Is 14 minutes too long for a shot film to submit to most festivals?

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
I know everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, but I am having trouble getting mine down to 10. It originally came out to 22 even though my script is only 10 pages, so I figured I'll just cut out whatever is unnecessary and trim all the fat I can. I was worried it would be too quick cut and actually feel rushed, but my collaborators said, that at 10 minutes, it has to be rushed and you don't have time for anything else. However I can't seem to get it down past 14, and every other attempt I make, leads to a continuity flaw. Characters all of a sudden ending up here, when they were just there, a second ago, without actually showing much change between cuts. I know I am suppose to take frames out, every which way I can but that has only been leading to a second or less per cut, and is not making much difference anymore. Is 14 too long to submit, or should I really find a way to cut it down more, even though it could hurt the movie in other ways? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
If it's boring, then yes 14 minutes would be too long.

If it's fascinating, then 14 minutes will be too short.

Not the answer you want, but it's the answer that there is -- nobody cares about running time if the film's good. And if the film's not good, people will care very much about the longer running time.

So -- don't cut it based on trying to meet some arbitrary running time, that's silly. Cut it so that it's the best film with the best pacing that it can be. Then have lots of people view it who are a) not related to you and b) who don't know you, and ask them for their honest reactions. Do NOT try this with friends and family, because your friends and family aren't on the screening committee of the festivals you're submitting to. Strangers are. So try it with strangers. Ask them if it felt too long, or rushed, etc. And if it feels too long, cut it, even if it means leaving your favorite scenes on the cutting room floor.
 
I can ask someone who runs the local festival and show him. I have already cut a lot, which I can insert back in if I have to. It doesn't feel too long at all, as I still have quite a bit going on, which I intended since I didn't want to be boring.
 
If I were to look at a short film, I would not necessarily say that it has to be 10 minutes because if it is fascinating, I would say that "it was be a great film, but rather short."

I think that if you are satisfied with the video being at 14 minutes, you should not change it. If it were possible, try remodeling and redoing the video. I know it sounds crazy, but maybe you can shorten the idea of your film into something shorter if you have to have it at 10 minutes
 
One of my son's films is 22 min and seems to play nicely at film festivals. Won a few too. It depends on a lot of things as mentioned above. Can you keep your audience's attention for that length of time?
 
Okay but they do view these movies, before looking at the lengths though? I thought maybe they decide not on it before viewing based on length and schedule timing.
 
WBS. (what Barry said)

My best advice on how to tell if your film is too long is to watch it with a group of people who don't love you unconditionally. When I've edited my own films, I always edit too long. Then the first time I see the film with an audience, every extra frame tugs at my heart and makes my chest tense up because I can feel the audience collectively hating me for wasting their time. It's a good lesson. Now after a few of those miserable sweaty nauseous screenings where I hate myself for days/weeks/months after, I think I've started to grasp the idea of editing for the audience. It seriously took me 3-4 shorts before I was comfortable with shortening time within a scene... like if a dude walked to the refrigerator, I'd show him walking the whole way with nothing else going on.
 
There's a book you might want to check out called "How Not To Make a Short Film" written by a former Sundance programmer. She says that 12-18 minutes is usually the sweet spot. Films that are much shorter have an easier time making the schedule, because they won't be pushing other films out in order to be show-- that is, a 3-minute film can probably squeeze anywhere in a 90-minute short film program. Many fests also show sub-10-minute films before features.

It's also worth noting that most of the Academy Award nominated shorts are over 20 minutes.

And again worth noting that if you want people to watch your film online later, you probably won't get anybody to watch it if it's over 20 minutes. Unless it was one of the five Academy Award nominees.
 
I don't think mine is good enough to be Academy Award worthy. Don't they usually pick shorts with bigger budgets, and at least one known face, that you'v seen before? A lot of people liked the script, but if I had a better DP and sound person, it may have all added up to be worthy. Well I can go with the 14 minute edit, the 16 minute edit, or the 22 minute.
 
Short films are always interesting when it comes to pacing. At times, you don't want to show the guy walking all the way to the freezer, and at other times you do - especially so when something really intense happened just before and you'd like the audience to have some time to absorb that plot point. However, with all the advice about running time, it ultimately comes down to the festival schedule and their preferences. My last film was 22 minutes and it never received as many selections as a 6 minute film would usually receive, however, when it did it was always the longest one and always in the opening slot (they usually go long to short). So yeah, you're effectively fighting for one available slot (for the longer 20+ minute films) in comparison to the many 5 - 10 minute slots.
 
ironpony said:
I don't think mine is good enough to be Academy Award worthy. Don't they usually pick shorts with bigger budgets, and at least one known face, that you'v seen before? A lot of people liked the script, but if I had a better DP and sound person, it may have all added up to be worthy. Well I can go with the 14 minute edit, the 16 minute edit, or the 22 minute.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, nope, not at all.

The film "God of Love" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631323/) was written and directed by a Luke Matheny, a student at NYU.

It was made as a class project and won best live action short at the 83rd Academy Awards.

Creating art is just that, creating art. Don't worry to much about the arbitrary stuff. Focus on three things:

1) Your story
2) Your cast
3) Your production quality

Make sure its under 40 minutes of course and just go with it. Be a rebel, trust your gut, listen, be flexible, while being true to your self and your vision for the film. Go with the universe, take opportunities as they come and a little luck along the way isn't so bad either.

Author of Eat, Pray, Love, Elizabeth Gilbert said it best: "I fell into one of those, sort of pits of despair that we all fall into when we're working on something and it's not coming and you start to think this is going to be a disaster, this is going to be the worst book ever written. Not just bad, but the worst book ever written. And I started to think I should just dump this project. But then I remembered Tom talking to the open air and I tried it. So I just lifted my face up from the manuscript and I directed my comments to an empty corner of the room. And I said aloud, "Listen you, thing, you and I both know that if this book isn't brilliant that is not entirely my fault, right? Because you can see that I am putting everything I have into this, I don't have any more than this. So if you want it to be better, then you've got to show up and do your part of the deal. O.K. But if you don't do that, you know what, the hell with it. I'm going to keep writing anyway because that's my job. And I would please like the record to reflect today that I showed up for my part of the job...Don't be afraid. Don't be daunted. Just do your job. Continue to show up for your piece of it, whatever that might be."
 
ironpony said:
Okay but they do view these movies, before looking at the lengths though? I thought maybe they decide not on it before viewing based on length and schedule timing.
Click to expand...
Depends on the festival. Some festivals might set a strict limit of, say, 15 minutes or whatever. Others might say 40 minutes.

Think about what you would do if you were a festival screener -- and you'd watched, say, 250 horrible short films to find the 10 decent ones. And you pulled the next one out of the box and it says "running time: 40 minutes". What's your initial reaction? Mine is "40 minutes?!?!?! You get two, and if you're not brilliant, you're gone."

I think the standards are going to be set higher, the longer the film is. Nobody wants to sit through 40 minutes of borefest. But if you grab them good and hard in the first minute, they'll give it a chance. If you bore them for two minutes, they'll eject it and toss it on the "rejected" pile.

When it comes to selecting a film, nobody's going to program a mailed-in submission without at least watching it. But that doesn't mean every film will get watched all the way to the end. Any festival screener worth his/her salt will be able to tell within a minute or two whether what's been submitted is worth watching all the way through. (and if you think that's unfair, and that "the good stuff's at the end, they'll miss it!" then I'd suggest you change the edit so some good stuff's at the beginning too.)
 
My most successful short festival film (not a HUGE success, but got in over 20 festivals including some pretty decent mid-tier ones) is 26 minutes long. I made a 12 minute film that got in a grand total of 3. So the answer is, it depends. As a general rule shorter is better, but length isn't everything.
 
Drew Ott said:
Then the first time I see the film with an audience, every extra frame tugs at my heart and makes my chest tense up because I can feel the audience collectively hating me for wasting their time. It's a good lesson. Now after a few of those miserable sweaty nauseous screenings where I hate myself for days/weeks/months after, I think I've started to grasp the idea of editing for the audience.
Click to expand...

This is a very good advice. It's one thing to edit for your self or to edit for the audience. Every storyteller in every field of production should know how to do this.
When it comes to editing you have a big responsibility of keeping it fluid and LUCID. As an editor you have to be objective and lucid. It's actually really exhaustive.
I've edited quite a lot when I worked at a TV station and this distinction between editing for the audience or for your self is a very important lesson.

Watch the edit with and audience and when your hart starts pounding and you start sweating you'll know that you have to cut or change something.
 
KINOKS said:
This is a very good advice. It's one thing to edit for your self or to edit for the audience. Every storyteller in every field of production should know how to do this.
When it comes to editing you have a big responsibility of keeping it fluid and LUCID. As an editor you have to be objective and lucid. It's actually really exhaustive.
I've edited quite a lot when I worked at a TV station and this distinction between editing for the audience or for your self is a very important lesson.

Watch the edit with and audience and when your hart starts pounding and you start sweating you'll know that you have to cut or change something.
Click to expand...

Didn't do it on my last film (wanted to try the other road of editing myself), but a big advocate of an outside editor who is NOT otherwise affiliated with the film. He doesn't know how much you love that shot or how expensive that effect was, he just knows what works for the audience.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Didn't do it on my last film (wanted to try the other road of editing myself), but a big advocate of an outside editor who is NOT otherwise affiliated with the film. He doesn't know how much you love that shot or how expensive that effect was, he just knows what works for the audience.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If at all possible the director, DP or the producer shouldn't be the the editor at the same time.
 
for my festival, i broke down each category i have my judges score by, both in written and video form:


The submission checklist:
Yes we could say that you just need to have an amazing film, but that would be very vague now wouldn't it? The truth is, films can all be great in many ways, but we have to be far more specific in who we accept, so here are the main things to look at within your film to see if they will have a high likeliness of being screened:

Image quality: Now granted, we don't care whether it was shot in 4K, 8K, or Standard def! What we do care is that the image isn't out of focus, is overall pleasing to look at, and most importantly does not have elements/motion that reveals to the audience that the camera exists(unless a documentary or intentionally breaking the 4th wall).
Characters/Acting: Are your actor's performances believable, or are they just reading lines? It is very hard for an audience to be emotionally involved in a film where they don't believe the performers are emotionally involved.
Direction: This is how well the movie is paced and how it flows. Generally speaking an action movie will be directed to be fast paced, a drama to have a slower pace. Overall, does the movie feel correct for what its story is?
Editing: Some say there is no final edit, and that's because there are infinite ways to cut a film. At the minimum, ask yourself, do you notice the editing? A well edited film does not appear edited, it simply flows. In a poorly edited film the audience can start to notice the cuts because they don't make visual sense. Again, pacing, and logic. 90% of the time a film can be trimmed, which comes again from asking outsiders opinions.
Sound: This is where we see the most point deductions, because it is often neglected. The sound encompasses several aspects: Dialog, Foley/natural, Effects, Soundtrack. By far the most important for most films is the Dialog, if we can't hear the actors clearly, we can't watch the film. Be sure there is no hissing/popping/noise/etc... to distract from the dialog. If there is, you still can ADR with your actors to fix it. Then make sure the soundtrack and Foley make sense as well.
Story: Above all, this is what will make or break a film, is the story compelling? Does it keep the audience interested? Does it drag? This is where many filmmakers fall short when they do not get external opinions about their films which could help them make the film better. So be sure to get people who are NOT involved in the project and give you their honest opinion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top