Short Films simply aim to entertain whilst effectively telling a story within just a few minutes. This has both benefits and difficulties, and filmmakers can find it hard to "make it work". This could be down to most of us being so used to watching feature-length films and their typical structure, so people can become unaware of short films and their structure. Anyone, whether they are a film fanatic or not, can tell you that there is a difference between short and feature-length films. The first thing they would probably say if you were to ask them, is the length. Short films are classed as being between 3-40 minutes, and each one varies. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks that film makers receive from creating short films as opposed to a feature-length production.
One of the most obvious benefits to a film maker wanting to produce a short film is the significant difference in time it takes to shoot and edit the product. For short films, the planning might take a while to perfect, even if the length is only a few minutes- it could take up to a month or so to get everything in place. Shooting wouldn't take very long, in fact it could be completed in a matter of days if all goes to plan and everything is done efficiently. However, feature length films can take months to shoot and edit, let alone planning! Comedy films that only really involve actors and dialogue, such as comedies like 'Scary Movie' or 'Mean Girls' would take less time that something animated like 'Avatar', which was said to have taken several years to complete due to the complicated story line and complex CGI. Animation giant 'Pixar' has said that their films take anywhere from 4 to 7 years to finish one of their films due to the complicated computer animation.
Less funding is also required for short films. This is due to a number of factors, such as the fact that is takes less time to shoot, meaning the equipment rental is far less than what it would be for feature-length films. This is also due to the fact that the actors and crew are paid significantly less than those who work of full length productions. For example, top Hollywood actors would be casted in feature length films because they help promote and market the film. It was reported that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both paid over $2,000,000 to star in 'Titanic', and the film itself cost around $200,000,000 to fund the entire project, the most expensive film to be made in the 20th Century (luckily for James Cameron, the films worldwide gross was $1,843,201,268, so it was probably worth it). This massively differs from the salary of short film actors, who are usually, if the film is from quite an established company, paid a smallish sum of at most a couple hundred pounds. Even less if the short film is experimental, perhaps a student in university. In this case, they may only be paid a few pounds to cover travel and something to eat. However, it is a good way for aspiring actors to gain some experience and build up their portfolio, so they probably don't mind as much.
Short films are more likely to be consumed by film buff's and aficionados, as opposed to the more mainstream audiences, which means they can be appreciated differently and can give the director/creator more credibility. This also gives them more opportunities to be creative and communicate a message because mainstrem audiences would be looking for the typical Hollywood blockbuster. However these audiences can come in handy- if the short film is previewed before a feature film, as is done before Disney Pixar films, it can create a huge buzz about the short film and generate quite a bit of profit due to the vast audiences that will view it.
Film makers also face drawbacks when creating short films. These are usually found in the financial side. For example, it can be hard to short film makers to generate funding to create their film because investors are less likely to donate their money because they don't think it will be beneficial, whereas people invest millions into the big blockbusters. The fudning is usually done by using the creators own resources and taking out loans. The other financial drawback is that little, if any, profits are achieved. However most people experimenting with short films don't have the main goal of achieving profit but simply practice and gaining experience and followers. It could also be hard to get crew/actors to take part in the process because of the small pay they would recieve, but again, its usually done for the experience.
Short films are also not seen by many people, which can be a strong negative if the director is looking to break into the movie business. This is because short films only really appeal to particular audiences, as mentioned before these are usually film buffs and aficionados, which cover a rather small percentage of the movie-goer population. Some mainstream audiences may have never actually seen a short fiom (or realised it). It is also hard for short films to gain recognition from film festivals due to the immense competition from other film makers desperate to get their work shown.
-KW
No comments:
Post a Comment