Short versus Feature length

If the point of my movie at film festivals is to attract attention and potentially awards and future financing, what is the difference between a short and a feature length film? Obviously I can make the short much faster and cheaper. But will it open the same doors and impress as well? Can I enter the same festivals with a short?
I have ideas for a feature and a short and not sure which way to go.
Thanks for any advice.
Catalina
 
I can't really say anything about the festival side of things, but...

I think you might want to work on a few shorts (or other people's projects for the experience) before plonking down 10k on a full-length flick. In this thread you sum up your experience as "a few amateurish vacation type movies".

Just my opinion, but I think you ought to nail some finer details through working on some shorts before jumping straight into the feature-length league.

:seeya:
 
what is the difference between a short and a feature length film? Obviously I can make the short much faster and cheaper. But will it open the same doors and impress as well?
You answer your first and second question with your statement.

Production companies, producers and financiers all know a filmmaker can make a short faster and cheaper than a feature. So a short is not quite as impressive as a feature.
Can I enter the same festivals with a short?
Yes. But just to be sure, check the rules of the festival you want to enter.
I have ideas for a feature and a short and not sure which way to go
Zensteve offered some great advice. Which do YOU feel more comfortable with making right now?
 
I once read an interview where some forgotten filmmaker said that a really good short was no better than a snazzy business card - it'll make an impression but it won't land you the deal.

With that being said, a poorly done feature isn't even on par with a quickie Kinko's business card.

In summary, a good short can lead onwards and upwards, but you have to master the good short before you tackle the feature.

Poke
 
As film makers we make decisions about what we want to achieve. Some of us just want to tell interesting stories and enjoy the process. Some of us have serious career ambitions as film makers. Your attitude to shorts will be determined by the kind of film maker you want to be.

For indie film makers, the traditional route has always been thought to be: make digital shorts to learn the basic skills, make one (for a short) high budget "film" short and put yourself on the festival circuit. Use the short as a calling card of your approach to film making and professionism. Then, hope that as a result of your stunning short you'll get the opportunity to make the feature script that you've been crafting over the previous years.

In the UK, this is the route that arts funding bodies like people to take. The shorts allow people to take smaller financial risks, whilst they acquire suffiecient experience to move up to feature length productions.

The reason more people are making feature lenght projects, is that with so many prosumer camcorders about and editing software/computers being so cheap, an indie film maker can now make a feature for the same money it used to cost to make that high quality "film" short. As a short film is almost never commercially viable (you can't easily make money on them) it makes sense to shoot a cheap digital feature, as there is the possibilty of a financial return and as the guys have pointed out, as making a feature requires a higher level of skill and commitment, it demonstrates the ability to complete a feature lenght project.

Both approaches are viable to getting that first low/mid budget film opportunity, because at the end of the day, it is the quality of the product that determines the future breaks you get.

The truth of the matter is that the whole short/feature debate is kind of irrelevant to getting that kind of opportunity, because the people who are walking into their first features as directors these days, are most likely to be guys who spent the last four years making TV adverts and music videos. Mainly because they've had experience of handling the large budgets and professional crews, that come with those projects.
 
k just in personal opinion, i prefer features, i've never really been a fan of the short film format. I love some shorts, but the majority of shorts just don't do it for me. But on the flip side, they are a showcase for your talent. But just becausee you cn make a short competently doesnt mean you can handle the commitment behind a feature. Look if you can make a feature cheaply and well, then go for it, if it isnt in your resources/abilities just yet, go for a short. Problem solved.
 
Catalina said:
If the point of my movie at film festivals is to attract attention and potentially awards and future financing, what is the difference between a short and a feature length film? Obviously I can make the short much faster and cheaper. But will it open the same doors and impress as well? Can I enter the same festivals with a short?

Either way can work for you, but it depends on the goal and the intention.

I'd recommend learning how to make movie s& tell stories via shorts FIRST, then move on to features when you get a grasp on the art form. It' like asking, "should I buy a violin or a cello? I'm going to play like Yo-Yo Ma without a lesson, I'm sure of it, but I need to know which instrument to buy...." No one expects to play the violin without a lot of training, why would filmmaking be different? Practice with shorts first, even practise the film festival networking & experience with shorts FIRST, then move on to features.

A short film is not profitable. You will not make your money back unless the total budget is under $500, then you stand a chance of making a profit. A feature film is more marketable and impressive to distributors.

There are fewer feature film slots at a film festival than shorts, but you also won't get the same amount of attention for your short film as opposed to a feature. Most film festivals have shorts and features. I can't think of any that don't.
 
Last edited:
Digital moviemaking allows you to make the leap to producing and directing anything you want, really, for next to nothing. While this the best thing to happen to the filmmaking process, it also has allowed us to produce many, many mediocre films. I truly believe that the best way to start out is to volunteer on productions happening in your area. The first three years of my career were spent working on unpaid films, shorts, features, music videos, etc. This allowed me to see what works, see what each element of the process was, and generally how films are made.

Three years is a long time, and I'm not suggesting you work for free. I happened to get in with a great group in Dallas, TX, and we've made some crazy films. But regardless, a couple of weeks spent assisting others is a sure-fire way to at least force-feed yourself the basics of storytelling, plus, you'll probably meet some people who are just as enthusiastic as you are and will almost assuredly enhance the quality of your film.

In the end, I agree with the others: It's about doing it and learning by working on your short stuff first. It's far better to get into a two-week editing process with a five-minute short film and realize all the mistakes you've made, than to begin a three-month editing session with those same mistakes constantly hounding you...

Regardless, make what you are most passionate about, and what you truly feel you can accomplish with the skills you posess... And remember, there are always people who jump into this profession and are naturals at it. There are no rules.
 
I think the others have some great advice.

The reasons I've refrained from features so far have been:

1) Resources. I just don't have the time and resources yet. Time is key; otherwise, you come out with a crap feature. Better to have a quality short that gets you the right kind of attention.

2) Experience. I'd feel incredibly overwhelmed with a feature at this point in my career. I haven't gone to film school, nor do I intend to, so I'm learning as I go along. This can be a slower process, but it's how I prefer to do things at the moment.

3) Advice. This has probably been the deciding factor: some film festival organizers told me that young, beginning filmmakers have a much better chance of getting shown at film fests if they submit shorts. The logic is that film fests are often eager to fill in the time slots between features, and a 10-minute short is ideal for that. It's also less of an "investment" for fest organizers, since the audience only has to sit through 10 minutes of a beginning director's work.

EDIT: They also noted that young, begining filmmakers also have a better chance at winning awards with shorts. And winning just one award makes you an "award winning director," which, according to them, opens lots of doors.
 
Last edited:
Shorts will have more power

Everybody has brought up excellent points here.

In my opinion short films and feature lengh films also serve different entertainment purposes to the audience.

You have to remember that a few hundred years ago, musical pieces were very long and only available to the higher classes. As time progressed and new genres developed, the length of the pieces has decreased dramatically. Today most songs are less than four minutes in duration. We no longer have the patience (nor the lifestyle) to sit down once a week and listen to a live classical performance two hours long. We are busy and we have short attention spans.

(This reminds me of the plays in the times of the Romans where they performed the intermezzi between acts of pastoral plays. These intermezzi were very short 'plays' of their own that became so elaborate (and expensive) that people soon were more interested in them than the actual play they went to see.)

I think the same phenomenon is happening with film. In the earlier part of the century, films extending over two hours were common. That is not the case anymore (although movies with that running time are still produced). General a feature is considered 90 minutes in most markets. Open Water is 79. Short films are also becoming more popular (at least I don't particularly know of many venues for short films in the beginning of the century), especially now with the internet and portable digital devices. I think in the future short films will become more popular than features. I think people will want to watch a short 3 minute movie on their PDA while on their lunch break, on a flight, waiting for the bus, etc.

I find myself many times wanting to watch short films. I go on AtomFilms for example and watch short after short. I probably spend 90 minutes on there sometimes, enough to watch a feature. But with shorts, you don't have to stay focused so long, if you get bored you quickly choose another short, and so on. I think main-stream theaters will also offer 'bundles' of shorts for the same price you go and watch a feature.

I think in the future shorts will generate quite a bit of revenue, as opposed to now. So, to get back to the question at hand, should you make a short of a feature? For me that's an easy question. If it takes you 19.7 minutes to tell your story on film, leave it at that. Make those the best 19.7 minutes you can.

(it's 2am right now and I've been meaning to go to sleep many hours ago - if this makes no sense...well, i tried.) :)
 
Hey Catalina,

Another way you could acquire future funding/awards it to build a portfolio of shorts and submit them to arts organizations such as your states's art board, private arts funders (like Ludwig Vogelstein, Women in film, Money for Women-the Barbara Deming Foundation, even the Guggenheim!) also do a search for corporations which fund the arts. This might be worth a shot at acquiring raw materials you might need-email or hand-deliver your proposal and a reference to the CEO or Human resources officer of a company which produces items you use for your project explaining what you need to accomplish your goal. You may be pleasantly surprised, they write if off and you come up with a surplus of stuff! :)
 
A good (and very inspirational book) that I just bought yesterday that touches on this, albeit biased toward shorts is...
"The Ultimate Filmmaker's Guide To Short Films: Making it Big in Shorts" - Kim Adelman

I was going to put a few quotes from it here, but can't find the exact ones I'm looking for.. basically it says to make the movie you want to, can, and should make. Be it a short, or a feature. Also note that with shorts the SHORTER it is, the easier it is to get accepted at a fest. "If you make a one minute short, and it's good. Chances are it will play everywhere, because festival producers always have an extra minute."

Along with this it is interesting to note that the format you deliver the short to the festival in can play a big role with what it may/will do for you. If it's in 35mm it very well could play before/between the longer features. A good example is Mark Osborne, who shot a short animated film ("More") on 70MM Giant Screen/IMAX stock. Obviously it can't be submitted to festivals in this format, as none could play it.. However he did end up having it run for six months with the IMAX film "Everest" in New York and London. Obviously that is an extremely expensive format, but it does have its benefits:

- Strong marketing & exhibition hook. (You're in your own class when you have an IMAX short)
- Extended theatrical exhibition if you can hook up with the IMAX people.
- Possible Oscar nomination. The Academy acknowledges IMAX films as legitimately commercially exhibited films. More was nominated.

Keep in mind, that though things have slowly looked up a bit for shorts, when refering to the Academy, in recent years... The Academy loves long films, so if you're after an oscar, features are the way to go.

The bottom line is this, if you make a very high quality short with a good story (preferably of the type you'd like to persue later in your carreer, because if it's good people may/will offer you feature projects of the same genre) in a highly available festival format (35mm, and more increasingly DV) people will see it, and it will get you recognition, and it most likely will help your filmmaking future.

Shorts are a good way to practice and hone filmmaking skills. Shorts in many ways take more effort/work/skill than a feature because you have a limited amount of screen time in which to get the whole story out. That means you have to get to the point, and make an impression.

Shorts are also very memorable, why? Because they're SHORT! How many people haven't seen 405? (it's on ifilm.com) They made that little beauty in 3 and a half months.. with a single CCD DV camera (Canon Optura) It's gotten them a ton of notice.. Heck it's one of the most watched shorts on the net! It's also gotten them a lot of work, and in turn made them mucho deniro!

Also of note would be The Spirit of Christmas andFrog Baseball. These both have a couple things in common. First, they're both animated shorts. Second, they were created for network TV (Cable, but hey, who's counting), and Third, they launched a few fairly huge careers. Matt Stone & Trey Parker have made insane amounts of money off their South Park creation originally (unintentionally) developed in The Spirit of Christmas. Mike Judge has also have a fairly successful career due to his successful, and again unitentional creation of Beavis & Butthead in the Frog Baseball short. He's got a pretty good following for King of the Hill on FOX now too. And both have since made fairly successful feature length films.

So The short answer is, yes, a short can have a positive impact on your filmmaking future. Incidentally, I was a strong supporter of the 'jump in head first and make a feature right away' mentality before I began reading this book. I have decided to concentrate on shorts for a year or two first to develop and hone my craft, so when I do make a feature it (hopefully) will not look as ameteur a production.

Cheers!
:D

(Damn that got long)
 
Actually IMAX is quite an interesting format. The projects are pretty bad optically. Since it is very difficult to make a lens that is pin sharp to the edges IMAX projector lenses are designed to be equally crappy everywhere so our eyes dont pick up on a quality difference! We still seem to percieve the image as "great" for some reason though! Psychology is great stuff.
 
Yeah, it is a form of motion sickness...

I've noticed over the years that with film, when panning quickly it's not an entirely smooth looking process... on something as ginormous as an IMAX screen that sort of thing just intensifies the effect, and for some of us.. motion sickness..

Although, not nearly as bad as watching something like, oh say... Blair Witch. ;)
 
Oh my.. Blair Witch was unwatchable in some scenes. :evil:

I have had minor problems with motion sickness for years now and although I love the all consuming view of IMAX I've just had to learn when to close my eyes.

I do not however understand the desire to blow up 35mm to IMAX. IMO It looks horrible. Sometimes bigger just isn't better.
 
Yeah IMAX tends to give me headaches as well! Glad I'm not the only one. I wonder why that is... perhaps it's just the big screen?

Actually the headache is caused by depth of field issues.

The big problem with IMAX is that although it gives the illusion of 3D, the cameras still use lens technology. This means that the images have depth of field and the focus goes soft away from the focal points. On a 2D image that isn't a problem, the eye is used to that, but in psuedo 3D, as the eye flicks around the images, in the same way it would a real room, it tries to pull the soft "out of focus" areas into focus. It can't, because it's not the eye that's wrong, it's the image. The end result is a headache.

The easiest way to understand it is to think of the effect having the wrong prescription for glasses would have. It's a similar issue.
 
Back
Top