RE: http://freeheld.com/
captivating trailer... Clearly the film makes a strong argument and speaks truth to Power. Right on! Hopefully lots of people will get to see this film in the traveling Oscar shorts program.
Again, congratulations!
Steve
statistical study on short film run times in festivals
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
steve hyde
- Senior member
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am
- Real name: Steve Hyde
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
cool, congrats.
for what it's worth i've made three films that went on the festival circuit. they are about equally "good", in my opinion and others, about the same quality, and were all produced independently, and the 4 minute and 15 minute ones have been much more successful than the 7 minute one. my own experience from attending festivals is also that it's the 4 and 15 minute ones you tend to remember. thanks for the statistics. i agree that a film needs to be the length it needs to be and i would never cut one down to fit, but it's always good to know whether it will be easier or harder to get it into festivals because of its length. the same goes for other parameters, quality alone never made much of a difference, most fests get more high quality submissions than they have slots.
/matt
for what it's worth i've made three films that went on the festival circuit. they are about equally "good", in my opinion and others, about the same quality, and were all produced independently, and the 4 minute and 15 minute ones have been much more successful than the 7 minute one. my own experience from attending festivals is also that it's the 4 and 15 minute ones you tend to remember. thanks for the statistics. i agree that a film needs to be the length it needs to be and i would never cut one down to fit, but it's always good to know whether it will be easier or harder to get it into festivals because of its length. the same goes for other parameters, quality alone never made much of a difference, most fests get more high quality submissions than they have slots.
/matt
-
steve hyde
- Senior member
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am
- Real name: Steve Hyde
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
ccortez wrote:Freeheld won the "Best Documentary Short" Oscar last night.
Congrats to Matthew (and wife Cynthia)!!!
To many more...
Chris
Right on! I can't wait to see Freeheld this weekend at True/False.
You guys won an Oscar! Congratulations!!
Here in the United States something like 90% of the voting electorate believes that same sex marriage should not be allowed. (for whatever reason)
However what that 90% does not seem to recognize (or acknowledge) is how being denied the right to marry also means being denied many other rights afforded to married people. (emphasis on how)
From the trailer alone, I can see that Freeheld is more than a documentary about "an issue". It's a character-driven story that illuminates something that is normally invisible. From the trailer alone, I can see that the film offers real insights into how and even why being denied rights is unjust. This is something we need to see. This is something we need to know. This is the mirror we need for viewing ourselves. This is the kind of documentary that can really help us learn to see something important in a new light.
Thanks for making it.
Steve
Very interesting study but what I really would like to see is a technical
study into how nepotism factors into getting a film in a festival.
Or how having some 'name' actors or a hot cause factors in (no offense to
our esteemed Oscar winner, I salute you and your work). But it seems
like a lot of mediocre shorts get into festivals (well at least locally)
because they somehow got an established actor or two to agree to be in
it, or they take up the banner of a current news headline. Being topical
sure helps, look at all the Iraq movie Oscar noms for this year's docs. Of
course Hollywood loves to preach a cause.
While I think we can agree that shorter films are easier to get screened, I
think the other factor is how classifiable a film is. If you make something
that is a hybrid it makes it harder to get in. I feel that festival
programmers want concise stories that can be paired with either a feature
or a suite of short films.
I've seen a few films by local filmmakers that are well made and artistic
but just aren't mainstream enough to get screened and not 'experimental'
(however you want to define that genre) enough to be a full blown art
film and appeal to those festivals.
I feel that rather than just making the vision in your head you have to
carefully tailer it to a particular festival circuit. Even at the humble indie
short level you have to target an audience rather than hope the audience
will find you.
study into how nepotism factors into getting a film in a festival.
Or how having some 'name' actors or a hot cause factors in (no offense to
our esteemed Oscar winner, I salute you and your work). But it seems
like a lot of mediocre shorts get into festivals (well at least locally)
because they somehow got an established actor or two to agree to be in
it, or they take up the banner of a current news headline. Being topical
sure helps, look at all the Iraq movie Oscar noms for this year's docs. Of
course Hollywood loves to preach a cause.
While I think we can agree that shorter films are easier to get screened, I
think the other factor is how classifiable a film is. If you make something
that is a hybrid it makes it harder to get in. I feel that festival
programmers want concise stories that can be paired with either a feature
or a suite of short films.
I've seen a few films by local filmmakers that are well made and artistic
but just aren't mainstream enough to get screened and not 'experimental'
(however you want to define that genre) enough to be a full blown art
film and appeal to those festivals.
I feel that rather than just making the vision in your head you have to
carefully tailer it to a particular festival circuit. Even at the humble indie
short level you have to target an audience rather than hope the audience
will find you.
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
is there really anything wrong or strange with either? established actors give credibility and often they are also very good, which is why they're established, and one of the reasons we make films is to say something about the world around us. no, i think both things can make a film more interesting and thus it's not surprising if they want to show it.woods01 wrote:But it seems like a lot of mediocre shorts get into festivals (well at least locally) because they somehow got an established actor or two to agree to be in it, or they take up the banner of a current news headline.
you don't have to do anything but if you want somebody to see your film, which is the point with festivals and other kinds of distribution, you better make one that they want to see. it's that simple, isn't it?I feel that rather than just making the vision in your head you have to carefully tailer it to a particular festival circuit. Even at the humble indie
short level you have to target an audience rather than hope the audience
will find you.
/matt
My experience has been
- very short films are easy to program b/c they can squeeze them in anywhere;
- topical matters, but mostly in that shorts can/need be aligned with longer-form films of some sort;
- I don't know anything about nepotism; but RELATIONSHIPS (human ones, not dating or whatever) mean everything. Example: in the process of getting our first film into [big name festival], we formed relationships with programmers (one specifically) there who became huge advocates of ours and helped get the next film(s) noticed. Is that fair to all the other films? Dunno, but I think that's the wrong question. It's the way the world works. Besides, one of the goals of shorts programmers seems to be to identify up-and-comers and help move their careers along.
- very short films are easy to program b/c they can squeeze them in anywhere;
- topical matters, but mostly in that shorts can/need be aligned with longer-form films of some sort;
- I don't know anything about nepotism; but RELATIONSHIPS (human ones, not dating or whatever) mean everything. Example: in the process of getting our first film into [big name festival], we formed relationships with programmers (one specifically) there who became huge advocates of ours and helped get the next film(s) noticed. Is that fair to all the other films? Dunno, but I think that's the wrong question. It's the way the world works. Besides, one of the goals of shorts programmers seems to be to identify up-and-comers and help move their careers along.
It is wrong and strange because a film festival should be about showing the very best in films that are not what you would get in the local multiplex. Instead we get to see celebrity pet projects and their friends work. What happened to letting a work stand for itself? Why should it matter 'who' is in it?mattias wrote: is there really anything wrong or strange with either? established actors give credibility and often they are also very good, which is why they're established, and one of the reasons we make films is to say something about the world around us. no, i think both things can make a film more interesting and thus it's not surprising if they want to show it.
-
steve hyde
- Senior member
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am
- Real name: Steve Hyde
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
woods01 wrote:It is wrong and strange because a film festival should be about showing the very best in films that are not what you would get in the local multiplex. Instead we get to see celebrity pet projects and their friends work. What happened to letting a work stand for itself? Why should it matter 'who' is in it?mattias wrote: is there really anything wrong or strange with either? established actors give credibility and often they are also very good, which is why they're established, and one of the reasons we make films is to say something about the world around us. no, i think both things can make a film more interesting and thus it's not surprising if they want to show it.
in terms of pure theory - sure; however reality does not conform to theory. A work should stand for itself, but the nature of human decision making is built on observations and film festival curators are always looking for a diversity of observations for finding the interesting new films quickly. A known talent is a solid observation. Placement in other festivals is a good observation..e.g if Tribeca is showing it - let's snare it...etc.
As a filmmaker your best strategy is to learn to think like a festival curator. The thing about films is they never actually stand alone - unless of course the filmmaker decides not to show it to anyone - then the work stands alone. Meaning is made between the screen and the audience so the best way to evaluate a film from the curator perspective is to pay attention to how people are reading it. This is why festival curators work in committees and screen each film individually to see which films get teased out of each individual member.
as the old saying goes: it doesn't matter what you say - what matters is what people hear..... I've always thought that is something worth serious consideration.
Steve
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
in what way can you possibly exclude the actors and the subject matter from "the work itself"? we're not talking about "i'm your friend or i want to be so i'll screen your film" here, but whats actually in the film. if the curator likes the film it's a good film, that's the only definition needed for programming in my opinion.steve hyde wrote:in terms of pure theory - sure; however reality does not conform to theory. A work should stand for itself
/matt