the short screenplay.

I casually know a couple of serious non-pro filmmakers who have written and filmed shorts with the intention of showing them at film festivals hoping to get noticed, and/or using the films as calling cards in their growing portfolio of work. Seems like a valid enough strategy, and of course a relatively cheap way to learn the craft. These same folks are also feature length spec screenwriters hoping to make headway in that direction too, perhaps helped by the contacts they'll make from their filmmaking activities and achievements, who knows?

-Derek

every once in a while a screenwriter asks to direct their own "sold" script. if you have some experience and can show it then it would improve your chances that much more. but if your plans only include writing (and not filmmaking) then it's probably not worth the investment.

after film festivals - shorts do get aired on the Independent Film and the Sundance channels & Showtime's Filmmaker's Showcase. so, there is promise beyond that but they must be better than good.

and then there's always YouTube

Depends on the contest or festival rules, if they ask for 15-minute shorts then you'd write 15-page short scripts.

Over on the Done Deal board there's usually a fun short script contest running in the Writing Exercises forum... right now I'm working on a couple of scripts for the Touch of Noir contest. Good practice, if that's what you're looking for.

-Derek

I suppose short films are much more common in Europe than they are in the US; hundreds of shorts turn up at dozens of festivals here every year. I've written (and directed) a number of short films, ranging from 7 minutes to 40 minutes - but as a rule of thumb, 10 minutes would be a perfect length, since most festivals have a maximum length for short films (so a 40-minute film has fewer chances of getting screened). But, you know, I also think the story itself usually dictates its length, so if you want to make a 30-minute short, go for it.

In any case, it's near impossible to make money out of short films. It's a great way of getting exposure, it's a good way to gather experience. It's also fun, and it's easier to get off the ground than a feature film. A writer/director friend of mine has made three short films which all won several substantial awards, so he may be the rare filmmaker who's managed to earn money with shorts (keep in mind that Europe has a number of film boards funding film projects, including shorts). It's also helped him to get his first feature film off the ground, which turned out to be a surprise hit.

So, yeah, I think making short films is a great way to get your feet wet. Even if you don't intend to direct the script yourself, it may be a good way not only to get experience, but also to network: there are always film students looking for good scripts, and if they like what you write, they may remember you when they move on to bigger projects.

From my blog...

Here's my two cents...

http://theworkingscreenwriter.blogspot.com/2007/11/reader-question_14.html

Hi,

I've written/directed a bunch of shorts. It does help you "learn the craft" and it's good building a group of reliable people you can call up to get something done. After my projects (see link below) it turned out I didn't have enough (any) help with post production, and I have no urge to do another until I fill this gap -- having everyone go home and leave me with months worth of indexing, editing and other tasks just got old. You certainly end up appreciating how much work is involved.

Not sure if any recognition will ever come of it. Certainly no money. I was strongly urged to do 10-minutes or less and find many festivals set a limit there. Others think 30-minutes is short. And the online crowd (YouTube etc) get bored with 1 minute.

I've done 4, 6, 7, 10, and 25 minute pieces, and now think shorter is better for sanity's sake. I have written some scripts for other people to produce, which for me works better. I can't be the center of attention and source of all funding without my head popping clean off.

Festivals have been black holes so far -- they take the fees and never say anything. I have better luck with the little film screenings at sci-fi and horror conventions, as opposed to official film festivals. There are so many audiences and niches. I used WithoutABox.com to try and keep track of festivals, but it's overwhelming, really.

= scott
http://theActorsPlayground.com

Yeah, I tend to agree with most of what MrJayVee writes in his blog. A short film isn't a magic spell that'll catapult you into fame and fortune. Also, yes, most short films suck. It's because they're easy to make, and with digital video and all kinds of cheap editing software and Internet video platforms, there are more shorts out there than anybody could watch, most of them made by people who are struggling to learn the basics of filmmaking. Some of them will move on to bigger and better things, many of them won't.

But hey, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I do believe that experience is important. Any kind of experience. Your stories will be better, your dialogue will improve, and you'll know more about the process of filmmaking. And networking is important, too, and while the people making the film are hoping to break in just as much as you do, they may be in a completely different place two years from now, where other opportunities may arise. In many cases, it won't happen, but you'll still have the experience.

Keep in mind, though, that America and Europe are somewhat different when it comes to filmmaking. European budgets are usually much smaller, and deferred payments (or partially deferred payments) are much more common. That means that a lot of newcomers try to start their own feature film projects, backed by film board funding and kept relatively inexpensive with deferred payments. Some of those projects involve people who've worked together on short films, and some of those projects find a distributor, helping the people involved to get bigger projects off the ground. So, yeah, short films may make more sense in Europe than in the US, and yes, they may also make much more sense when you're also the director.

Most of what I know about shorts (and I've had a couple produced):

They don't take long to write (sometimes as little as a weekend or two, vs. months-a year or more for a feature)
They get read quickly and often
They are likely to get produced before your feature spec(s)
If they do, they become credits to add to your feature queries
They may bring exposure, they may ally you with future funded filmmakers, they will bring experience. Don't count on money, but if it comes your way, it could easily be disproportionate to the number of hours of work the writing takes. They can be very quick to compose and polish. This hasn't happened to me, but one never knows.
You'll get to see how your words translate to the screen, and whether it was what you intended. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes you'll be written over by actors or the director or both (unless one or all of those is you). You can get used to this feeling.
You can market them for free online and sometimes you'll get feedback, for better or for worse.
They can be submitted as samples - if you don't have a comic feature but you have a comic short and a producer only wants to read 10 pages to pick a writer for a feature -- there you go. I got an assignment with a short script and an excerpt from a feature.
I'd recommend writing them because it beats waiting around while nothing happens with the feature specs, a career phase that can last years. And if you're in it for the art, you can create something that actually comes to life, which is exciting.
Let us know how it goes!