I came upon this article about film festival short films.
Sadthing is. It should be Hollywoods Mission statement.Enjoy.
FROM MARTIN H. Dec 28th, 2005...
"....I thought that maybe some of you would want to hear from one of the "gatekeepers," one of the people who's actually contributing to your film's fate. As an independent film maker myself, I know the frustrations of breaking your soul, heart and wallet on a piece you care a lot about. After I began screening, I learned a lot about the realities of film festivals. While different screeners have different priorities or aesthetics or backgrounds, I think we tend to be different colored birds of the same flock.
The festival I screen for is one of the "big" ones - there are currently threads on it here at withoutabox.com and it's one of the ones listed as a "top ten" by Film Threat. I don't want to name it because I really enjoy working with them and don't want to jeopardize that (not that my comments necessarily would, but...) I mostly look at shorts (because there are SO MANY OF THEM!!!) but also features.
Three quick points before I ramble:
1.) Yes, I watch EVERY film that is given to me in its entirety, regardless of how bad it is. And I believe that is true of most screeners.
2.) A lot of shorts appear to have very big budgets - up to $100K! – and some have recognizable stars. This in itself does not increase the film's chances of getting in.
3.) Like you, I've gone to a lot of well-known film festivals or watched Sundance Channel and thought "God, this sucks! How did this get in?" Answer: 1. I have no idea. 2. It hit the right person at the right time, and that person championed it.
Anyway...
WHO AM I? What kind of person is looking at your film? One fear a lot of directors have is that they're casting pearls before swine. I have a lot ofon-set and academic experience in film. In addition to directing an independent feature and a bunch of shorts, I've line-produced, worked as a sound guy, PA, all that stuff. I've also done coverage for several scripts that have become Hollywood features. I have a graduate degree and have taught a variety of upper-level film classes at reputable universities and have a pretty deep background in film history. Most screeners aren't dummies.
WHAT KIND OF FILM AM I LOOKING FOR? I frequently see people post things like "So-and-so festival won't like my stuff because it's horror..." Like most screeners, I like everything from film noir, French New Wave and American independent to horror and Hollywood stuff - I have a wide aesthetic, and I'm not going to give a movie a low score because it's "not my genre." If you're movie is really good, the genre is not going to matter (unless, of course, it's a festival with a clearly stated preference). A lot of people don't believe that, but it's true.
But to be more specific: the festival I screen for, like many festivals, asks us to score on the basis of direction, story development, character development, technical accomplishment, and originality. I will tell you a few things:
1. As far as the technical/professional aspects, you (we!) have a lot of competition. I am amazed at how good independent films look now, probably because of high-def and 24 frame. Even a Canon XL-1 looks like bad video now. A lot of the films look almost as good - or as good - as a Hollywood flick.
But if you can only afford a handycam, don't worry, because, as always:
2. STORY TRUMPS EVERYTHING. If you have a very good story, you will get in. If I had to choose between a good story with sh!! sound and shot on VHS and a professionally shot 35-mm with a mediocre story, THE GOOD STORY WINS EVERY TIME.
If I had to list the criteria for getting a movie in, in order of importance, it would go:
1. Story
2. Acting *
3. Cinematography *
4. Technical proficiency
And I bet most screeners would agree with that. *Great cinematography can overcome mediocre acting some of the time. Nothing can overcome a bad story or terrible acting, though.
I will say that every year certain film types are "overrepresented" – this doesn't mean if your movie is the same type as many others, it will automatically be rejected. But as a general artistic principle, obviously, you want to stand out and do something original. In 2005, I saw A LOT of the following kinds of films:
MOVIES THAT SHOW THE GRITTY SIDE OF DRUG ADDICTION, ESPECIALLY HEROIN. By far the most overdone topic, and at this point almost impossible to do in an interesting manner. I don't know how many shorts I've watched that show in great detail the process of cooking heroin in a spoon, sucking it into the syringe, wrapping a belt around the arm, etc. Hell, we've all seen this in a ton of Hollywood movies. Why is it more original in an independent feature or short? And the character arc is always the same - good person struggles with addiction, betrays others, degrades self, eventually cleans up/dies/kills someone they love. And this is probably because the ugly fact is - and I know this from having a lot of loved ones with serious addictions – one drug addict's story is pretty damned identical to another's. No offense, but hey, if you're an addict who's done some real recovery & personal inventory, you know this is true.
ZOMBIE COMEDIES. I don't know why, but there are a ton of zombie comedies right now. Lots of stuff about fan-boys, zombie love stories...if yours isn't as good as Shaun of the Dead, you're up against a ton of stuff similar to yours.
*** TEEN COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET/STRUGGLING WITH IDENTITY. I think this shows a lot of progress of our culture: just twenty years ago, *** teens pretty much had to stay in the closet. Now they get a camera and tell the world they're ***. That's admirable and encouraging in a political way, but it doesn't necessarily make a good movie. Many times they follow the same story line: two *** teens dance around the fact that they're interested in one another, then they find themselves alone together, they get it on, then the next day one of them is real into it and the other is really ashamed. Etc. OR a teen comes out of the closet to his family or is forced out of the closet, the family freaks, etc. *** males are far more commonly represented then *******s.
BODY IMAGE FILMS. Films that show the struggle with anorexia/bulimia/food addiction. There's just a lot of them. The opposite of the *** teen film: they tend to be by women.
FAKE DOCUMENTARIES. Or mockumentaries, or whatever you want to call them. Or fake reality TV. They basically follow the format of a Christopher Guest film, but not as funny.
HORROR FILMS THAT ARE ALL TALK. Hey, man, it's a horror film. Give me the goods. Or: Horror Film where I don't know what the source of danger is. This is particularly true of movies that want to be about a general psychic evil...like a vague version of "The Ring."
CUTESY-PIE sh!! THAT REALLY WANTS TO BE A HOLLYWOOD FAMILY FILM BUT DOESN'T HAVE STARS. Before I started screening, I always thought that independent film makers were looking to do something edgy. SO MANY FILMMAKERS want to show that, hey, I can do something glossy and shallow about Bumbling (fill in the blank) who find (something quirky) and it makes them better people. Awwww. And no, this isn't a genre prejudice - I like Pixar movies and all. But this stuff tends to be the most terrible. I get the feeling that these directors see short films merely as "calling cards" or stuff for their reels. While shorts are this to some extent, that's not all they are.
GANGSTERS/ASSASSINS/MARTIAL ARTS EXPERTS. I absolutely LOVE good action/gangster films. But I think a lot of the people doing this independently are guys in their late teens/early 20s, and it's generally not believable. A lot of it's like bad Tarantino. Most 20-year-olds don't have the gravitas to seem like a killer.
ROMANTIC COMEDIES ABOUT 30-SOMETHINGS. I guess most good romantic comedies are about 30-somethings - The Apartment, When Harry Met Sally, etc. But most of the romantic comedies I see hit all the standard predictable beats, and throw in some Gen-X quirkiness as a gesture to originality. Overdone: somewhat neurotic but good hearted women with a)football-watching or b) overly critical guys. Also overdone: Sex and the City, but not funny (though it thinks it is).
WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON PITFALLS OF REJECTED FILMS? Here are the mistakes I see made most frequently that just kill a movie.
TOO MUCH DIALOGUE. Actors saying stuff that could be shown visually. Plot exposition. Explaining their emotions. The other thing is that you are probably using amateur actors, and nowhere does a non-professional seem more amateurish then when they deliver a line that sounds unnatural. Lots of actors look unique on film - don't give them the opportunity to disrupt the cinematic illusion with a highly artificial delivery. Right off the top of my head I can think of five shorts that I would have given high scores if some of the characters had just SHUT UP. I already could see what they felt, what their relationship was, what the plot was, and I was interested, and bad dialogue/delivery just annoyed me so much it sank the film.
THE "SHORT" IS TOO LONG! To be blunt: 30 minutes is too long for most shorts. This isn't because I have a short attention span; it's usually because there's a lot of unnecessary, rambling stuff in the short. Maybe there are different expectations when you know you're looking at a short, but I really don't think that's it. I've never watched a short where I thought, "You know, I like it – I just wish it was shorter." The ones that are too long tend to have lots of problems. Ideal length: 2-20 minutes.
SCENES ARE TOO LONG. Many times, you can cut the first 15 seconds off a scene and lose no information. And yes, I know Wim Wenders has long scenes – If your scenes are as good as his, go for it. But if the first 10-20 seconds are "hi, how ya doin'" and the last 5 seconds are "okay, let's go do the thing we just mentioned" - in medias res, students! in medias res!
BAD STORY. What makes story bad? It meanders, scenes have no "value change" (as Robert McKee might say -sorry to invoke him if you hate him, but he's basically regurgitating Aristotle), there's no arc, scenes are too long – or, very commonly, the stories are interesting but they take a wrong turn somewhere.
CHEAP FINAL CUT PRO EFFECTS. Filters like "solarize" or "negative image" or pebbly-textures are overdone and seem like you just picked something from the drop-down tab and hit "render." Remember, most of the screeners are filmmakers too, and have used the software you're using! Some things just scream "Final Cut." Also, I've noticed that many of the fades and transitions that come standard in Final Cut or whatever seem cheap. I think the default cross-fade on Final Cut is like one or two seconds; fades from one seen to the other should take longer. Final Cut & Avid & whatever are great and necessary, but you should customize your own transitions and filters.
CHEAP AFTEREFFECTS CGI. After Effects can be great. But it can be really bad, too. If you don't know what you're doing, or if you're half-assing it, it shows. Same for green-screen.
A CAST OF COLLEGE STUDENTS/YOUNG PEOPLE. If you just cast your friends, it shows.
The common denominator of these pitfalls is that they take the viewer out of the cinematic illusion and suddenly make him aware that he's watching a movie, instead of experiencing what the characters experience, and it makes everything seem artificial and awkward.
The other thing that I will say - and this is true of some of my work, too, because I've been rejected from MANY a film festival - 95% of the films submitted aren't as good as the director thinks they are. And that means 95% of the people posting here. One thing I'll suggest to people – and it was a hard lesson for me to learn, too – consider the very real possibility that your film was rejected because it ranged from "okay" or "basically good" to "bad." Every screener WANTS to watch something good. And there are so many submissions, you really have to make something GREAT to stand out.
Conversely, just because you get rejected doesn't mean your film is bad. Many good films take a long time to find a screener who gets it. As a matter of fact, some might say it's a rule that really great work necessarily alienates some audiences, because it strikes a specific psychological tone, while mediocre work, by definition, tries to appeal to a broad middle ground.
Anyway, I thought I'd write this down - these realizations helped me, maybe they could help someone else.
Good luck!"
