There are many reasons why people originally go to the trouble of making short films.
Some directors, such as Derek Jarman and Peter Greenaway, simply see them as a tradition of artistic film-making. Andy Warhol became famous in the 1990s for using shorts as an experimental platform. The majority of short filmmakers however, see shorts simply as a stepping stone up towards feature films. These ‘would-be-feature-film-makers’ make shorts to gain recognition with a view to hit the big screens. Lynne Ramsay and Asif Kapadia have most recently been lucky enough to do this.
There were many problems and difficult situations when short filmmaking was still being shot on celluloid. They had often been classed as of little importance as they did not have a regular slot in television advertising or in commercial cinema. Broadcasters were only be interested in televising short films in the early hours of the morning, when nothing else was on and not many people were watching. It was also difficult to for someone who have not previously made a short film to secure public funding, as there was very little investment in discovering new talent. The budget for celluloid became increasingly more expensive. Films made under Film4’s short cost between £60,000 and £90,000. These high costs seemed difficult to justify for films that produced such a small audience. It was said that a lot of investment could have been used to support the more emerging filmmakers who were working with digital equipment.
“Short films were once the preserve of a privileged few. Then DV came and made us all into potential film-makers.” – James Bell
As James Bells quotes, there has been a huge impact on short filmmaking that has come from Digital Video technology. Following celluloid’s decline, many upcoming short film makers could not afford to shoot on the new upcoming DV equipment. In 2001 this lead the UK Film Council to launch a three-year plan to help digital short films, giving £1.5 million to create100 films each year as part of its Digital Shorts Program. The DV had been opened up to many more potential film makers and not just the privileged.
It is considered however, that there is a danger with digital filmmaking and that ‘you do not make any real decisions about your film until you are on set, and then you assume that any problems can be sorted in post-production.’ Gatti-Pascual from the Production Company Bureau argued that this could in fact also be a positive factor. She said, "The most successful digital shorts are those that work with the format rather than pretending to be shooting 16mm on the cheap."
Digital Technology has changed the way that short filmmaking is created and produced. The new technologies enables us to film on an extremely low budget, or even occasionally ‘no-budget,’ and simply upload our films onto the internet using the incredible methods of Web2.0.
There is always a need for ways in which distribution and exhibition possibilities can be used for short films made in the UK. It has been said that the best distribution process is to have your short film programmed with a feature; however this unfortunately remains very rare because it is a very expensive process. Short Circuit Films, the UK-based organization which distributes the films made by the Digital Shorts scheme, has tried funding distributors to attach a short to a feature. This proved to be difficult so they instead found ways to persuade multiplexes to add the shorts in between feature films rather than asking the film company itself to include the shorts into their feature films. The shorter the film, the better chance it has of making it into the cinema. Underground film events in free locations such as squats, town halls and church halls are screening films and quickly expanding the distribution possibilities for short films. Many new DVD, purely for short films, are also helping to give short films needed recognition.
There will always be an ongoing argument towards the limitations that short films have in their format in comparison to smaller limitations that features films face. One of the biggest problems is funding, as filmmakers simply cannot find the necessary support to make their films. Also, from a filmmaker’s point of view, the shorts can sometimes not give them enough breathing space in creation and the filmmaker’s fundamental intention to simply gain recognition is overlooking the fact that they actually need to learn and experiment their beliefs.
At the time of the articles publication, the conclusion that the writer had reached about the then current situation of short films in the UK was that the short film industry had defiantly boomed due to the fact that there are literally no obstacles in making short films. Thanks to many recent schemes that encourage, provide assistance and most importantly funding for short films, a huge range of people are more inspired to become filmmakers.
At the time of the articles publication the UK Film Council had recently been bright enough to use the cheapness of Digital Video technology to help empower hundreds of would-be film-makers. The adds that this could only be a good thing, though it does have its drawbacks. Caroline Cooper Charles, one of England leading producers, admitted to having to read around one thousand scripts a year for the various regional and national elements of the Digital Shorts scheme, the average quality of which cannot be high.
In a final conclusion the writer does add that unfortunately the UK has found it hard to discover new great talent in the UK in previous years; however that should not necessarily be blamed on the government schemes; “Talent will out is the theory, and hundreds of films the practice.”
I personally believe that this article is still quite up-to-date in its factual beliefs. It is true that DV technology continues to help the making of short films and that filmmakers are finding it increasingly easier to create film. However, the problem is still there today in the fact that the UK has still found a small amount of truly talented filmmakers in recent year, compared to the legendary world renowned British directors from the past, such as Sir Alfred Hitchcock, Michael Winner and Baron Richard Attenborough.
‘Short films represent the way that many if not most filmmakers get recognised initially. Done superbly well, they can become a new director’s ticket onto the restricted access ladder that leads to making a feature film. Yet so many obstacles still stand in the way of short filmmakers and the all important “airplay” of the short films they make.’
I believe that this article answers this paradox effectively. It explains the different obstacles in the way of short filmmakers and the difficulties of distribution. However, also focusing on the positives, the article states that short films are ‘personal ads for would-be-filmmakers’ which reminds us that short films are still the way that most filmmakers get recognized initially.
Two other articles which examine the importance of short films and their effectiveness as stepping stones to longer format films for emerging filmmakers are...
http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/back_on_the_mainscreen_3088/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_subject
I believe that these two articles both address the challenges faced for short filmmakers correctly and give an agreeable view on the paradox of short filmmaking.
