CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › What makes a good short film?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What makes a good short film?

post #1 of 12
8/16/05 at 12:37am
Thread Starter 
I've seen a ton of short films in my day, and I'm absolutely sure many of you have seen them throughout the web in various places. Hell, you've probably made a few. Whether or not they're good is another story. Granted, good is subjective, but I think we're all professional enough (maybe I'm stretching here) to say that we know what a 'good' short should be made of. Implementing that is an entirely different story. Concept and execution are two tricky mistresses. Getting them to mate is a whole 'nother dilemma.

So I ask:

What makes a good short film?

Is it the story? the camera work? the direction? the editing? the acting? - which, let's face it, is usually never good in student films, unless you're lucky and fortunate. Or is it the level of detail involved? The glances between characters? The condensed story? The way all of the narrative developments play out? The memories you get from goofing around with your buddies?

That last part doesn't really make a short good, but it does add to your own personal level of enjoyment. Most likely it doesn't translate well to others though. What is fun to you definitely sucks to someone else, like an important viewer. Most of the time, though, you've got to ask: does that nudity scene add to my short? what will people think? Most importantly, does it relate to the story? Does it advance anything remotely important?

My tangent aside, what do you guys (and gal, or gals, I don't know) think? What in your mind makes a great short film?

For me, I think it has to be (somewhat) simple, yet creative. Those are usually the ones that stand out the most to me. Shorts like Atomic Tabasco, the Martin Scorsese Amex TriBeCa Film Festival short, Anarchy Monkey (for its sheer genius), Clean Shaven and Return to Glennascaul. Those are just some of the hundreds of shorts that are amazingly effective to me, and rather simple in their execution.
Reply
post #2 of 12
8/16/05 at 12:42am
Thread Starter 
I guess I should also add that comedy is an important aspect to me. But not in all short films. Some are dramatic enough were they don't need it, those shorts work fine by themselves. As a whole though, comedy has that ability to allow to me enjoy something that much more, depending on if the funny works, though. That's hard enough as is. If the short can accomplish this, I usually dig its vibe.

Unless it sucks, of course.
Reply
post #3 of 12
8/16/05 at 3:57am
The camera work, the direction and the editing needs to be solid. The transitions need to be smooth. The camera needs to be moved compentantly. When it comes to a short film and the enjoyment of those who are not involved, the direction is least important in my opinion.

The "directing" however, falls in line with the producing of the film, since very few people fill many roles.


1. The acting is one of the most important things in a short film. A great story with great camera work and a lowsy acting cast destroys the film's enjoyment for most people. You got to have people acting that look real and act well and put themselves after the project.

2. Next is the story. A good acted movie with a great (intersting) story can be a good short without great camera, direction and editing.

3. I think the camera work and editing is next. You need to know what you are doing, know how to work with light and shadows and then know how to edit it all together. This makes it look good and flow good.

4. The director is at the mercy of his actors and his cameraman (unless he does his own camera work).

For me, the story and the acting is what makes a short film enjoyable. Everything else is gravy.
Reply
post #4 of 12
8/16/05 at 4:51am
(student) short films tend to have really bad audio tracks. If there's dialogue it should be audible and comprehensible. Also a good short film is usually, well, short. Too often few good ideas turn into a 40-minutes of boredom. The best short film I've seen was an animated version of "Romeo and Juliet" performed by two french fries. It was 10 seconds of sheer brilliance.
Reply
post #5 of 12
8/16/05 at 10:30am
Having Just finished up doing a "special edition" dvd for a short film I did last year, I second "the good sound" point.

Having good recorded sound that is leveled properly in post, with a good sound track, makes a hell of lot of difference.

The original sound I had recorded for this short was abysmal thanks to a lousy boom operator and a back-up power generator humming away in the background.

Thank god for some fancy new VST plugins and a good person handling my sound in post production!

I'll put a trailer I cut for it up shortly (shameless plug)

Good actors are also a very important, having a good experienced actor onboard can improve a short film a good bloody deal.

And yeah Camera and editing. Editing especially, can make or break a short film, no matter how great the acting and sound may be.

I think the most difficult thing for most short film makers is cutting stuff out of their films. Being a ruthless editior, Its a very difficult thing to do, especially if your cutting a scene from your short film due to pacing and the scene itself is 1 to 2 minutes long and the short is less than 15 minutes. Leaving stuff on the editing floor really tears you up inside, your so close to the darn thing.
Reply
post #6 of 12
8/16/05 at 12:43pm
Story! Story! Story!
Reply
post #7 of 12
8/16/05 at 5:11pm
I don't mean for this to sound glib, but... SHORTNESS. Especially for comedies. Set it up, knock it down, get out. Also, the end credits should never run longer than the film itself.
Reply
post #8 of 12
8/16/05 at 7:54pm
The first thing a short film should do is entertain me. Too often have I seen an obscure, ten minute short film in which nothing happens. Great, you've exercised your cinematography, now put it to some use. Furthermore, way too many short films push cutenss and quirkyness way to far. I have no interest in stories that involve a guy trying to get back his lucky penny, or a cat trying to tease a dog, a brother trying to "race" to the bathroom before his sister gets there, etc. Short films, if anything, have to be held at a higher standard, because when I settle down to watch a feature length it's usually on my TV, and I'm prepared to enter the film's world for two hours. When I'm watching a short film I'm probably going "ten minutes eh, this better impress me quick." Not as much anticipation, you see.

This is why I've finally tired of making short films (which have been condensed feature kength movies anyway, and which I considered just practice). Cute quirky story or a deep one that doesn't get explored enough? It's a tough balance, and I'm moving on to features.
Reply
post #9 of 12
8/16/05 at 7:57pm
Acting and writing are probably the biggest ones. You have to convey a lot of information in a short time, so you have to ensure you have a tight script and competant actors. My first short movie fell apart in a way because, despite having a decent script and some good direction, the acting sucked, and because it was such a character driven piece, it deflated. Like a feature movie, I guess.
Reply
post #10 of 12
8/16/05 at 9:30pm
Your right about story and writing, but I still feel being a good or bad editor can make or break a good story.
Reply
post #11 of 12
8/16/05 at 9:34pm
Simplicity.

The shorts that have made the biggest impressions on me are the ones without dialogue (or at least VERY small amounts) and the ones with very few actors (if any at all). I think shorts are the perfect form to showcase cinema at its most raw and basic elements... essentially, a perfect synergy of visual and sound.
Reply
post #12 of 12
8/16/05 at 10:50pm
Great topic, Yando.

For me, the least important thing in a good short is story. I think most short films shouldn't have a story. I think short films are the perfect place to explore ideas and themes.

Yando's recognizing of Anarchy Monkey made me smile. That short is so fucking punk rock, I love it. Another brilliant one is My Penis and My Social Security Number.

I'm also thinking of Polanski's Two Men and a Wardrobe or The Big Shave.

And if you have to tell a complete story in a short, (which I'm not against AT ALL (I do it all the time), I just don't think it's the most important thing) try to tell the story in a way that it hasn't been told before. Think about Amblin' or Marker's La Jetee.

As for camerawork and all of that... competency is important. Sure. One big problem I see is that I see a lot of filmmakers doing a good job with what they have but showing zero potential for what they could do with a bigger budget/better equipment. I'd much rather see a gloriously composed wide shot that looks a little muddy because it's digital video or is a little hot in some spots because they couldn't flag that part of the shot and imagine what it would look like in 35mm than to see another well-exposed, nice and sharp medium-CU of some dickhead in a coffee shop. It's good because you followed the rules. You played it safe but you expect me to believe that if I gave you ten million and a Panavision package, you'd suddenly show me something fresh and exciting? I could double the budget and you'd give me the exact same thing.

I think shorts are the best place to say "Fuck the rules." I'd much rather know that Anarchy Monkey'll be my best friend than find out what happened to Mason Reese.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Budding Filmmakers
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › What makes a good short film?