuscript year after year, decade after decade, century after century, began being creative and adding their own creations in the margins of the manuscripts (thus the term "marginalia"). This is experimentation. It's what happens when you get sick and tired of the same-old-same-old. It's not a choice. It's a rebellion.

 

Experimenting is not just fine as a hobby. It also has an audience which sustains it.

 

Films don't pay bills. Money pays bills. Be it money from funding, or from audiences, or from corporate sponsorship, or from government funds, or from some rich kid with money to splash around, or from a benefactor. The list goes on.

 

A short film is just any film (video) that is short. Its as simple as that.

 

C

Edited April 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Bill DiPietra]

Limited? Hardly. A 'film' should tell a full narrative arc, just like a book should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. A short 'film' should have the same narrative arc as any other story.

 

Now, I'm not saying one cannot make filmed entertainment without such arc, but such a creation would not be a 'film' by my definition.

 

I think experimental film-makers like Maya Deren, Stan Brakhage, Kenneth Anger & Chantal Akerman - people who influenced many famous, "narrative" film-makers (like Scorsese, for one) - would differ with you.

 

Short film: a narrative film that cannot stand on it's own.

 

Quite incorrect. Short films come in all shapes and sizes - not just in the narrative genre.

 

I guess I was just raised in a different culture that enjoys the classic methods more than the modern, new-age avant garde trend of messing up what has worked for years.

 

The avant-garde has contributed to the artistic discussion for a very long time. You could even argue that the avant-garde informed the narrative structure instead of the reverse. Ancient cave paintings, for example, really are more like abstractions. The avant-garde evolved like everything else and eventually became part of our collective consciousness (and perhaps even our collective unconscious.) Cinema would not be quite as magical as they are without it.

 

And my opinion of other such works will not change.

 

What are you, in your late twenties? And you have this rigid a view on how much you want to expand your mind, aesthetically?...

[Landon D. Parks]

All I know is, I have spent more than half my 28 years focusing on the 3-act structure and other mainstream narrative practices. I was taught that method in school, and that is the method I have used in all my creative narrative writings, from short stories to a published novel. It has served me well all those years, and has not let me down or made me wish I had a better or different want to do anything. Almost all films that are a commercial success follows that same structure. While I appreciate the contributions the fringe artists make - and yes, I know they do contribute to what we know as mainstream - they are fringe for a reason. Their work is generally not for everyone (or most people), and as such will find little success.

 

It's nothing new. The Dogma 95 movement was a big thing when I was a younger child interested in films... Never caught on. None of the, what I would consider to be avant garde directors, like David Lynch have ever achieve mass commercial appeal.

 

I guess most of my appreciation for the mainstream narrative stricture comes from growing up being a writer. I loved writing. Writing fiction was (and still is) my favorite pass-time, even more so than film. In the creative writing field, you are taught early and often that good, successful novels follow mainstream principles. I grew up on that principle, and found that it has never failed me once.

 

Why try to 'reinvent' something that isn't broken?

 

As for what a short film is: I still say a short film is a narrative work. A commercial is a commercial. A feature is a feature. A short is a short. A music video is a music video. There is experimental / avant garde and mainstream movements in each of those formats. That does not mean that labeling a short film as a narrative is somehow making it hard for experimental filmmakers to build their craft. If you make experimental commercials (is there such a thing?), it's still a commercial. Experimental music videos are still music videos.

 

You say that 'Quite incorrect. Short films come in all shapes and sizes - not just in the narrative genre.'

 

where does this information come from? Where is your source that I am incorrect? Short films do certainly not come in all sizes. Once you reach over an hour you're no longer a short but a feature. To me, when someone says watch my short film, I expect to see a narrative 3-act film told in less than half an hour. It should have a beginning, middle, and end. Sadly, many filmmakers need to learn this before they make their shorts, cause many I have seen recently lack any coherent story-line at all, something that was not a problem with shorts made 20 or more years ago - when schools still taught the proper way to tell a story.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

Look I'm not a fan of abstract and experimental films, I'm just not. Yet I completely understand the validity of making those kinds of productions, even if I don't choose to participate in viewing them. At the same time, I'm perfectly ok with productions that don't follow the standard character arc's, three act structure and standard "narrative" arc. We are artists and if someone wants to make something, NOTHING should stop them. Whether they make money off those products, that's a different story.

 

Like so many genera's, abstract and experimental films have a pretty significant place on the open market. Not only are their festivals designed specifically for them, but there are some amazing filmmakers who produce some pretty interesting work in those genera's. Heck, a lot of the top filmmakers today, started out in experimental filmmaking. To name one... George Lucas's wonderful THX1138 is a masterpiece. One of my all-time favorite movies and has little to no plot or character arc's. Yet it's still a kickass movie that works for pretty much any audience who is willing to think a tiny bit and not let their brain cells dribble out their ears as they drink a large pepsi. LOL :)

 

I understand why people think films that don't follow the "norms" maybe are second tier, I really do. I'm one of those guys who looks at some of the abstract nonsense, ya know a shot of the sky, then ground, then sky, then ground and it says 'The end'. I'm like, really? Why would anyone want to see that crap. It's not a movie, it's just a waste of film and time. Yet, there are some amazing off-beat, abstract/experimental movies out their which are on the edge of commercial and have made money. Most of David Lynches work falls into that category. Heck, the last two Terrance Malick movies have as well. I mean, it's a different way of making a movie, but it's not substandard in any way. Unless of course you consider guys like Orson Wells "substandard". Which you may... he's a bit "old school" for younger guys.

 

In terms of what defines a short film... Well its anything under 70 minutes in length. Whether it's a shot of a red dot on a wall for 69 minutes and 59 seconds or not, that's up to the filmmaker. But 70 minutes divides feature from short. There have been literally hundreds of music based short films, just look at Micheal Jackson's collection, it's FULL of them. Do they have full/complete character arc's? Nope... do they need to? Nope. It's entertainment man! Sometimes it doesn't need to be some overly complex just to appeal. In fact, if it's entertaining, the form factor of how that entertainment is delivered, makes no difference.

 

In terms of money, there is PLENTY of money to be had with making something off-beat, something without the "norms" of storytelling. It may not be at your local AMC theater, it maybe in Europe where people care about artists work. Here we only care about how many asses they can get in the seats and honestly, it's a failing system. Filmmaking doesn't just have to be a business you know, just because that was it's intent, doesn't mean that's the only thing it can be. Filmmaking is a serious art form and like any other art form, there will always be people who like what you make. Whether you make money off those productions is based on popularity of your work, rather then some ancient tropes. If you're good at marketing and you make a product that has some appeal, there is no reason why you couldn't be successful with it.

 

I don't see David Lynch living in a tent on Argyle.

[Brian Drysdale]

For the academy awards a short film is defined as running for 40 minutes or less and a feature film 40 minutes or more. The latter is likely to be historical, but the former makes sense for what most people regard as a short.

[Brian Drysdale]

The French, being different, have 58 minutes and 29 seconds as the length of a feature film. However, most features will be over 70 minutes long, with the shorter ones usually running around 90 minutes..

Edited April 12, 2016 by Brian Drysdale

[Carl Looper]

 

You say that 'Quite incorrect. Short films come in all shapes and sizes - not just in the narrative genre.'

 

where does this information come from? Where is your source that I am incorrect? Short films do certainly not come in all sizes. Once you reach over an hour you're no longer a short but a feature. To me, when someone says watch my short film, I expect to see a narrative 3-act film told in less than half an hour. It should have a beginning, middle, and end. Sadly, many filmmakers need to learn this before they make their shorts, cause many I have seen recently lack any coherent story-line at all, something that was not a problem with shorts made 20 or more years ago - when schools still taught the proper way to tell a story.

 

Obviously when Landon D. Parks uses the words "short film" he has his own personal definition of what those words mean. By "short film" he means a "3 act film told in less than half an hour".

 

For the rest of us, these words "short film" have a far more general meaning, where they simply refer to any film that has a short duration. Not just 3 act films. A short film doesn't have to be any good in order to be called a "short film". Whether good, bad or ugly, a short film can be called a "short film". Now the actual duration of a short film, called as such, will vary from one culture to another. For example, here in Australia any film less than one hour is called a "short film". Anything longer is called a "feature film". These terms don't have any other more specific meaning.

 

In relation to a three act structure, such a format allows for quite good work, as much as it does complete and utter garbage. And the same can be argued for any other structure.

 

C

Edited April 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

While I appreciate the contributions the fringe artists make - and yes, I know they do contribute to what we know as mainstream - they are fringe for a reason. Their work is generally not for everyone (or most people), and as such will find little success.

 

Thats like saying "While I appreciate the contributions that Donald Trump makes ... he is Donald Trump for a reason. His work is generally not for everyone, and as such, will find little success"

 

While this actually sounds quite true, the real reason Donald Trump is Donald Trump is because that's what his parents called him.

 

C

Edited April 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Here's another example of Landons logic:

 

While I appreciate a triangle, they are triangles for a reason. They generally don't have four sides, and as such, will find little success as a square.

 

C

Edited April 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Bill DiPietra]

All I know is, I have spent more than half my 28 years focusing on the 3-act structure and other mainstream narrative practices. I was taught that method in school, and that is the method I have used in all my creative narrative writings, from short stories to a published novel.

 

Most of us grew up with the 3-act structure. I've been writing short stories using that method since I was a kid. And no one ever questioned its validity.

 

You say that 'Quite incorrect. Short films come in all shapes and sizes - not just in the narrative genre.'

 

where does this information come from? Where is your source that I am incorrect? Short films do certainly not come in all sizes. Once you reach over an hour you're no longer a short but a feature. To me, when someone says watch my short film, I expect to see a narrative 3-act film told in less than half an hour.

 

Yes, to you. That's the key phrase, here. And I say you are incorrect because you are. As others pointed out, the length of a short film can vary from festival to festival (which is where you usually see them,) but I was referring more to genres. Short films can encompass a plethora of genres, not just narrative. Now, it's absolutely fine to have your own definition of what a short film should be. But when you start talking as if your standards in this case should be treated as the rule instead of the exception ("where does this information come from? Where is your source that I am incorrect?",) you need to remember that this is merely your opinion.

 

Sadly, many filmmakers need to learn this before they make their shorts, cause many I have seen recently lack any coherent story-line at all, something that was not a problem with shorts made 20 or more years ago - when schools still taught the proper way to tell a story.

 

I doubt schools stopped telling the 3-act structure. It's more likely that today's students believe they can learn all they need to learn off of nofilmschool.com or other online sources. I agree with you on this point. I had great teachers in high-school and college who taught creative writing & film. College is where I learned to really analyze narrative films and it was only enhanced when I went to grad school. I began to examine a number of different media theories, including Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey," which is at the heart of every engaging story. These theories - combined with a full understanding of the importance of the visual components - have produced many classic, narrative films that also have elements of abstraction to them. In other words, the spectator actually has to do some thinking.

 

My point is that, to grow as an artist, one must eventually move beyond what you learned in school and start thinking outside-the-box. That doesn't mean you suddenly become an experimental film-maker. But taking a look at something a little different every now and then will open your mind to new ideas. One of my teachers in college was an experimental film-maker and I was about as thrilled at what he screened as you currently are. But when he screened Meshes of the Afternoon, I saw there was something to that genre.

 

If you are more concerned about turning a profit, then yes - the narrative genre is definitely your best bet. But it's just disturbing to see that you have such a provincial view about film-making at such a young age.

[Carl Looper]

Came across this today (from 2014):

 

Its an example of how filmmakers beat an entirely different path to feature films from their predecessors. If we take "short films" to traditionally mean those films shown before a feature, we all know that such films no longer exist (the rare exceptions proving the rule). Of what use is the phrase "short film" if it refers to that which no longer exists? And so while music videos and ads are not the traditional thing that comes to mind when speaking of "short films" they nevertheless constitute an alternative path that filmmakers have taken (and can take). They constitute a much wider definition of short film - out of necessity (the mother of invention). They provide that which a traditional short film previously provided: a way of learning one's craft, building one's reputation, and earning an income - as a film maker. It is the filmmaker, treating their work as a short film (whatever else it might also be), that defines what "short film" will henceforth mean.

 

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/feature/a556875/jonathan-glazer-10-stunning-music-videos-and-ads-from-under-the-skin-director/

 

C

Edited April 15, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Freya Black]

It's nothing new. The Dogma 95 movement was a big thing when I was a younger child interested in films... Never caught on.

 

 

Whaaa???!!!

 

....Wait do you remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison?

 

Freya

Edited April 16, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

np

Edited April 16, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

None of the, what I would consider to be avant garde directors, like David Lynch have ever achieve mass commercial appeal.

 

Wait what about Twin Peaks then?

 

How much mass appeal is enough?

the Elephant Man did $26 million at the box office in 1980.

 

David Lynch even made a movie for Disney.

how much mass appeal does he have to have!?

 

Freya