- why do people people go to the trouble of making short films in the first place?
There appears to be two main reasons as to why people in the UK make short films. The artistic film makers, such as Derek Jarman and Peter Greenaway believe that this style is an art. Previously, it was seen as experimental in the film world, but became more popular in the 60s and 70s. The film industry sees shorts as a form of advertising for new directors. They watch closely at them to look for possible talent who could become future feature film makers. For example, Lynne Ramsay was ‘founded’ with her short with “Gasman” and then went on to write and direct the feature “Ratcatcher”.
- what was the situation with short filmmaking when shorts were still being shot on celluloid?
When films were shot on celluloid, it was difficult for film makers to produce new ideas due to a lack of funding and there was “very little investment in the discovery of new talent” (Caroline Cooper Charles). Film Four’s Short and Curlies strand, shot on 35mm celluloid, were creating shorts with budgets between £60,000 and £90,000. These costs were continuously rising and due to the small niche audience for the films, they were difficult to justify. The UK Film Council believed that the money could be invested in to digital, where more and more film makers were emerging.
- what is the impact that DV technology had on the short film?
There are split views on the use of DV. On one hand, it has allowed for more shorts to be made due to the availability and cheap price of the equipment. Film makers can create a film with no budget using basic DV camera hardware and software. These films can then be used to present to short film schemes, such as the UK Film Council, to gain funding for future titles. UKFC’s 3 year short film scheme began in August ’01. It gave £1.5 million to produce 100 films per year, with each film costing less that £10,000 and running for less than 10 minutes. Simon Ellis says "I've learned how to make DV look less like DV, but that doesn't mean emulating celluloid", which Soledad Gatti-Pascual believes makes “the most successful digital shorts”.
On the other hand, there are views for people such as Asif Kapadia who says “There's a danger with digital that you don't make any real decisions until you're on set, and then you assume any problems can be sorted in post-production." Also, it is believed “forcing people to shoot on digital was too restrictive”
What is certain however, is that the use of digital has allowed for more shorts to be made and now the use of DVD and web streaming has meant that shorts can be out and available for longer. Due to this there is an increased size in the audience for short films. This is shown through the increase in popularity of events such as the Brief Encounters short-film festival in Bristol, attended by 5,000 people last year.
- what are the distribution and exhibition possibilities for short films made in the UK?
Theatrical distribution is the biggest challenge for short films. The best way to do this is by programming them with feature films. However, this is very rare as converting digital masters into 16mm/32mm print is hugely expensive, costing about £3,000. Funding scheme organisations like Short Circuit Films, who are in charge of distributing films on the Digital Shorts scheme, have tried to get the films attached to features in cinemas. Unfortunately, this only works if it is supported by the manager, as it is at their discretion.
Meabh O’Donovan (Short Circuit) says "We found it more effective to go to individual cinemas to persuade them to take shorts rather than attempting to do it at the point of distribution". In her experience, shorter is better. "Desserts with Ewan McGregor was sold across Europe and Asia because it's a one-gag film that's under five minutes long”.
Nevertheless, new emerging technology being is being introduced in to UK cinemas by the Film Council’s Digital Network Scheme. Using digital projection equipment will save the cost of converting from digital to print. Currently, in the UK, 10 cinemas have it already installed, but the UKFC plan to have it in 250 screens in 150 cinemas by 2005.
Although it is hard to get shorts in to cinemas, there are several cinemas across the country that have monthly shorts events. The Cameo in Edinburgh runs The Blue Room with organisation Mediabase. Also, Cinema Extreme has a similar event in London’s Curzon Soho, during which directors have the opportunity to talk at screenings of their film. Not only this, but shorts are exhibited through underground events run by companies such as Exploding Cinema, who screen unfunded films in any possible venue they can find.
- the limitations of the format:
Asif Kapadia says "The problem with most three-minute shorts is they're little more than a witty idea with a sting in its tail”. He also believes that some short film makers are not learning to develop characterisation. As a result, “financiers aren't convinced they can make features". At the moment, new successful shorts directors are finding it hard to make their first feature film due to a lack of funding. Asif feels “"The British film industry should be doing more to help”.
- what was the conclusion reached by the writer about the situation of short film in the UK at the time of the article’s publication?
The writer concludes by saying that now is a “bonanza time for shorts”. The UKFC use the cheap prices of DV to encourage hundreds of possible new film makers. Therefore, there are “virtually no obstacles” to making a first film. However, the drawbacks to this are for instance, that Caroline Cooper Charles has to read around 1,000 scripts a year for the digital shorts scheme, of which the writer believes the average quality cannot be high.
The UKFC carries through government policy to empower regions and nations, which means responsibility for nurturing talent. Each region has its own way of developing its strengths.
The writer ends with the line, “talent will out is the theory, and hundreds of films the practice”.
- how up to date you think the article is?
I do not think that the article is that up to date. As it was written in 2004, there have been many years up to now where vast changes could have occurred. There have been huge advances in different forms of viewing. Blu-ray is the new way for films to be distributed, which is becoming increasingly cheaper. Companies such as Mubi and Lovefilm distribute films to members who can chose from thousands of title, both known and unknown. Films can also be streamed straight to the web for all to view and can be discussed and share on social network sites. Development towards web 2.0 means users are able to interact and collaborate with each other on sites such as Blogger, YouTube and Vimeo. New directors can post on these sites, gain necessary feedback and become known to the public.
