Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Film Fund-amentals: The Long and the Short

 First published November 16, 2011


Lots of indie filmmakers are pondering the question: Should we make a short film as part of our effort to get funding for a feature? The overwhelming response from many people experienced in indie production is: Yes!

That’s the good news. The big question is: Once you make your short film, what do you do with it? At that point the answers get more scattered and thin. In some regards, creating a short film has many of the same problems as doing a feature. The only major difference is that producing a short movie should only whittle away a few months of your life while a feature will take up a number of years. Either way, you may feel as if you have wasted your time, but the bad vibe should be less dramatic with a short.

So why do it? Because it actually gives you a real demonstration of your filmmaking skills and shows that you have the ability to put together a finished product. At its best, the short film will be a combination of flashy sample reel and outline of what you might do with a feature. At the very least, it proves that you know how to point a camera, edit footage, possibly direct actors and maybe, just maybe keep an audience engaged for fifteen to twenty minutes.

The next question is: Does it work as an attention-getter? The honest answer is: Maybe. In theory, a short film is a good way of establishing your credibility to prospective investors. In movie folklore, this was how Steven Spielberg got to direct at Universal.

Except that isn’t exactly what happened. Spielberg had an uncle who worked for Universal, got an unpaid internship (which is how he made the short Amblin) and then was able to move into directing TV. It was his direction of the L.A. 2017 episode of The Name of the Game that caught the attention of executives at Universal. These guys will watch TV, but they don’t spend much time watching shorts. In fact, most studio executives will watch a short movie about as often as they ever really read scripts (which is almost zilch — they hire people to read them).

A lot of potential investors don’t read scripts either, but they will watch a movie. That’s when a short becomes an important tool. It gives people a visual sense of the project. With any luck, it will excite their interest. Most investors have difficulty translating a spoken pitch into a visual concept, and a short film can do wonders for their comprehension of a project. With luck, it will even get the investors excited. At the very least, it reminds them that they’re about to make a movie. That objective gets easily lost in all of the business chatter that otherwise goes on in a presentation.

Assorted feature films have been successfully expanded from their earlier short versions. Alive in Joburg became District 9. To attract investors to The Blair Witch Project, the filmmakers created an eight-minute “documentary” (The Blair Witch Project: the Story of Black Hills Disappearances) as a piece of eye candy. Wes Anderson first made Bottle Rocket as a short film before he expanded it into a feature. The 1984 short Frankenweenie almost ended Tim Burton’s career before it even got started. He’ll finally get to complete and release the feature version next year. OK, the process isn’t always guaranteed to work the way you may want.

So yes, short films can have a critically important purpose. But aside from presenting them to potential investors, what do you do with these suckers? The options are limited. There are numerous festivals to which you can submit your short film. Perhaps you will get some notice. With few exceptions, the effect will be extremely marginal. Increasingly, some filmmakers are taking their shorts to VoD right after the festival circuit (a recent major example being Matthew Modine). There is a VoD market, but it’s small. Most viewers are seeking features (which means that any way you can get your short attached to a feature is a huge plus).

Most filmmakers end up going to YouTube (which has become the eccentric archive for everything from the early silent era to the present day). There’s no profit to be made, but there’s the ever-elusive chance for exposure. The YouTube presence is best used as a reference point for what you’ve done as a filmmaker as you plot your next move. The possible market value of the movie is over (otherwise why make it available for free?), but you still want a quick résumé piece that can be referred to by viewers, investors and possible collaborators. Besides, it keeps your “name” in play (well, sort of, though the sensation is a bit like living off the reruns).

The short movie has definite uses. It also has serious limitations. But before you go after the indie feature of your dreams, you may want to focus your plans into a short and utilize the format to your advantage. Just make it cheap and try to make it good.

And if all else fails, just try to make it funny.

No comments: