Seems like it's getting harder and harder to get people to watch short films

[dougspice]

MeAgain, you make some valid points. If you're not saying something at least a little unique and interesting, why say anything at all?

But, for the many of us around here who make our LIVING off of filmmaking and what we create – I don't know if you do or not, but I suspect not from your approach to this issue – are chained to a certain stone called "satisfying the audience". You've actually said it quite well yourself, if I quote you out of context:

But a director's job is also to choose the right people, someone who he can communicate with.

The people you are ULTIMATELY referring to here are the AUDIENCE, and whether you like it or not, their collective opinion matters more than anything.

No one here has said anything, as far as I recall, that this audience has to be universal and that therefore your work must be all-pleasing. Generally speaking, the size of your audience is directly proportional to the amount of money you are spending. For some audiences, shocking them or showing them something completely foreign may be exactly what they're looking for – although my experience tells me that most people aren't as artistically adventurous as they claim to be.

The point is that it is a big part of the job as a filmmaker to determine who your audience is and to know what will satisfy them. And it's the same with criticism. If you know your audience well enough it is very, very easy to wade through criticism and quickly determine which are the voices that are meaningful to your success and which are coming from people who were never in your audience to begin with.

To bring this all back around on-topic again... doing all that will also be a very good headstart in the work of building up an audience for your work, present and future.

 

[Jester2138]

I'll only be repeating what other people have already said, but I'll tell you why I don't watch many short films.

As an audience member, I give my time to the filmmaker. If he doesn't give me something back, forget him.

Most short films have nothing to say and are boring.

 

[MeAgain]

Nitsuj makes my point much better than I can. I make films because I feel the need to, and I hope people find what I do interesting.


The problem is I completely disagree with Huy and others on the purpose of art. Art is it's own language, each seperate artform is it's own language and each artist creates his own language within that art. "Clueing people in" is the problem. You'll never get people to think differently if you get them comfortable. The less you clue people in, the more their mind has to work and the more they become engaged. Some people won't want to bother, but you'll always have this. And it doesn't have to be CRAZY "arthouse" stuff. It can be something that uses conventions but uses those conventions to springboard into something else. It can be calm and straightforward, but the acting or framing elicits new responses, etc. To me, I don't have a message that I'm trying to push on people, and I don't understand everything I put into my films. Organization is important but I make films to explore things that interest me.

Like a documentarian, you go in with a plan but expect the end product to be different. And it's OK to not understand some things but still like them. I don't "understand" Charlie Mingus's jazz music or William Blake's poetry, but both are beautiful and challenging. Neither of those guys clue you in, but the more you listen to them, the more you're put into their world. You naturally start thinking in new ways, because their work gives you something and forces you to respond to it. Sometimes people's works are greatly misunderstood, even during their lifetime- or after.

Look at Picasso. Some people think his famous Cubist paintings could be "done by a child", but if you look at the detail in his paintings, you see he's deconstructing his world down to the most basic shapes and re-arranging them in his vision. It took me a long time to even begin to understand that, and I'm sure I'm still very ignorant of a lot of the stuff he did in those paintings.

Why can't movies be this challenging? That's what I'm saying. I love a movie that leaves me emotionally strained and baffled. I dislike messages being rammed down my throat. I like a movie I can come back to over and over and still be challenged, and that's what a lot of people want.

It has nothing to do genre or having an audience. That's bull. That's PR stuff. How can you know your audience if you haven't given them something new and unique yet? If you "know your audience" it means you're rehashing something, something which has been done many many times before.

Now, you can know which people may be more inclined to see your film- the horror crowd, the art house crowd, etc. But the problem with only appealing to them is that you're LIMITING who wants to see your film. If you just make the film you want to make, you actually have the potential of drawing several different types of people to see your film. It doesn't have to be a niche.

 

[Huy Vu]

N
The problem is I completely disagree with Huy and others on the purpose of art. Art is it's own language, each seperate artform is it's own language and each artist creates his own language within that art.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I got into film because there are stories that I would like to tell and share with others, and I want to be able to present that as effectively as I can. Film, like all art, is a medium of expression and communication, and I think that being able to communicate your purposes clearly and in an interesting way is a vital part of that.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

If you alienate your audience they have no reason to watch or to tell anyone about your film. People aren't watching for art, but to be entertained. If you happen to do something arty on the way, then good for you. Even artists don't create for the sake of creating art. They create because they have something to say, they are compelled to get the visions out of their heads. The interpretation of said art is an after effect. If they happen to create art that moves people on the way... it's a by product.

We are filmmakers and without the audience no one is watching at all.

Make the stories and make it the way you are compelled to and people will find that interesting.

It's all the farting around and trying to be arty that turns people off and then they can't be bothered to watch your film becasue they're tired of being inundated with everyone thinking they're so bloody clever.

Just tell a good story and tell it the best you can.

 

[dougspice]

It has nothing to do genre or having an audience. That's bull. That's PR stuff. How can you know your audience if you haven't given them something new and unique yet? If you "know your audience" it means you're rehashing something, something which has been done many many times before.

Now, you can know which people may be more inclined to see your film- the horror crowd, the art house crowd, etc. But the problem with only appealing to them is that you're LIMITING who wants to see your film. If you just make the film you want to make, you actually have the potential of drawing several different types of people to see your film. It doesn't have to be a niche.

Everything is a niche. Whether or not you bother to identify it is up to you. Personally, I'd like to be able to make films, and continue making them, all my life. The more I know about who "my people" are, the better off I'll be both financially and creatively.

You can make a film that only makes sense to you, created from a force of pure art. Lynch somehow manages to keep doing it, year after year. But personally I would feel pretty hollow if I'd spent a year or more of my life on something, and at the end of the day it doesn't successfully communicate with the audience. I wouldn't feel smart or clever – I'd feel like a failure.

All of the examples you gave above have one interesting factor in common: they were not films. Painters, musicians, writers - they all have the option to live poor. They can achieve their expression more or less in the absence of popular success, because the economics allow it. Filmmakers do not have this luxury. The process of creation is simply too expensive. There are a few filmmakers who manage to keep making tiny, inexpensive films and somehow getting them out to people, and there will be more of that as time goes by. But the audience will likewise get smaller as time goes by. Some of them are pretty happy, but I bet a lot of them are also pretty stressed out. I've made micro-budget movies, and all I can say is no matter how well they turn out, it's not something I would ever want to do all my life.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

I've made micro-budget movies, and all I can say is no matter how well they turn out, it's not something I would ever want to do all my life.

Same here. It's just too damned hard and is no way to live.

 

[MeAgain]

Just because you aren't willing to do something that's very hard to do is no reason to say it can't or shouldn't be done. Yeah, it's hard. That's the point. Of course it isn't easy. I understand why other people wouldn't want to do that, but you're choosing a lifestyle then. You can't have it both ways.

The audience getting smaller seems like a kind of random fake fact that again makes no sense. If it gets smaller, it's only because less and less people are willing to sacrifice certain things to make important films.

Sorry, filmmaking is almost no different from the other arts at this point. Every art was most likely very expensive at some point. Now we have cameras everywhere. The camera is almost as ubiquitous as the pen. Look at the new DSLRs that can record movies in HD. Major drawbacks? Yeah. But some of them are under 2 grand. This would be a ridiculous idea probably 5 years ago, not to mention 50.

And good paint or big, nice canvases and a studio space are still very expensive for painters, I'd imagine. Studio time is still expensive for bands, as are the instruments, equipment, transport, etc. But people still do it. You don't have a 35mm adapter? Oh well. You don't have a dolly or indie slider? Oh well. Just make the movie with what you have. Either you can or you can't, in my eyes. Jon Callouette spent 218 dollars to make his self-reflexive documentary Tarnation. People are quick to note that producers and a distributor spent over 400 grand more for music clearance, audio clean-up and for film prints. But his film was unique enough for a distributor to WANT to do that, and for people to want to see it. Was it in every megaplex across the U.S.? Of course not, but if I remember correctly it played at Cannes, among other places. Certainly a start, yes?

 

[Huy Vu]

Just because you aren't willing to do something that's very hard to do is no reason to say it can't or shouldn't be done. Yeah, it's hard. That's the point. Of course it isn't easy. I understand why other people wouldn't want to do that, but you're choosing a lifestyle then. You can't have it both ways.

One thing that's bothering me is that you're making it sounds like everybody who makes films for other people to enjoy are sell-outs and not real artists. Frankly that's just misguided. There are many genuinely talented filmmakers who get a real satisfaction out of sharing their work with other people, and there's nothing wrong with that.

When it comes down to it, you can characterize anything as innovative and blame other people for not getting it, but at the end of the day the impact of your work will tell the story. I can set up a camera and shoot myself taking a dump, then call you narrow-minded for not "getting" what I'm trying to do, but ultimately nobody is going to watch my film and nothing I'm trying to say will have mattered.

 

[Doc Bernard]

The audience getting smaller seems like a kind of random fake fact that again makes no sense. If it gets smaller, it's only because less and less people are willing to sacrifice certain things to make important films.

I sure hope you have made some big films, MeAgain. That particular statement I quoted above says a lot to me about your vision.

If you expect your audience to come around to your point of view, rather than incorporate their POV into your films, you alienate many film-goers. Going too avant-garde has it's drawbacks too. Eventually, a film-maker will not be taken seriously, but that they have their heads too high in the clouds.

Take Quentin Tarantino, for example. I consider him an avant-garde film-maker. Yet he makes millions. Why? He takes his audiences into account. He makes films that do not limit themselves to an extremely narrow demographic, yet he pushes the envelope.

I mean, there is just so much filming of a butterfly's wing or a rose in a broken glass you can do, before it gets pretentious and alienates the audience. Getting a reputation as a person who has no grasp of his audience's enjoyment, or worse yet, does not care, will ensure your work will be forgotten. Ignoring your audience and/or demographic shows a conceit that will show through on screen.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

Just because you aren't willing to do something that's very hard to do is no reason to say it can't or shouldn't be done. Yeah, it's hard. That's the point. Of course it isn't easy. I understand why other people wouldn't want to do that, but you're choosing a lifestyle then. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not a trust fund kiddie. Most of the guys on this board aren't either. Everything we have we've had to scrape and save and work our asses off to get. We KNOW it's hard but we do it anyway and we get good at it, those of us who persevere. SOme of us are eventually lucky to land full time gigs making a living doing this. There is ZERO nobility in doing something the hard way.

We just did it becasue we HAD to, becaues we are compelled to create.

If we knew it was going to be this hard, some of us would never have bothered to try.

If that doesn't make each and everyone of us an artist I don't know what does.

Hard or not, it doesn't make us all GOOD artists....

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

I mean, there is just so much filming of a butterfly's wing or a rose in a broken glass you can do, before it gets pretentious and alienates the audience. Getting a reputation as a person who has no grasp of his audience's enjoyment, or worse yet, does not care, will ensure your work will be forgotten. Ignoring your audience and/or demographic shows a conceit that will show through on screen.

Doc I love you for saying it so concisely. Much man-love to you dude.

 

[Sad Max]

There is ZERO nobility in doing something the hard way.

If I didn't have too many sig lines already, I would certainly add this to the list.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

If I didn't have too many sig lines already, I would certainly add this to the list.

Does that mean I'm becoming more quotable? Woo-hoo!

 

[lawriejaffa]

One thing that's bothering me is that you're making it sounds like everybody who makes films for other people to enjoy are sell-outs and not real artists. Frankly that's just misguided. There are many genuinely talented filmmakers who get a real satisfaction out of sharing their work with other people, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Personally i think that film is still a very immature artistic medium, despite our technical advances, people are still only gradually gaining an appreciation for those films that aspire to become works of art as opposed to its origin as a vaudeville inspired novelty.

There is a gross amount of populism... when it comes to art here. Honestly, the amount of times I read people saying something like,

'Oh i just want to tell stories and sell my movie.'

Well that is not bad - there is nothing wrong with that. I do that too - as a business man. But honestly, if i was speaking to an artist, who said -

"Behold my seminal work.... it is *drum roll* a story.... a story i hope entertains and sells well'

Well that would be crap. I mean oh wow, my god what an artist you are etc hehe. So I dont think the above statement is misguided. On the contrary the fact that there is an artistic establishment is the very proof in the pudding. Is it elitist and evil - oh probably... hehe. But let's not pretend for a second, that if we are creating 'product' as an overriding concern beyond artistic expression, that we're not selling out. Duh... of course you are, but then you need bread on the table.

However I find among American filmmakers in particular that this is somewhat polarised. There are many here that would reacte to the idea of a filmmaker being an artist as something terrifying (akin in the USA to being called a Liberal perhaps hehe.) So there is some vast underwear measuring going on to see who can seem more 'commercially aware' of audiences, of product, of how to market the product and *yawn.*

I don't think its a peculiar exception that by far, most succesful indy films just have to be works of artistic merit, often employing ideas that are unusual, reinventing or adding great dimensions to often popular but stale genres.

Perhaps to know whether you are making is an attempted work of art - it is when the driving force behind your idea is a compulsion to express something - something somewhat more divine than how awesome the last scene might look with this or that adapter, or a styrofoam halloween mask.

There is ZERO nobility in doing something the hard way.

You should ask your wife Rodney!

 

[Jester2138]

However I find among American filmmakers in particular that this is somewhat polarised. There are many here that would reacte to the idea of a filmmaker being an artist as something terrifying (akin in the USA to being called a Liberal perhaps hehe.)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that there is a greater divide between "artist" filmmakers and "business" filmmakers in the USA versus elsewhere? I would disagree with that and say that there is simply a much greater number of filmmakers here, thus it is only logical that you would find more examples on either end of the spectrum.

 

[Jester2138]

But on the subject at hand - art - I offer my opinion knowing that this is a debate that will never be resolved. Besides, art is undefinable with mere language.

I believe that everything in this reality has a purpose. A pen writes, a knife cuts, a house harbors. Now, imagine that a UFO crashed on Earth. The ship was completely destroyed, except for one small object. We couldn't figure out what it was, but still we discovered that if we squeezed it we'd get sudden solutions to problems - cancer, hunger, war, etc. In our world, that object would have a purpose and function, even though we didn't know what the object itself was. Art, I believe, is similar. We can't define it, but we know what it does.

We can all agree on what art does, since we can all experience it. It moves us, inspires us, terrifies us, enchants us. Basically, art changes us. Ideally, when we exit a concert hall or cinema we are different in some way than when we entered. That is the purpose of art - to touch something within us that is intangible.

So, my overall point, I guess, boils down to the idea that simply being original (or innovative, or whatever word you prefer) doesn't mean it's worthy of being called art.

 

[lawriejaffa]

I'll try and explain a littler clearer, bearing in mind this is an opinion and ill try and be a bit more specific.

In my chats with American indy filmmakers as a majority from this forum, who are producing and directing there own films, I have found a different attitude to the one im more familiar with European and British independent filmmakers. This I have experienced enough to venture an opinion, its not a fact, and its a personal generalisation to some extent! That might ensure you can articulate your disagreement so it actually makes sense too!

The difference in attitude is that many American indys here have a defiant attitude against the arts. I actually think that because the USA education system is so damned well expensive, and filmmaking so damned well unprofitable, that many defiantly, pursue there dream of making film, relying on their skills as private entrepeneuers and avoid university. What it provides and spouts is trendily dismissed by many 'beloved' usa indy filmmakers like Rodriguez - so it is part of pop culture USA.

So a fixation on survival and profit - and often times a general resentment against the idea of arts - as probably promoted (and indeed in often elitist fashions) by the arts establsihment results. So much so that many ive spoken to are eager not to be percieved as an artist 'i just make movies' - how many artists say 'i just draw stuff'. It even sounds cool to folks here sometimes (those kinds of populist, keeping it real style mantras.') But its indicative of a kind of failed relationship i think many indy filmmakers have with integrating the perception of art and art itself into their works.

Many Americans do of course, and among them are leading lights im sure in art cinema and usually (eventually) mainstream too.

Now in the UK, and in most of Europe, education such as University is not seen as an investment like in the USA, but as a fundamental human right. That means educations so cheap that almost anyone can get into uni (almost) if there committed, to pursue a course in the arts. That means that the arts establishment has a bigger more pervasive influence over the development of filmish minds.

It has also helped craft a perception of film and cinema that is different - culturally in Europe and the UK than it is to the USA. I think there is less distinction made between films that would otherwise be branded 'arty' by many indies here, than they would be by audiences in the UK for example. European indy film makers and UK are usually more likely to be concerned with making their epic movie sound 'credible' by citing many artistic influences and ideas, where as a US indy seems more concerned with making there film sound 'credible' by some new viral marketing campaign and an amazing new exploding head shot.

In New York City, i watch movies in the cinema, and people whoop, take cell phone calls, and cheer. In the UK you are likely to be sworn at with surprisingly explicit language for even eating too loudly hehe. Different cultures, focus, and circumstances do effect how filmmaker culture develops, giving a range of difference to our little neurosis.

In a business sense - you can't sell out as well as a corporation pumping out a summer blockbuster. It gets said time and time again, that the best ideas are an indies best weapon. Yet so many will produce pulp (not even original or interesting pulp) for sake of an all new idea for marketing or thinking insanely that dumbing down is gonna bring in the doh. Not with a micro-budget and not as much doh as what that same filmmaker could have made probably waiting tables.

So, my overall point, I guess, boils down to the idea that simply being original (or innovative, or whatever word you prefer) doesn't mean it's worthy of being called art.

Being original or innovative (are quite different things!) But yep i dont think anyone would disagree with that statement. Just cos it's new don't make it art The really funny one is when someone goes 'oh well one man's art is another man's trash' reducing the field of art criticism to flippant metaphysics...

 

[Jester2138]

So a fixation on survival and profit - and often times a general resentment against the idea of arts - as probably promoted (and indeed in often elitist fashions) by the arts establsihment results. So much so that many ive spoken to are eager not to be percieved as an artist 'i just make movies' - how many artists say 'i just draw stuff'. It even sounds cool to folks here sometimes (those kinds of populist, keeping it real style mantras.') But its indicative of a kind of failed relationship i think many indy filmmakers have with integrating the perception of art and art itself into their works.

I think most people here avoid calling themselves artists because it can easily come across as arrogance.

Now in the UK, and in most of Europe, education such as University is not seen as an investment like in the USA, but as a fundamental human right.

It's seen as a human right here too, that's why we have public (free) schools up to college level and need-based scholarships at college level.

That means educations so cheap that almost anyone can get into uni (almost) if there committed

Not just almost anyone, but anyone can get in to a good school here if they are committed, regardless of their financial status. That's what scholarships were invented for.

European indy film makers and UK are usually more likely to be concerned with making their epic movie sound 'credible' by citing many artistic influences and ideas, where as a US indy seems more concerned with making there film sound 'credible' by some new viral marketing campaign and an amazing new exploding head shot.

The real question is, what's the difference? And, if there is one, why is either superior?

In New York City, i watch movies in the cinema, and people whoop, take cell phone calls, and cheer. In the UK you are likely to be sworn at with surprisingly explicit language for even eating too loudly hehe. Different cultures, focus, and circumstances do effect how filmmaker culture develops, giving a range of difference to our little neurosis.

If somebody made a loud cell phone call in a theater I'd get angry too. Maybe New Yorkers are different? (I doubt it). As for the last sentence, I can only say I agree one-hundred percent.

 

[lawriejaffa]

It's seen as a human right here too, that's why we have public (free) schools up to college level and need-based scholarships at college level.

Im referring to University Education. Private fees in the USA for university education makes it for most i know, seen as an expensive investment. In the UK, Scotland for example, university degree 'fees' cost only about 1.5k dollars a year. So per filmmaker that means far more go through the university education system as per the 'the arts establishment' than per filmmaker from the States. This obviously has an influence.

I think most people here avoid calling themselves artists because it can easily across as arrogant.

Sure at a dinner party perhaps we may play the humble card in describing what we do - or not. There is a genuine 'aversion' to being percieved as an 'artist' for reasons beyond humility by those that do. Rodney won't mind im sure - if i use his general statements as an example of that prevailing attitude.

The real question is, what's the difference?

If you just insert what you quoted from me before this question in your last post hehe