Oscar, Sundance, Cannes, etc. Short Films (The Story)

D

DDirector

Veteran
Watching many nominated and winning short films from the Oscars, Sundance, Cannes, and many other film festivals, it got me thinking.
What exactly makes these films winners compared to the other films?​

In terms of the story, I have noticed that many of films nominated or won are romantic films, or are happy/sad films about couples - That sort of thing.
What gives these type of stories the advantage over the other ones?
The other type I've seen are those shot in weird places like Chernobyl or have that old/war/poverty vibe feeling if that makes sense.

The important question, how exactly are these films judged?
I know it has to do with originality and creativity in the story. But, if many of the films submitted are original or nearly original stories with great plots, what makes them winners compared to the other ones?

I want to know the type of story that intrigues us the most, that has the best chance at becoming a great hit as a short in the festivals.


*In terms of cinematography, please visit this link:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-Cinematography)&p=1986357377#post1986357377
 
Last edited:
Always keep in mind, festivals are very.......um........political. Not necessarily in a governmental way......but in a film-maker way. Cannes, Sundance, Venice....are no exception, just on a larger scale.

I have seen amazingly shot films get totally snubbed at festivals and stuff that was so esoteric it alienated most of the audience win.
 
You are asking the wrong questions. You presume that you can "paint by numbers." And you really can't. You have to find what really matters to YOU. This is the simplest and at the same toughest advice ever because i find that majority of people don't really know themselves. They see themselves as idolized selves. When asked "what defines them," they answer not what ACTUALLY defines their persona but what defines the idealized self. That unfortunately prevents many from making truly honest work. And, it shows, the viewers, without any attachment to that idealization, can see right trough it.

Moreover, on more practical level, even when you actually make a good film you still have to pay "consultation fee" to one of the people pushing strings at the festival so that person actually spends time seeing your film and deciding if it should get in. The consultation fee is basic guarantee that your film will be seen by someone with power rather then some intern.
 
I agree very much with Patryk.

I've made a few shorts, music videos, other projects. Things have started moving for me and i'm starting to feel confident in myself as a director. But the one thing that has always nagged at me was that I never felt much connection to the projects I was creating. I realized I was trying to make projects that I wanted an intellectualized version of myself to make. I basically looked at filmmakers I respect and was trying to make myself create projects in the same vein of what they did.

I've only recently realized this isn't being true to myself. Every filmmaker grows up in unique circumstances, and you have to be true to that. If you just try to make films that you think your favorite filmmakers would make, you will get lost and wonder "why is this not coming through, why is there no connection here". I guess the lesson is, just because you like a certain type of thing, doesn't mean you need to make that type of thing. Just because I think Tarkovsky is the greatest filmmaker of all time does not mean I should try to emulate his films, because frankly his life was much much different from mine.

It's also not about making a film because you think critics will like it and hail you a genius. Find out what you truly get excited by, and pursue that. It's strange to me how such a seemingly common sense idea can take years to learn (at least it did in my case).
 
jghenderson said:
I guess the lesson is, just because you like a certain type of thing, doesn't mean you need to make that type of thing. Just because I think Tarkovsky is the greatest filmmaker of all time does not mean I should try to emulate his films, because frankly his life was much much different from mine.
Click to expand...

Good point here. They influence you in a way, but trying to imitate their work is worst than being inspired by it.
I got influenced by very different filmmakers since I was young, but I don't think my work is representative of their. I got influenced somehow, and I think I'm defining my own style from there., which sound logical to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top