• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch Film as Competition?

This might be controversial. Feel free and express yourself on the topic of film as a competition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTXPtqHiMJ0
 
I'm inclined to agree. At least with the basic premise that film as a competition is a bad idea. I'm not particularly a fan of things like the 48hr and filmracing, et al.

In my opinion these kind of competitions encourage rushed, sloppy work. Sure, there are occasionally decent shorts produced during these competitions, but by and large it's a plethora of sloppy crap.
 
strongly disagree that random youtube comments have validity

And as much as it behooves me to read them as often as I do, I think they represent actual opinions of actual people and how they really feel about what they are watching. I can disagree with them, and I can even say they are not constructive - but I feel they have a degree of validity.
 
I don't disagree with you that art of all types (including film) is subjective, but I don't understand the aim of the video.

I think competition in film has all sorts of positive purposes...

- Film festivals act as a form of curation. It's like an art gallery for films. Both the artist, and the public win here.

- Awards and cash prizes for films offer not only an incentive to make films, but to make better films. It may not be the most honorable reason to make a film, but it's still valid.

- In my opinion, "getting a distribution deal" is basically a cash prize and a form of curation all rolled into one. Every filmmaker is vying to get that deal, which makes every filmmaker a part of the competition.
 
There's a difference between competition of completed work and work that is produced for the sole purpose of competition.

Maybe my take is wrong, but I took it to be largely coming from the same position my previous comment was.
 
I love film as competition. People can see what kind of films other filmmakers are making, learn how to shoot quickly and make something that's not cr@p, learn how to meet certain criteria, and challenge themselves in ways they otherwise would not have before. I don't think film should be treated as a sport, but competition does have a place in art... to improve and strive for excellence even though judge's perceptions of art are subjective.

While I disagree with some things, you have some decent points. Great work! It's interesting to see another POV on the topic.

:)
 
I couldn't agree more! I didn't get into filmmaking so that I could say my work was better than that of another filmmaker. I just want an audience to appreciate it, and I couldn't care less about accolades.
 
I'm totally with you Sonny. I also never understood the 48hr/24hr film festival. Yeah, let's go to picasso, give him a limited number of paint, a torn canvas, and time him. ridiculous.
 
My very first introduction into filmmaking was a 48 hour film festival. It was an immense amount of hard work, but it was also fun, and I met a lot of great people. It was a spectacular learning experience and acted as a crash course into the industry. I don't think any of us were trying to make an artistic masterpiece, and that was ok.
 
My very first introduction into filmmaking was a 48 hour film festival. It was an immense amount of hard work, but it was also fun, and I met a lot of great people. It was a spectacular learning experience and acted as a crash course into the industry. I don't think any of us were trying to make an artistic masterpiece, and that was ok.

A lot of people love 48hr film fests and a lot of people work on them, and as usual, I'm in the minority. And I'm sure you're right and there's a lot to learn from them, just like there is on almost anything. I personally think it's bad for filmmakers. It provides an excuse when things go wrong. If you had enough time, and things went wrong, then you can mainly blame planning and try to figure out what went wrong. But in a timed competition, even Spielberg is going to have things go wrong. And you can always chalk the mistakes up to lack of resources and time. But if one can't blame anything other than him/herself, I think that filmmaker will get better quicker.
 
it certainly never ma kes me want to watch something if someone said they made it as part of a 24 or 48 hour fest.. or if someone said they only made it in two days or something. feels like they're already making excuses

if you didn't put serious time into making it, i'm not going to put my time into watching it
 
What's odd here is this internal conflict I have... I agree with everything you said in the video, however, I also feel this urge to go out and make something that will win at a festival or at one of the 48 hour weekends around here... I guess what I'm saying is that part of what drives me to get better at what I do is my competitive nature. I know that flies right in the face of art, because you're right, art isn't a competition, it is subjective... but that's just me and my personal way of motivating myself.
 
true dat

it is subjective... but that's just me and my personal way of motivating myself.

I cannot speak as to what motivates anyone else and what gets them to make a film. Personally, 'beating' someone else or being a 'winner' does nothing for me. If I have something to say or a story to tell, then I make a movie. If competition is what motivates someone else, gets them out there doing it, then I cannot say they are "wrong" for doing so.
 
I definitely see it as a competition. Viewers only watch so many things for so many hours

We are all competing for eyeballs
 
Obviously I'm a fan of filmmaking as sport - which I see as a bit different than filmmaking as competition, at least as SonnyBoo describes it, where you are making judgement calls on whether one film is better than the other.

To me the closest thing I can compare it to is running. A lot of people run, but not everyone who runs races. Even when you look at most runners that race they aren't trying to win the race - the race just provides a goal to work towards, and a measure of their progress, and a way to test themselves. They're trying to run faster than they did last time over the same distance, or farther than they did before, and running in the context of the race drives them to push themselves harder than they would if they were just going out for a run on their own.

In my opinion these kind of competitions encourage rushed, sloppy work. Sure, there are occasionally decent shorts produced during these competitions, but by and large it's a plethora of sloppy crap.

My personal experience with these (and I've got more than most - ~30 films of my own, plus I've watched probably 4-500 other people's films at screenings) is that they mirror the general quality spread of short films I see made outside of competitions. 80-90% of them aren't particularly good and could benefit from having a lot more work put into them. The other 10-20% are decent, and only a few of them are truly amazing. That's the same spread I see watching films in the IT screening room, or on youtube, or even in a festival context where I know I'm seeing the top 1-2% of submissions and sometimes find myself wondering how bad the rest must have been that some of the selections got through.

If you had enough time, and things went wrong, then you can mainly blame planning and try to figure out what went wrong. But in a timed competition, even Spielberg is going to have things go wrong. And you can always chalk the mistakes up to lack of resources and time. But if one can't blame anything other than him/herself, I think that filmmaker will get better quicker.

Things always go wrong, for Spielberg or anyone else, time limit or not - one of the key skills of being a successful filmmaker is learning how to adapt on the fly and make things work even when everything's going wrong. Timed competitions provide a unique training ground for that because you can't just stop when things go wrong and try again next weekend or whenever you can get around to it.

Decision making is another key skill - and when you're on a hard deadline it teaches you to make decisions quickly and keep moving forward without second-guessing yourself. The more you do this, the better you get at it, and the more confidence you'll have in the decisions you make in the future.

A hard time limit also forces you to learn effective time management skills - a key aspect of low budget filmmaking where you're trying to make the most of the time you have with the limited resources (people, locations, etc) you've got.

Learning how to manage a team effectively, get the most out of them in a limited time, juggle multiple responsibilities in the middle of the whirlwind of production, make the most of limited resources, scrounge up more resources on the fly, and on and on and on - these are all things you can learn, and practice, and improve upon by doing these kinds of competitions.

And the competition part gives you an easy context to practice these things - it's a limited time commitment for you and your crew (usually just a weekend) so it's pretty easy for everyone to make room for it in their schedules. If everything just really crashes and burns and you don't manage to finish the project you still get the experience but no one loses out too much. But if you do finish you've got one more film under your belt that you didn't have last week, and you can take everything you learned while making it forward into your other projects.

Plus - at least with the local 48's and similar competitions you generally get to see your finished film on the big screen in a packed theater within a week or so of finishing it. Watching your own work with an audience like that is one of the best learning experiences I can think of - it closes the feedback loop in a way that nothing else can. You get immediate, involuntary and visceral feedback on what worked and what didn't, while the decisions you made that led to the finished film are still fresh in your mind.

As for excuses - everyone's always got excuses for why their film isn't perfect. Can you use time as one excuse? Sure - but then when you're in the competition and at the screening, your film is up on the big screen with 10-15 other films and some of them are better than yours, what good is that excuse? Everyone there had the same amount of time, but if you weren't able to do as well as everyone else then time clearly wasn't the problem and you have only yourself and your skills and planning to blame. So you just have look at where you fell short and try to figure out what you could do better next time - whether that next time is another competition, or just your next film project.

So yeah - approach these things as merely a race where you're just out to win and it's probably a waste of time. Take them as a training ground, a way to test yourself and your capabilities against a set of limitations, and they can be of real benefit. I'm not saying everyone should do them, but I think almost anyone could benefit from the experience if they approach it in the right way.

I also never understood the 48hr/24hr film festival. Yeah, let's go to picasso, give him a limited number of paint, a torn canvas, and time him. ridiculous.

Would Picasso turn out crap given limited time, paint, and a torn canvas? It might not be as elaborate as some of his other work, but it would still be a Picasso. How many camera threads do we have around here where someone drops the "Spielberg's camera" line? Having more time won't necessarily make your film any better than having a better camera will - it's only your skill and effort that let you take advantage of either. There's always limitations in filmmaking, whatever level you're at, and there's someone out there making it happen within the same limitations. Doing the best possible work within the limitations you can't escape is what indie filmmaking is all about. The truth is, if you can't make a decent short film in 48 hours it's not because of the time limit.
 
Last edited:
My personal experience with these (and I've got more than most - ~30 films of my own, plus I've watched probably 4-500 other people's films at screenings) is that they mirror the general quality spread of short films I see made outside of competitions. 80-90% of them aren't particularly good and could benefit from having a lot more work put into them. The other 10-20% are decent, and only a few of them are truly amazing. That's the same spread I see watching films in the IT screening room, or on youtube, or even in a festival context where I know I'm seeing the top 1-2% of submissions and sometimes find myself wondering how bad the rest must have been that some of the selections got through.

This is probably true.

Things always go wrong, for Spielberg or anyone else, time limit or not - one of the key skills of being a successful filmmaker is learning how to adapt on the fly and make things work even when everything's going wrong. Timed competitions provide a unique training ground for that because you can't just stop when things go wrong and try again next weekend or whenever you can get around to it.

Decision making is another key skill - and when you're on a hard deadline it teaches you to make decisions quickly and keep moving forward without second-guessing yourself. The more you do this, the better you get at it, and the more confidence you'll have in the decisions you make in the future.

A hard time limit also forces you to learn effective time management skills - a key aspect of low budget filmmaking where you're trying to make the most of the time you have with the limited resources (people, locations, etc) you've got.

Learning how to manage a team effectively, get the most out of them in a limited time, juggle multiple responsibilities in the middle of the whirlwind of production, make the most of limited resources, scrounge up more resources on the fly, and on and on and on - these are all things you can learn, and practice, and improve upon by doing these kinds of competitions.

Every film is a timed competition. You don't need 48hr film festival to time yourself. If your resources are limited you're already timing yourself. If you have more money you can feed and pay people for another day. If you don't have more money, you can't, and therefore are already in a timed race. I don't see what a 48hr film festival adds, other than take away your ability to plan. Everything else you mentioned, such as making the most of limited resources, or managing a team effectively, or adapt on the fly, are all skills that a filmmaker has to use anyway. I don't see how an unrealistic added time constraint adds to the learning. We're just going to disagree that it adds anything. Almost everything I've shot, I've shot in a day. But it took me a week to write it, another week to probably plan it, a couple of days to rehearse in some cases. In one instance I shot three commercials for a competition in two days. But it took me a week to plan it, organize a crew and actors to make sure that I was able to do it. Every filmmaker is timing him/herself, all the time. 48hr/ 24hr festivals just take away the planning part, which I think is detrimental to the filmmaker.

Do I have this wrong? Do you get time to plan? or do they not give you script choices and parameters 48hrs before the competition? This is unrealistic in a real world situation. If somebody ever gets hired as a director, nobody is going to tell them their resources will be limited 48hrs before the execution. They'll be told "look, we have limited resources, so take your time and plan accordingly and figure out workarounds." They won't be asked to do it in 48hrs. I find it to be a ridiculous test. But I know I'm in the minority, because almost every filmmaker I know, seems to like this idea of quick timed competitions.

So you just have look at where you fell short and try to figure out what you could do better next time - whether that next time is another competition, or just your next film project.
But aren't filmmakers supposed to do this with any film? If someone wants to do 48hr festivals, and I know you have, it's fine, it's great. I just don't see how it adds to the filmmakers learning abilities by unrealistically constraining him / her.

Would Picasso turn out crap given limited time, paint, and a torn canvas? It might not be as elaborate as some of his other work, but it would still be a Picasso. How many camera threads do we have around here where someone drops the "Spielberg's camera" line? Having more time won't necessarily make your film any better than having a better camera will - it's only your skill and effort that let you take advantage of either. There's always limitations in filmmaking, whatever level you're at, and there's someone out there making it happen within the same limitations. Doing the best possible work within the limitations you can't escape is what indie filmmaking is all about. The truth is, if you can't make a decent short film in 48 hours it's not because of the time limit.

Picasso probably painted his famous stuff pretty quickly, but he was probably languishing for a month, wondering which ear he was going to mutilate, until he suddenly had an epiphany and painted his painting in hours, who knows? I don't know. All I'm saying is had you come to him a month before and given him paint and canvas and said "look, you have 6 hrs, and you can only use the moon, and trees, and make sure there are no sunflowers or reflections off the water. It will train you to do something you cannot somehow otherwise be trained for," he would probably not have drawn you a masterpiece. It wouldn't be a Picasso. It would be something else.


Filmmakers, including myself, find excuses for everything. Some excuses are legitimate. Some are not. You buy a good microphone, and you buy a nice boompole, your sound still sucks. You find out you need a better recorder, with less gain or whatever, so you buy one for your next film. The sound still sucks on your next film. And then you find out that you need a pre-amp, but then you find out it costs too much money. So you can decide to spend on a pre-amp or hire a human who already owns one. These kind of decisions come over time, over more than a year sometimes. How the 48hr film adds to this, I don't understand. The difference between one filmmaker and the next is planning and execution of that planning. You take away the planning part, you've taken away the part that requires the filmmakers dedication and lonely hard work, what then is the difference between one guy and the next. The filmmaking shooting part is easy. That's when all the filmmakers are together and there's camaraderie and everyone's having a good time. But it's mostly in the planning, in the writing and in your alone time that one filmmaker carves out the difference between himself and the next person. In a 48 hr film festival, you deprive the filmmaker to do this, and you cut off everyone's feet and ask them all to run.

Every filming day is an 8/hr film festival anyway.
 
To me the closest thing I can compare it to is running. A lot of people run, but not everyone who runs races. Even when you look at most runners that race they aren't trying to win the race - the race just provides a goal to work towards, and a measure of their progress, and a way to test themselves. They're trying to run faster than they did last time over the same distance, or farther than they did before, and running in the context of the race drives them to push themselves harder than they would if they were just going out for a run on their own.

Exactly. I've submitted to film festivals and even participated (against my will) in 48 Hour Film Projects. I was not motivated by the need to "win" or beat someone else.

It may be semantics, but running in a race without trying to win is not a sport - it's exercise.
 
Back
Top