ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

6 years, 3 months ago - Mark Renshaw

I've done a few runs of the festival circuit and in general, that is true, simply because festivals have limited blocks of time and want to cram in as much content as possible. Therefore, anything over 9 minutes is scrutinized more and anything 15+ minutes receives Oscar quality scrutiny!

I haven't done a festival cut as such but I once wrote a script or 9 pages with festivals in mind. It was filmed and the director added slow motions shots, extended a few scenes etc. and the length of the film went up to over 13 minutes. I suggested he cut it to 9 minutes to give us more chances of getting into festivals but he declined. As such, we did get into some fests but a lot declined. I had one festival, the Wildsound Feedback Festival in Toronto, Canada actually get in touch with me after they declined it and advise me to cut it to 9 saying it would get into a lot more festivals. I agreed with them but I didn't have the final say.

6 years, 3 months ago - Uli Meyer

If you are 100% sure that there is little room to cut, you would presumably risk that your film doesn't work if you cut it down. Better to have a coherent film at its current length than a trimmed down one that doesn't work, just to try to get it into festivals. If your film suffers from shortening it, it is less likely to be selected anyway.
What might be worth a try is to have an experienced editor look at it with fresh eyes. Maybe you are too close to it and someone else can see a shorter version that does work just as well.

6 years, 3 months ago - Jane Sanger

It depends on the film festival and I think probably 10-15 mins is optimum. I was judge for the Monthly Film Festival which regularly accepted 20-30 minute shorts. So maybe online festivals are different.

6 years, 3 months ago - George Brian Glennon

Mark, Uli, Jane, Thank you for the responses.

Like you Mark my script was ten pages, however there are stalking and chase scenes without dialogue that add several minutes and really make the thing. I have a professional editor however have given him extensive notes as I'm not sitting there with him. I may ask him to see what he can do with the footage in a ten minute time frame. It wouldn't hurt to see a ten minute rough.

But again if it's going to take 13:30 for the film to be at its highest level then I'll have to take the chance.

I'm really thinking here of the big name festivals.

I'm confident it can get officially programmed into many of the smaller festivals at even the longer length.

6 years, 3 months ago - Gregory Fishwick

It's also not just about run time - I heard from a smaller fest recently that the pacing of the piece was their primary focus and they seemed to think that was the most common reason for festival rejection. However I agree that you certainly shouldn't cut your film to a point you are unhappy with just to get it into festivals.

6 years, 3 months ago - Glyn Carter

As someone who has both submitted to festivals, and who is running one, I can confirm the gist of the above. I even decided to go for lower submission fees for short films. Festivals will always go for quality, and as Gregory says, pace is important (no-one wants a bored audience).

But longer is not necessarily better: The most memorable short films are under ten minutes, which must mean something.
I've seen too many shorts that are baggier than features, when the format demands they shoud be tauter. I've watched shorts that take 10 minutes just to set up the story, by which point a commercial feature would be moving on towards the second act! (It usually goes back to the writing.)

A programmer will also think in 90-minute(-ish) screenings. In that slot, they can only fit in two 15-20 minute films, four of around ten minutes, and two or three under five minutes. So only 20% will be over 15 minutes. You can guarantee more than 20% of submissions were over 15 minutes!

So it's not just that shorter films are often better. The odds are better too.

6 years, 2 months ago - Mark Jepson

A lot of great advice here. My suggestion is have a go at another edit - treat it as an experiment - then get others to watch it and comment back on whether or not it still makes sense. Yes, you will lose some story elements but you can actually increase the emotional impact of a film by doing this.There's nothing stopping you doing two edits - one that satisfies the director and one that's a 'festival edit'.

Real audiences are unforgiving, and pace is so important especially for the short film format. I'd say it is even more important in proof of concept as it is far better to have the audience walking away wanting more, than feeling it dragged.

6 years, 2 months ago - Frederic Casella

Agree that all of the above is great advice. to add some numbers to it, re Big Festivals, Sundance (which has no barrier to entry, hence poss the biggest numbers) gets just under 9,000 short film submissions for around 60 slots. They will take 1 or 2 shorts above 15min and maybe a third of what remains in the 12-15min bracket and the rest under the 12min. BUT once your short has passed the initial 'quality' election round then there are a whole load of other factors that come into play which is usually about any festival wanting to have a balanced, diverse slate (regarding genre, production country, budget level, ethnic/gender representation etc etc). These latter issues you cannot control, and the quality of the film will only take you so far. So a shorter film has great chance of being screened. BUT it sounds like your film is a 'proof of concept' so a good portion of your audience will be potential producers & financiers for the feature, and they will, most likely, be watching the short on their computer at their office/home/yacht. In that case all that matters is that they don't get bored. So yes: get fresh eyes on it, and budget-allowing you may want two edits.

6 years, 2 months ago - Ian Allardyce

Have you ever sat in a short film
screening at a festival where they show around 8 shorts? And after having crafted your piece to the standard 15mins a really flabby, indulgent 25-30mins film comes on and you're sat there thinking "why didn't they trim all this out" or "why did the festival take it?".

I truly believe that the art and mode of a short, is to be, well short! All the best are like good jokes... Set-up, anticipation, punchline. Anything over 15, or tops 20mins usually out stays its welcome and shows a lack of experience in the director.

In my humble opinion.

6 years, 2 months ago - George Brian Glennon

We are doing a second edit as an experiment as Mark has said. It won't hurt to see. I can always put a directors cut on the website.

Thematically , even though it is a financial crime thriller, it is about the power of a young women. A real women, a "Wrangler" from Cambridge that could be alive... not Captain Marvel. It should clear any festival diversity hurdle.

Thanks Everyone

6 years, 2 months ago - Clement GHARINI

Just another angle to this question, looking at the last few Academy Awards winners:

• 2018 - Skin - 20 mins
• 2017 - The Silent Child - 20 mins
• 2016 - Sing - 25min
• 2015 - Stutterer - 12min
• 2014 - The Phone Call - 21min

To a few exceptions, the nominees are also all within the 15min / 30min range.

The right length is possibly the one which is just right for the story.

We, filmmakers should perhaps focus on the content over the context, substance over strategy, and succeed based on merit not calculation. Am I too naive?

6 years, 2 months ago - George Brian Glennon

Clement, I believe you are right and you're not naive.

As an artist my instinct tells me to make the best film possible wherever the minutes land. Create in a vacuum and don't follow trends.

I also know as a businessman that one can't completely ignore the probabilities surrounding getting officially programmed at the Oscar and Bafta sanctioned festivals, and the possibility of lessening the variables that may prohibit that broad exposure to the "Right" people.

As always it's the balance between art and commerce. If my long career in music has taught me anything, it would be to err on the side of art (first).

6 years, 2 months ago - Richard Anthony Dunford

Also from Clement's post the title of 3 of the 5 academy winners begins with the letter S... and if you took away the 'the' so would the silent child so maybe short film success isn't about running time but what letter your film title begins with =)

6 years, 2 months ago - Clement GHARINI

Hey George, I fear that you're absolutely right. My idealist self would love to ignore the factual constrains and reality of the industry. The art-vs-commerce conundrum is one I have yet to solve and master. My background is technical so I'm not sure I really know what art and commerce really are either. ;)

6 years ago - Thom Jackson-Wood

I'm curious, does this rule also apply to short documentaries? I've got a short documentary that is currently 25 minutes long but I'm looking to cut it down as much as possible. 15 minutes may be a bit ambitious but if we can get it under 18 minutes then I'll be happy with that..