Yesterday, I took part in a day long symposium on short film conducted as part of the 3 Rivers Film Festival (3rff.com).  By and large it was pretty successful.  There seemed to emerge a couple main themes in much of the days discussion:

1. Is short film different from feature film in some respect other than length?
2. Everything on you tube sucks.
3. Nobody has figured out how to make money from short film.

These last two themes may seem a bit pessimistic and depressing (if you’re a maker of short films), but somehow the real cynic attitude towards these issues didn’t really find a voice.  Nobody said that the reason people don’t want short films is that there isn’t enough short film worth watching.  That’s not to say that there aren’t lots of good shorts made every year.  It’s just that there isn’t a critical mass of them to generate a market.  The strange inversion of supply and demand in consumer entertainment markets is not to be underestimated.  We are not used to thinking of supply preceding demand but it is actually the case.  I am not usually one to reference Sartre, but he had a good point in Being and Nothingness when he notes that emptiness (demand) requires the possibility, or at least the imagined possibility, of fulfillment.

Is short film fundamentally different in some way other than length?

All art has a kind of economy to it.  It must do more with less.  Otherwise it would have no more value than the physical materials from which it is made.  Short film manifests this economy in duration. Most of the quibbling around this discussion dealt with definitions and guidelines set forth by film festivals and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  This is a shame.  I think the more interesting discussion about what makes short film interesting or different should necessarily address human psychology and the role of duration in understanding.  I am often reminded of Edgar Allen Poe.  He believed that there was a “right” length for a poem, no more than 120 lines or so.  Certainly, the “right” length would differ by poet (I’m not sure if Poe believed this part).  I think the same holds for film and it’s therefore a shame that we get so caught up in these length categories. If your story doesn’t fit in a 20 minutes short, that doesn’t mean it should be a 90 minute feature.

Everything on Youtube sucks

This oft-repeated sentiment was uttered with dismay.  Many folks seemed to feel that Youtube brought a combination of lower standards, negative expectations, and overwhelming noise from which it is too hard to rise above the noise.  The Youtube view count should not be anyone measure of success.  There is a positive note.  The traditional audience for independent short film is almost entirely made up of other filmmakers.  At least with Youtube, there are a lot more filmmakers out there.

Nobody has figured out how to make money from short films

There are plenty of internet ventures out there that will either help you distribute your short film or they will pay you add revenue for your work.   The problem is that none of these are worth getting excited about. The type of video that generates enough traffic to make reasonable advertising revenue is not the kind of video most serious filmmakers want to make.  Self distribution has not really taken off, despite new tools, because the overhead of extra work and tech know-how is prohibitive.  If the internet really is the answer for delivering short film (and I’m not sure it is), we are still waiting for the killer app.  The consensus is, Youtube is not it.

Bonus: Check out this video from the Onion.