Short Film in the UK: Film Festivals and Competitions April 22, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, Short Film , trackbackThis article is written in conjunction with several others and is best read in conjunction with them. Click the below titles to read/navigate between each individual article:
1. Short Film: A brief critical history
2. Short Film In The UK: Screen Yorkshire and the Independents
3. Short Film In The UK: Film Festivals and Competitions
4. Short Film In The UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen
5. Short Film In The UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future
6. ‘Okay, we’re done’: The story of my first short film
7. Short Film Take II: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman
8. Short Film In The UK: Recommended Links
Finding Neverland on the Independent Circuit
In 2001, Washington-based producer Mark Ruppert devised the 48 Hour Film Project, where teams of filmmakers had to write, shoot and edit a short film in two days, culminating in a competition to pick the best film. Utilising the ease of use and cost of digital editing and camera equipment, they provide each team with the basic items they require, such as a simple tripod, lights and a Mini-DV camcorder. As the competition’s mission statement says, the project is to help ‘advance filmmaking and promote filmmakers.’ Through the festival and the competitions ‘the Project encourages filmmakers and would-be filmmakers to get out there and make movies.’ In 2004, the ‘Project’ came to Sheffield, South Yorkshire.
To differentiate the competition from venue to venue (the 48 Hour Film Project has toured many countries including Ruppert’s native USA, Britain and France), teams picked genres and themes at random. Phil Parkin, who took part says, ‘The weekend was a resounding success for all the team members, I would recommend others to take part in the future. It was tremendously good as a team morale builder and as a practical and theoretical experience.’
The ‘Project’ aims to get new filmmakers exhibited and through a ‘Best-of’ DVD at the end of each year, can continue to showcase the work they have achieved. Yet, as Parkin says, the competition holds a lot more value than that. Because of the competition’s time constraints it forced his team into making tough decisions which were ‘very worthwhile’ and an example of the ‘harsh reality of the industry.’
Like Charlie Chaplin using short film to forward his career, and George Lucas using it to learn his craft, competitions such as the 48 Hour Film Project are enabling filmmakers the same opportunities. In Yorkshire, Bradford Film Festival has the ‘Shine Award’ which focuses exclusively on the short film, honouring ‘the best short by an emerging director’ that shows ‘innovation and originality.’ Elsewhere, the Hull International Short Film Festival is ‘dedicated to the exhibition and creation of short film as a crucial art form in its own right.
Yet, as Matt Lloyd, film programmer at Edinburgh Film Festival says, it’s not just the competition itself that is important to short films and their makers. ‘Shorts are always popular at festivals because it’s one of the few outlets for people to see them.’ Perhaps the most important aspect of short film competitions and festivals is the exposure they provide. ‘You also get industry interest as people are always keen to see what the latest talent is and what’s up-and-coming.’ As Chris Patmore says, ‘festivals and competitions probably provide the best opportunity to gain some recognition for all your hard work.’
‘Too Rich For My Blood’: The Problem with Elite Competition
The elite film competitions don’t assure success either for short film itself or its filmmakers. Many who use festival competitions to their advantage, do so with feature films. Joel and Ethan Coen won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival in 1985 with their first film, a feature named Blood Simple. This led to thirteen more feature film credits to date, including their most famous films The Big Lebowski and Fargo in the mid-nineties. Also, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez won the ‘Award of the Youth’ at the Cannes Film Festival in 1999, leading to widespread publicity for their first film, a feature named The Blair Witch Project. Compare this to Amanda Forbis’ When The Day Breaks which was 1999’s short film winner at Cannes. In the seven years since, Forbis has not directed another film, feature or short.
Given that the most prestigious prizes such as those awarded by the Academy of Motion Pictures in America (Oscar’s) and the British Academy of Film and Television (Bafta’s) will not accept lower quality digital video for their short film competition (Bafta’s rules, for example, state only ‘films finished on 35mm film or Digital-beta will be accepted’, it appears that the low cost nature of short filmmaking and it’s usefulness in getting recognition is a fallacy. If the major competitions such as the Oscars, Bafta’s, Cannes and Sundance, only want large-screen projection-ready prints for competing short films then the cost immediately rises. And, with most success stories coming from filmmakers who won the competitions for ‘features’, it does suggest the short film is a means to another end. As well as being an undervalued type of cinema at both the commercial, mainstream level and at the top of cinema’s most prestigious, recognised awards. Ultimately, this suggests the short film at its grassroots, low-budget level (such as the 48 Hour Film Project) is a means to more expensive filmmaking - namely feature films.
The fact the elite competitions only accept ‘first-quality’ short films, that being they are available to be viewed on 35mm film or high-definition digital tape creates an interesting conundrum. This would suggest the short is the ‘final product’ of a filmmaker’s vision and not something to explicitly progress his or her career. Given the higher budget needed to make films for the Oscar’s or Bafta’s, there is no room for amateurish experimentation, requiring strong financial backing that wouldn’t support filmmakers learning their craft. This would be an example of the type of filmmakers who ‘spend their whole career making short films because they enjoy the format and find it the best medium in which to express their ideas.’ Essentially, this is short film being credited with strong artistic merit, an art form that deserves to be awarded, not as a learning tool but as a finished product. However, if the award is based primarily on the ‘art’ and not on marketability for example, why should the quality of equipment and money on screen have anything to do with who gains acceptance? In the 2006 Oscar’s, the winning short cost £125,000 to make, whilst the 48 Hour Film Project produced twenty films in Sheffield for £50 each in two days. Perhaps there is a major improvement in creative quality and artistic performance when more money is involved, but since the Oscar’s and the Bafta’s won’t even look at the £50 shorts, the world will never know.
The Trouble between King and Pauper
It is interesting how the difference between Screen Yorkshire and the independent exhibitors mirrors that between the highest accolades in film competition and their low-budget equivalents. Effectively, because the freedoms of low and no-cost filmmaking are stifled by the major competitions who won’t accept them, filmmakers either need financial backing or a better established independent exhibition circuit. Therefore, those that do not gain financial support can still exhibit their work, if funds are made available to maintain short film exhibition.
The important idea to note is that which Matt Lloyd of Edinburgh Film festival pointed out, that shorts are always popular at festivals because people rarely get a chance to see them anywhere else. It is therefore important to maintain a good exhibition circuit so that talented filmmakers can learn and interact with their peers. After all, as Andrew Wilson says: ‘Short Circuits started in October 1999 to give new filmmakers the chance to screen their films, gauge the audience reaction, [and] learn from their peers.’ If a good exhibition arena is established then that will mean more short films are being seen. Theoretically, if more short films are being watched, then the need for product will grow and more people will be interested in participating. Therefore there will be more ambitious talent, and greater numbers for the likes of Screen Yorkshire to meet their targets.
Citation:
Bradford Film Festival (2006) The Shine 2006 Short Film Award [online] available from http://www.nmpft.org.uk/bff/2006/filmdetail.asp?ida=6172 (accessed 9 March 2006)
Imdb.com (2006) International Movie Database [online] available from www.imdb.com (accessed 10 March 2006)
Lloyd, M (2005) Edinburgh is a festival of discovery [online] available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/festivals/edinburgh/short_film_programming.shtml (accessed 9 March 2006)
Parkin, P (2004) The South Yorkshire Filmmaker’s Network [online] available from http://www.syfn.org.uk/completedprojects/ (accessed 9 March 2006)
Patmore, C (2005) Get Started In Short Filmmaking London: Quarto
Ruppert, M (2001) The 48 Hour Film Project Mission Statement [online] available from http://www.48hourfilm.com/about/history.php (accessed 9 March 2006)
Wilson, A (2005) A Film In Your Pocket [online] available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2005/11/24/pocket_shorts_huddersfield_feature.shtml (accessed 8 March 2006)
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?