Why make a short film? There can be many valid reasons: not enough funds for a full length feature; more room for experimental filmmaking techniques without the potential for full length fluff; or, most commonly, the filmmaker wants to strongly convey a single idea in a more direct (a.k.a. shorter) format.
While shorter doesn’t always mean better. Those behind these films often use/abuse the medium to wax philosophical, cramming far too much into a matter of minutes and leaving viewers cut off with choppy endings. The technical experimentation alluded to above can result in visual awe, but often the storytelling aspects are greatly lacking. The running time may be considerably truncated, but the basic components of successful film language still must be present.
The prospect of viewing 15 award-winning
shorts from various celebrated festivals (including Sundance and Tribeca) was largely appealing, especially considering my excellent track record with the medium. Admittedly, the majority of shorts I’ve seen have been made by Pixar, but after being impressed by Wes Anderson’s “Hotel Chevalier” last October, I had elevated confidence in the genre entering this review.
It is interesting that a single collection can show exactly what’s right and wrong with short films. This is a hit or miss set whose memorable films, though in the minority, have enough appeal to make the disc worth viewing. At least you have the choice of picking only the films you want to see and hopefully I can help you avoid the stinkers.
What’s right: shorts that noticeably focus on and successfully communicate a concept by any number of creative means.
-“What’s Wrong With This Picture?” is a hilarious public service announcement barely lasting over a minute. It is just the right length and doesn’t pretend to be anything but silly fun. Similarly goofy is “Non-Abductees Anonymous,” a humorous foray into Christopher Guest territory that mostly works.
-“Dad’s Dead” feels like a music video for The Streets. The ultra-violence is augmented by a variety of appealing mixed media animation juxtaposed with real and distorted images. The innovative gamble works here and results in the collection’s most visually intriguing offering.
-“Ready” and “Pishadoo,” each averaging 20 minutes in length, showcase filmmakers who are most prepared for feature films. “Ready,” starring Oscar-nominee and Dolores Umbridge portrayer Imelda Staunton, is the story of a woman who’s part of a family in which everyone dies on the eve of their 57th birthday. While her ancestors have made fools of themselves attempting to dodge fate, she fully accepts her future and sets herself up for the most enjoyable last day possible. “Pishadoo,” Italian-American slang for “botched haircut,” follows the latest in a long line of Bronx barbers who may not be right for the job. Each offering is of high production value, featuring appealing characters and storylines that make proper use of an elevated budget.
-“Tenth” is a super short, but effective, meditation on how random encounters can feel meaningless yet haunt one for the rest of one’s life. In a wonderful display of dramatic irony, the concluding gut punch is nearly on par with the success of the next film.
-Best of all is “The Chinese Wall.” In 10 minutes, Dutch director Sytske Kok creates a well developed miserly woman deserving of disgust and empathy for her quick judgments and depressing life. In the midst of her daily solo stewing in a Chinese restaurant, she unexpectedly offers to share her surprise birthday cake with those she’s been silently targeting. As she gets to know each of them, none of her assumptions find truth and she is noticeably lifted from her fog of negativity. When a new customer witnesses the unified sharing table, he lapses into the same incorrect judgments as the woman, leaving us with a beautiful mixture of hope and frustration. In short: real emotions! This film is the peak of what shorts can be and exactly why the below films fail.
What’s wrong: shorts that try too hard. Ever present are abrupt endings that kill any engrossing moods that have been carefully constructed up to that point. When the credits roll, the only fitting comment is “Why?”
-The jiggly rubber puppets of “Earthquake” will earn a quick chuckle, but it’s not strong enough to be sustained for even two minutes. It belongs on YouTube, along with many of the following.
-I’ve always thought that animated films of any length took a lot more time to create than their live action counterparts. The genre’s representatives here (“Dreamscapes”; “The World of Interiors”; and “Fish Never Sleep”) feature animation of varying quality that nevertheless fails to get across a meaningful idea or, for the most part, any message at all. Maybe hallucinogens are required to understand potential deeper meanings, but none came with the DVD.
-The remaining films contain one or two elements that work, but fall into traps that plague shorts. There are backwards motion sequences comparable to Coldplay’s “The Scientist” video (“In Absentia”); intriguing prep-school drama and a number of intriguing, but stifled, plot branches (“Coda”); an empathetic suffering lead character (“Sleep”); and, most painfully, quality acting but a wasted ending (“John and Mia”). Despite having some strong features, each film feels lazy and unwarranted. The now familiar cry of “Why?” can be heard here and it hurts more since glimpses of great promise can be seen from the respective filmmakers.
The bad can make you cringe and swear off all trances of your ego, but there are examples of undeniable brilliance hidden in this group. I recommend skipping to the good ones and, if you’re an aspiring filmmaker, checking out the bad ones to see what not to do.