Dissapointing...

So not sure anyone will agree with me on this but would love to hear your thoughts. A few months back we finished shooting a short film. We sent it to a few festivals and then posted it on youtube. Sadly, it sits in hiatus. I feel there is no decent sites for short films to get noticed. Youtube and Vimeo are great but are incredibly over saturated with what seems like junk. How many times can I post it on Facebook? Film festivals are great but that can get expensive and there are only a select few that really are going to push the film to the next level. There are sites like this that are great for a few views but it seems like it quickly gets lost in the shuffle and dies. My question is how do we get seen by people who matter (No offense to anyone)? Even if sites like Aintitcoolnews.com or FilmThreat.com gave us some kind of a chance I would be happier, but it seems they are concerned with features or nothing. What can we as filmmakers do?


Sincerely, a fellow filmmaker who has a short worth seeing.
 
By 'straight away' I mean 'without prior filmmaking experience'. And people do manage to direct well without any practical experience. I've worked on sets with directors who've never done anything other than write before and there's nothing to say that they'd not be able to do a good job.

But, can you name any who actually have done it? I just don't see it, and I mean that both figuratively and literally.

Figuratively, I just don't see it as possible for someone with NO experience to direct a feature that many people would find watchable. I suppose, as Donned mentioned, if you have a bunch of money, you could hire a bunch of talented people to do everything. But directors make decisions, so if a director is REALLY hands-off, so much to the point where they're doing nothing but work with actors, personally, I don't really see that as a real director.

We can't really point to someone like Kholi as a first-time director tackling a feature, because he had a ton of experience. We can't point to actors-turned-directors because they also have experience. And when we see famous writer-turned-directors, we have no idea how much time they might have spent in and around productions.

So, I also say I literally don't see it. I can't think of one example of someone with NO experience who jumped into feature directing and actually did well. Obviously, I don't know all things about all directors, so maybe there are some out there that I just don't know of. Can you name any?
 
But, can you name any who actually have done it? I just don't see it, and I mean that both figuratively and literally.

I can't. Not off the top of my head, anyway.

Figuratively, I just don't see it as possible for someone with NO experience to direct a feature that many people would find watchable. I suppose, as Donned mentioned, if you have a bunch of money, you could hire a bunch of talented people to do everything. But directors make decisions, so if a director is REALLY hands-off, so much to the point where they're doing nothing but work with actors, personally, I don't really see that as a real director.

With a lot of money it could definitely happen, I wouldn't doubt that there is a case but you're right, I have no idea of anyone that has done that or at least I can't remember right now. Also, yeah, if everyone else is making the decisions for you (all of them) then you really aren't directing.

You're pretty much just taking credit.

We can't really point to someone like Kholi as a first-time director tackling a feature, because he had a ton of experience. We can't point to actors-turned-directors because they also have experience. And when we see famous writer-turned-directors, we have no idea how much time they might have spent in and around productions.


I'm split on short films being a good way to transition into feature films. I'm not very fond of shorts in the first place, me thinks because a really good and worthwhile short takes a lot of money and a lot of time, and by the end of it all your only real chances at making your work count is to get it into festivals (spend more money) or before the eyes of people that can really move you forward.

My example of a recent, REALLY good short: http://vimeo.com/21216091

Had Rauiri not made it private a while back it would've already surpassed one million views on Vimeo. In the first few days it was up to like 600K. This is an example of the kind of level I'd aspire too if I did a short.

Notice the price tag is about 45K Euro... that's more than we spent US on an entire feature.

(I know Rauiri's history, by the way, and this isn't his first short but I'm using it as a baseline for the kind of quality I'm referring to.)

AT that point, I'd rather do a feature film, something that I can pull money back from BUT that's not everyone's path and I respect that.

I respect that there are a few different ways to walk, and simply creating short films may or may not be one that moves a filmmaker toward a successful feature film. That was my point, because the figure that Gonzo threw out was basically a one-hundred percent failure rate if you hadn't done a short.

The certainty in that statement is what made me respond.

Which sort of brings me back to you (CF) mentioning that you can't point to me as a first time director with no experience going into a feature. You're right, you can't, because I've got experience. Regardless of if I've never finished a short film (only have half of one to my name), what I do have is a lot of experience working right under directors on various levels, filling other key crew positions, direct contact with a lot of people that are better than I am in several fields (audio for example), so on and so forth.

I didn't have to do shorts to learn, and I know a lot of people like that as well. So, it's going against the grain to say I suppose, but to me, the best way to learn your way into a feature?

Get paid while learning. Go and get on someone else's set and watch their mistakes unfold. Calculate how things could've gone better and keep a notebook next to the check stubs you're getting from working those jobs.

Meet people on set, forge relationships (associations or friendships, whatever works) with other key crew members or people with like minds that want to become key crew members. In the meantime, if you plan on doing a short of your own then find a pretty good and ambitious script that you feel will get the attention of the audience you'd like to tap, be it broad or niche. If you want to jump right into a feature, do the same thing.

Each individual should assess their own situations (no brainer) and from that visualize a roadmap for their progress.

disclaimer: I'm also not saying that my feature is actually good, and I do not think doing a short would've helped me make a better one my first time out. It's a different beast dealing with a consistent tone and satisfying the demand for an experience over the course of 80+ minutes. I'm glad I jumped into a feature, and I'm going to do it again with less money in about a months time.
 
Not 100%, but 99% plus. That's for somebody who has not spent a lot of time on a set in some other capacity. As somebody else noted, a guy who has DP'd, gripped. hell even PA'd several features might succeed in making one. Somebody who has never even been on a "professional" film set, the chances are virtually nil. Lightning does strike, just not very often.

How many features have we seen run off the rails because the producer/director was in over their heads... I've personally witnessed 5 or 6. I've NEVER known of a feature made by a completely inexperienced person that was ever even completed much less that was "successful".

I'd much rather make a $3K short that kind of sucked than a $300K feature that sucked. When I reach the point where I think I can handle a feature then I'll try to finance one. Even with the reasonable amount of experience I have it would be very borderline whether I was ready to try and make a feature and put hundreds of thousands of dollars at risk.


Edit:
And make no mistake, my first short sucked. It got in several film festivals because it was aimed at a very narrow genre audience, but the performances were uneven, the pacing was terrible, we were very rushed and shot scenes without enough coverage, etc... the next short was better (but still had issues), the short after that was better (but still had issues). I am just now reaching the point where I feel like I half way know what I'm doing. Maybe I'm retarded, but I like to think I am probably typical.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top