ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 1 month ago - Brian McGleenon

Film Festivals that show a glut of shorts one after the other don't work. Session lasting 2/ 3hours of constant shorts! It creates a fatigue, you invest in one film world for 10 minutes, then have to invest in a totally different world for another 10 minutes and so on.... The best way is to screen a single short before each feature.

11 years, 1 month ago - Dan Selakovich

What Paddy said. If your film is over 10 minutes, it's a hard slog. Programmers want to show as many shorts in a given time slot as possible. Anything over 10 should be exceptional, or it will have a hard time getting accepted to any festivals that aren't short film festivals exclusively.

11 years, 1 month ago - Maria Ann Hylton MSc, MA.

When I submit a short to festivals I check out what they excepted in previous years, how broad is their festival programme. I'm assuming festival organisers and their criteria change all the time with regards to what they want to include in their programmes. I always aim of those the Oscar affiliated, up and coming festivals, indie and those that are starting out and have a buzz around them too. You have to submit and cross those toes & fingers because its very competitive out there.

11 years, 1 month ago - Marlom Tander

I very rarely see a short that works. The reason that TV channels are not full of shorts (they are perfect for between the ads) is that it's such a difficult form to make work from a story POV.

That said, the ones that I remember tend to be very "art" and much more about exploring an idea than being a condensed feature. Ambiguity and layers are the way to go.

A good short is to a movie as a poem is to a novel.

11 years, 1 month ago - John David Clay

delivery requirements check and double make sure all those are correct and frm a cinematography good colour grading is always highly recommended.

anyway all good advice and best of luck.

John
Cinematographer / editor / screenwriter
BKSTS

11 years, 1 month ago - Jamie Kennerley

I think judges are basically looking for GOOD films. Same as any other selection-based event. Each programmer will have their own agenda and curatorial intentions though, so making a decent short is still no guarantee of acceptance. One of the best things you can do is watch plenty of other shorts to at least get an understanding of what's out there - good and bad ones, but ideally the really good ones. So you know what you're up against.

If you want to screen your short at a selection-free event and get some audience reaction, bring it along to Kino at Electrowerkz in Angel: http://www.kinolondon.com/ We've been going for over 5 years and are one of the biggest short film events in London. Oh, and we don't select anything we watch.

11 years, 1 month ago - Jeremiah Quinn

Yes there are golden rules.

Get good sound.
Get good stills of the production and of the film scenes.
Edit it until nothing more can be cut.
Never use any kind of opening titles, festival curators hate them with a passion. Credits on the end.

11 years, 1 month ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Going against my own post here, but let me explain what I mean. I hate short films most of the time. Shorts are really hard to get right. You still need to create character, story, motivation etc but don't have the space for much in the way of texture. Ponderous scenes can add to a feature, creating a beat or break, signposting an act. A slow scene in a short can be a third of the film navel-gazing because it's not demanded by the surrounding scenes yet.

Shorts usually don't have big budgets - if they had access to big money most people would make features instead. This means they're usually a volunteer or mates-rates crew knocking them out over a weekend. That means production design, etc tend to get left out more than in, and they look pretty flatly lit.

Shorts also sometimes not know when a story is over - and can drag material out to fill a longer time. Look how fast TV moves, and look how much many shorts drag by comparison. Tell the story and get out.

Titles - honestly, with the possible exception of their parents, nobody cares who worked on your film. Credits on shorts aren't worth a heap in the industry, so your credits should be short. TV can do it in 30s, so shorts that take 5 mins should be shot. Yes I've seen it.

It is really hard to get audiences for short films - shorts nights rarely work at cinemas because audiences don't want to invest in multiple stories in multiple genres with variable quality. That means when you make a short you have to make a deal with the audience - in return for watching my film I promise not to bore you. That's why brevity is key. I'll take a 3 minute punt over a 15 minute one. Impress me in 3 minutes and I might look for more of your stuff, but bore me for 15... Well I'll have left after 5.

11 years, 1 month ago - Drew Mclean

The only golden rule is do it from the heart - you can tick all the filmmaking boxes but if your story hasn't got a heart then it won't come over to the judges,no matter what their agenda is.

11 years, 1 month ago - Ricky Milling

Story, plain and simple. It must have a purpose, like a feature but occur over 3-15 minutes. Too many 'short films' come across as a few scenes from a bigger movie.

11 years, 1 month ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Brevity.