OK I realise the basic answer is "as long as it needs to be".
In principle I agree, but there are lots of people saying that anything longer
than 10-15 minutes is almost certain to be less than great. Many festivals
restrict entries to lengths such as 16, 20 and 30 mins.
From the audience standpoint the answer may not be the same as from the film
artist.
To the audience each film, no matter how long, represents an investment of
concentration and emotion. A programme of 5 short films can be as draining
as 5 long ones. This thought struck me on "shorties night" at the Festival
of Nations when they screened 50 or so movies all less than 5 minutes long.
Many were 1-minute movies so in terms of time it was no longer a session
than the others. But it felt much more tiring.
Michael Slowe and Lee Prescott have had some exchanges about this issue in
FVM.
I'm intrigues to know what the others on this forum think.
Dave
How long should an amateur movie be?
-
Cinema For Thurso Group
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
One could approach this from an 'information' stand point as in - how much
information can people take in, in one go.
From the average feature length movie there is a lot but only regarding one
subject and related issues. As it has more time to develope story and charactors
it's easier to handle from the viewer position. It also gives the director
a better oportunity to bring out the story he's trying to tell.
In a short film we expect to have something very concise delivered in a narrow
window. This can be very exciting but to view several short films is very
exhausting because we are pushed threw various subjects and not given time
to digest the information so our impression of what we have seen can become
clouded.
The resttriction on running time at festivals is understandable but I think
it may add an un-natural consideration to a directors project when developing
the project in pre-production.
Initially a project will consider the needs of the story from which will
be decided an appropriate running time that will allow the best out of the
story whilst not being to short or long. With time restriction at festivals
this can inhibit a project because the director is forced into possible changes
that quite possibly don't meet the needs of either the film or the viewer.
Hmm.
information can people take in, in one go.
From the average feature length movie there is a lot but only regarding one
subject and related issues. As it has more time to develope story and charactors
it's easier to handle from the viewer position. It also gives the director
a better oportunity to bring out the story he's trying to tell.
In a short film we expect to have something very concise delivered in a narrow
window. This can be very exciting but to view several short films is very
exhausting because we are pushed threw various subjects and not given time
to digest the information so our impression of what we have seen can become
clouded.
The resttriction on running time at festivals is understandable but I think
it may add an un-natural consideration to a directors project when developing
the project in pre-production.
Initially a project will consider the needs of the story from which will
be decided an appropriate running time that will allow the best out of the
story whilst not being to short or long. With time restriction at festivals
this can inhibit a project because the director is forced into possible changes
that quite possibly don't meet the needs of either the film or the viewer.
Hmm.
-
Michael Slowe
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
a forthcoming article about my film 'Melissa' I expand my feelings on the
contentious matter of length of amateur films. The main problem as I see
it is that we are making a self contained piece which has to stand on its
own. Most people however (and in particular judges of competitions) will
see it in a programme with other films. Our friend from Thurso hits the
nub, the producer has to structure his film as he sees fit in order to achieve
his object. We can't sit at our editing suites thinking "now what will be
shown immediately before and after this film and how will it sit?" The documentaries
that I make are just as difficult to structure as a complicated story and
we all struggle with structure and mood. I could present most of my subjects
in a four minute montage cut to sound FX and music which may be very entertaining
and would fit easily into any programme. I did this for many years to much
acclaim. But these 'impressionistic' bits of fun are not always very satisfying
and fairly meaningless - hence the more ambitious longer films giving a wider
and more informative picture, particulatly of the featured people.
If you see a documentary on TV lasting say 40 minutes you view it as a separate
item as the maker intended and you don't concern yourself with what went
before or what comes after. I don't know what else I can say, stop putting
my films into competitions I guess.
Michael Slowe.
Oh dear, here we go again! Not only have I written to FVM about it but inOK I realise the basic answer is "as long as it needs to be".
In principle I agree, but there are lots of people saying that anything
longer
than 10-15 minutes is almost certain to be less than great. Many festivals
restrict entries to lengths such as 16, 20 and 30 mins.
From the audience standpoint the answer may not be the same as from the
film
artist.
To the audience each film, no matter how long, represents an investment
of
concentration and emotion. A programme of 5 short films can be as draining
as 5 long ones. This thought struck me on "shorties night" at the Festival
of Nations when they screened 50 or so movies all less than 5 minutes long.
Many were 1-minute movies so in terms of time it was no longer a session
than the others. But it felt much more tiring.
Michael Slowe and Lee Prescott have had some exchanges about this issue
in
FVM.
I'm intrigues to know what the others on this forum think.
Dave
a forthcoming article about my film 'Melissa' I expand my feelings on the
contentious matter of length of amateur films. The main problem as I see
it is that we are making a self contained piece which has to stand on its
own. Most people however (and in particular judges of competitions) will
see it in a programme with other films. Our friend from Thurso hits the
nub, the producer has to structure his film as he sees fit in order to achieve
his object. We can't sit at our editing suites thinking "now what will be
shown immediately before and after this film and how will it sit?" The documentaries
that I make are just as difficult to structure as a complicated story and
we all struggle with structure and mood. I could present most of my subjects
in a four minute montage cut to sound FX and music which may be very entertaining
and would fit easily into any programme. I did this for many years to much
acclaim. But these 'impressionistic' bits of fun are not always very satisfying
and fairly meaningless - hence the more ambitious longer films giving a wider
and more informative picture, particulatly of the featured people.
If you see a documentary on TV lasting say 40 minutes you view it as a separate
item as the maker intended and you don't concern yourself with what went
before or what comes after. I don't know what else I can say, stop putting
my films into competitions I guess.
Michael Slowe.
-
Willy Van der Linden
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
Dave Watterson wrote:
"Michael Slowe and Lee Prescott have had some exchanges about this issue
in
FVM. I'm intrigued to know what the others on this forum think."
Michael Slowe wrote : "Oh dear, here we go again! ..."
Yes, indeed. Here we go again, Michael. Dave is a master in inviting us to
discuss problems like these. I always think of Goethe's saying : "In der
Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister". Making a short and powerful film is
always my intention. But, oh, God ! I'm not a "Meister" at all ! I sometimes
feels miserable when looking at the length of my films. I always try to give
my film some structure : an introduction, a middle part with one or more
"chapters" and a closing part. But I feel there must be one theme otherwise
the film will lose its power ! In Belgium judges sometimes say : "You could
have made two or three films with all the shots you have !" I think that
they write down this remark even when they have not yet seen the film. But
I understand. Watching more than one hundred films one after an other must
be very tiring, even exhausting. I feel Belgian organisers of festivals do
not want long films because of financial reasons. Two weekends for their
festival is enough. Two or three weekends would be too expensive. They are
obliged to hire a festivity hall. Their judges, who spend the nights in hotels,
do not have to pay of their meals and drinks. Etc. To be clear. I do not
envy the judges, you know. On the contrary even ! But that's the reality.
Yes, I agree. Sometimes each chapter could be a seperate film. But on the
other hand you sometimes need more than one chapter to make the film stronger.
Once I made a film about Brittanny. Length : 25 minutes. I showed life at
the Breton coast (=chapter one), which is something special. Then life in
the country (=chapter two), which is unique (the "festnoz" for instance.
Afterwards religion in Brittanny (=chapter three), which is unusual. Think
of the "pardons" and the "enclos paroissiaux". I also interviewed a Breton
teacher and asked her why her children had to learn Breton which is a Celtic
language. Isn't that very essential ? I also asked some musicians to play
typical Breton instruments like the "bombarde" and the "biniou". Theme of
my film : the Breton atmosphere today. I really think it is difficult to
make a strong film of less than 20 minutes about such a theme. Conclusion
: if all elements in the film are essential or functional then the length
of the film is not important at all. The film is strong or is not strong
(enough). I prefer a long film which is captivating to a short film which
is boring. I also find that it is strange to compare one minute films with
longer films at festivals. As there is no separated IAC-one minute competition
I take part with my "shorties" in BIAFF.
I regret that I cannot present my film about the Cotswolds (29 minutes) to
the local public at the Cotswold International Film Festival. Competing
with other film makers was not necessary. I could have asked all the Cotswold
people who have helped me. You can see them in the film : the owner of the
dog Yoda, Tim Sexton and his Morris Dancers, Woollen Weavers, etc. That's
a pity ! But yes, I lknew the rules.
Now I am doing my best to make a new film with a length of less than twenty
minutes. I have already edited my first shots. I have a rough film of exactly
twenty minutes now, but in some weeks I will be in Devon to shoot more films.
It will be a challenge to limit the length of my dramatised documentary.
"Michael Slowe and Lee Prescott have had some exchanges about this issue
in
FVM. I'm intrigued to know what the others on this forum think."
Michael Slowe wrote : "Oh dear, here we go again! ..."
Yes, indeed. Here we go again, Michael. Dave is a master in inviting us to
discuss problems like these. I always think of Goethe's saying : "In der
Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister". Making a short and powerful film is
always my intention. But, oh, God ! I'm not a "Meister" at all ! I sometimes
feels miserable when looking at the length of my films. I always try to give
my film some structure : an introduction, a middle part with one or more
"chapters" and a closing part. But I feel there must be one theme otherwise
the film will lose its power ! In Belgium judges sometimes say : "You could
have made two or three films with all the shots you have !" I think that
they write down this remark even when they have not yet seen the film. But
I understand. Watching more than one hundred films one after an other must
be very tiring, even exhausting. I feel Belgian organisers of festivals do
not want long films because of financial reasons. Two weekends for their
festival is enough. Two or three weekends would be too expensive. They are
obliged to hire a festivity hall. Their judges, who spend the nights in hotels,
do not have to pay of their meals and drinks. Etc. To be clear. I do not
envy the judges, you know. On the contrary even ! But that's the reality.
Yes, I agree. Sometimes each chapter could be a seperate film. But on the
other hand you sometimes need more than one chapter to make the film stronger.
Once I made a film about Brittanny. Length : 25 minutes. I showed life at
the Breton coast (=chapter one), which is something special. Then life in
the country (=chapter two), which is unique (the "festnoz" for instance.
Afterwards religion in Brittanny (=chapter three), which is unusual. Think
of the "pardons" and the "enclos paroissiaux". I also interviewed a Breton
teacher and asked her why her children had to learn Breton which is a Celtic
language. Isn't that very essential ? I also asked some musicians to play
typical Breton instruments like the "bombarde" and the "biniou". Theme of
my film : the Breton atmosphere today. I really think it is difficult to
make a strong film of less than 20 minutes about such a theme. Conclusion
: if all elements in the film are essential or functional then the length
of the film is not important at all. The film is strong or is not strong
(enough). I prefer a long film which is captivating to a short film which
is boring. I also find that it is strange to compare one minute films with
longer films at festivals. As there is no separated IAC-one minute competition
I take part with my "shorties" in BIAFF.
I regret that I cannot present my film about the Cotswolds (29 minutes) to
the local public at the Cotswold International Film Festival. Competing
with other film makers was not necessary. I could have asked all the Cotswold
people who have helped me. You can see them in the film : the owner of the
dog Yoda, Tim Sexton and his Morris Dancers, Woollen Weavers, etc. That's
a pity ! But yes, I lknew the rules.
Now I am doing my best to make a new film with a length of less than twenty
minutes. I have already edited my first shots. I have a rough film of exactly
twenty minutes now, but in some weeks I will be in Devon to shoot more films.
It will be a challenge to limit the length of my dramatised documentary.
-
AnimatioN
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
Of how many amateur films has it been said,
that they were too short? Very few.
Of how many, too long? Very, very many.......most?
Albert....veryly I say unto you!!
http://www.retinascope.co.uk/index.html
No, no, It should be as SHORT as it needs to be!!!!!!!!!!OK I realise the basic answer is "as long as it needs to be".
Of how many amateur films has it been said,
that they were too short? Very few.
Of how many, too long? Very, very many.......most?
Albert....veryly I say unto you!!
http://www.retinascope.co.uk/index.html
-
Michael Slowe
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:
minutes in the Open section which has a limit of 30 mins. It will be fun
to compete with the professionals, I believe they even have separate judges!
Will, you could have entered your film in the Cotswold - I entered my 22
Dave Watterson wrote:
"Michael Slowe and Lee Prescott have had some exchanges about this issue
in
FVM. I'm intrigued to know what the others on this forum think."
Michael Slowe wrote : "Oh dear, here we go again! ..."
Yes, indeed. Here we go again, Michael. Dave is a master in inviting us
to
discuss problems like these. I always think of Goethe's saying : "In der
Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister". Making a short and powerful film is
always my intention. But, oh, God ! I'm not a "Meister" at all ! I sometimes
feels miserable when looking at the length of my films. I always try to
give
my film some structure : an introduction, a middle part with one or more
"chapters" and a closing part. But I feel there must be one theme otherwise
the film will lose its power ! In Belgium judges sometimes say : "You could
have made two or three films with all the shots you have !" I think that
they write down this remark even when they have not yet seen the film. But
I understand. Watching more than one hundred films one after an other must
be very tiring, even exhausting. I feel Belgian organisers of festivals
do
not want long films because of financial reasons. Two weekends for their
festival is enough. Two or three weekends would be too expensive. They are
obliged to hire a festivity hall. Their judges, who spend the nights in
hotels,
do not have to pay of their meals and drinks. Etc. To be clear. I do not
envy the judges, you know. On the contrary even ! But that's the reality.
Yes, I agree. Sometimes each chapter could be a seperate film. But on the
other hand you sometimes need more than one chapter to make the film stronger.
Once I made a film about Brittanny. Length : 25 minutes. I showed life at
the Breton coast (=chapter one), which is something special. Then life in
the country (=chapter two), which is unique (the "festnoz" for instance.
Afterwards religion in Brittanny (=chapter three), which is unusual. Think
of the "pardons" and the "enclos paroissiaux". I also interviewed a Breton
teacher and asked her why her children had to learn Breton which is a Celtic
language. Isn't that very essential ? I also asked some musicians to play
typical Breton instruments like the "bombarde" and the "biniou". Theme of
my film : the Breton atmosphere today. I really think it is difficult to
make a strong film of less than 20 minutes about such a theme. Conclusion
: if all elements in the film are essential or functional then the length
of the film is not important at all. The film is strong or is not strong
(enough). I prefer a long film which is captivating to a short film which
is boring. I also find that it is strange to compare one minute films with
longer films at festivals. As there is no separated IAC-one minute competition
I take part with my "shorties" in BIAFF.
I regret that I cannot present my film about the Cotswolds (29 minutes)
to
the local public at the Cotswold International Film Festival. Competing
with other film makers was not necessary. I could have asked all the Cotswold
people who have helped me. You can see them in the film : the owner of the
dog Yoda, Tim Sexton and his Morris Dancers, Woollen Weavers, etc. That's
a pity ! But yes, I lknew the rules.
Now I am doing my best to make a new film with a length of less than twen
minutes. I have already edited my first shots. I have a rough film of exactly
twenty minutes now, but in some weeks I will be in Devon to shoot more films.
It will be a challenge to limit the length of my dramatised documentary
minutes in the Open section which has a limit of 30 mins. It will be fun
to compete with the professionals, I believe they even have separate judges!
-
Willy Van der Linden
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"
Michael wrote :
that the maximum running time in that category is 21 minutes.
Anyway, many thanks for saying this. Lee Prescott, the secretary, knows
the length of my film very well. He helped me finding the well-trained dog
Yoda for which I am very grateful to him.
Michael wrote :
I have checked it a few times, Michael, but Category C (Open section) saysWill, you could have entered your film in the Cotswold - I entered my 22
minutes in the Open section which has a limit of 30 mins. It will be fun
to compete with the professionals, I believe they even have separate judges!
that the maximum running time in that category is 21 minutes.
Anyway, many thanks for saying this. Lee Prescott, the secretary, knows
the length of my film very well. He helped me finding the well-trained dog
Yoda for which I am very grateful to him.
-
Peter Rouillard
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:
"
Michael wrote :
Will, you could have entered your film in the Cotswold - I entered my 22
minutes in the Open section which has a limit of 30 mins. It will be fun
to compete with the professionals, I believe they even have separate judges!
I have checked it a few times, Michael, but Category C (Open section) says
that the maximum running time in that category is 21 minutes.
Anyway, many thanks for saying this. Lee Prescott, the secretary, knows
the length of my film very well. He helped me finding the well-trained dog
Yoda for which I am very grateful to him.
-
Peter Rouillard
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:
discussion about the length of amateur films with interest. As most know,
we have a 30 min.limit and this has worked out very well for us. Only very
few films near this length have actually won a top 'Lily' award - but the
ones that have, have all have been the 'right length' for the subject and
have never been boring ! Michael is right in that the producer makes his
or her film to whatever length suits them. Of course, the 'Lily' will miss
those few masterpieces that run over this length, such as Jan Baca's 'How
To Write Love Letters'(about 45 mins) and this years International BIAFF
winner 'The Middle Way'(40 mins) both riveting films ! However, some entries
which are considerably less than 30 minutes seem like an age if uninteresting
and poorly made. So where does one draw the line ? And can one really get
a flavour of a film by just an extract being shown ? If all six top Lily
award winners ran for 30 minutes we would be faced with a 3 hour show! This
has never happened (so far) and has usually run for half this time or less,
putting the average length of each film at 15 mins or less and I would say
that is pretty much right for the average amateur film. A film such as Willy's
'Together With Yoda' is also the right length for his subject and is a very
good example of an entertaining film of this length (29 mins) so please don't
go over the 30 minutes Willy - we want to see all your movies in our Festival!!
To conclude, I think 30 mins is a very reasonable limit as I believe that
stories can be developed properly and characters can be developed also. How
many feature films do we see that are 'padded' with sub-plots and unnecessary
characters ?
Peter Rouillard
As one of the organizers of the Guernsey Lily Festival, I have watched this"
Michael wrote :
Will, you could have entered your film in the Cotswold - I entered my 22
minutes in the Open section which has a limit of 30 mins. It will be fun
to compete with the professionals, I believe they even have separate judges!
I have checked it a few times, Michael, but Category C (Open section) says
that the maximum running time in that category is 21 minutes.
Anyway, many thanks for saying this. Lee Prescott, the secretary, knows
the length of my film very well. He helped me finding the well-trained dog
Yoda for which I am very grateful to him.
discussion about the length of amateur films with interest. As most know,
we have a 30 min.limit and this has worked out very well for us. Only very
few films near this length have actually won a top 'Lily' award - but the
ones that have, have all have been the 'right length' for the subject and
have never been boring ! Michael is right in that the producer makes his
or her film to whatever length suits them. Of course, the 'Lily' will miss
those few masterpieces that run over this length, such as Jan Baca's 'How
To Write Love Letters'(about 45 mins) and this years International BIAFF
winner 'The Middle Way'(40 mins) both riveting films ! However, some entries
which are considerably less than 30 minutes seem like an age if uninteresting
and poorly made. So where does one draw the line ? And can one really get
a flavour of a film by just an extract being shown ? If all six top Lily
award winners ran for 30 minutes we would be faced with a 3 hour show! This
has never happened (so far) and has usually run for half this time or less,
putting the average length of each film at 15 mins or less and I would say
that is pretty much right for the average amateur film. A film such as Willy's
'Together With Yoda' is also the right length for his subject and is a very
good example of an entertaining film of this length (29 mins) so please don't
go over the 30 minutes Willy - we want to see all your movies in our Festival!!
To conclude, I think 30 mins is a very reasonable limit as I believe that
stories can be developed properly and characters can be developed also. How
many feature films do we see that are 'padded' with sub-plots and unnecessary
characters ?
Peter Rouillard
-
Dave Watterson
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
There is more good sense in the posts on this topic than any other subject
we have covered! Most people seem to be broadly agreeing with Cinema-for-Thurso's
views.
The Festival of Nations - a week-long event in Austria which is open to all
non-commercial movies has official time limits of between 5 and 30 minutes.
This is the only competition I know which has a minimum length requirement.
Like many European festivals a pre-selection team choose what is to be screened
and then the final jury sits with the audience watching the entries.
As a member of the audience I find this range of lengths seems generally
satisfying. But for many years the festival has devoted one evening to "shorties"
- movies which are below the minimum length. These are screened and discussed
by the jury but not voted on since they are not elegible for the main competition.
The organisers also reserve the right to consider any longer movies of exceptional
merit. Last year they included a 40 minute extract from a feature-length
Chinese movie. This year they experimented with late-night screenings of
long movies, but these were poorly attended and I suspect the experiment
will not be repeated.
Part of me rather likes the notion that a festival can find a place for exceptional
movies which are outside its normal limits.
What do you think Peter and all?
Dave
we have covered! Most people seem to be broadly agreeing with Cinema-for-Thurso's
views.
The Festival of Nations - a week-long event in Austria which is open to all
non-commercial movies has official time limits of between 5 and 30 minutes.
This is the only competition I know which has a minimum length requirement.
Like many European festivals a pre-selection team choose what is to be screened
and then the final jury sits with the audience watching the entries.
As a member of the audience I find this range of lengths seems generally
satisfying. But for many years the festival has devoted one evening to "shorties"
- movies which are below the minimum length. These are screened and discussed
by the jury but not voted on since they are not elegible for the main competition.
The organisers also reserve the right to consider any longer movies of exceptional
merit. Last year they included a 40 minute extract from a feature-length
Chinese movie. This year they experimented with late-night screenings of
long movies, but these were poorly attended and I suspect the experiment
will not be repeated.
Part of me rather likes the notion that a festival can find a place for exceptional
movies which are outside its normal limits.
What do you think Peter and all?
Dave
-
Michael Slowe
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
with the opinion expressed that the 'flavour' of a film is lost in an extract.
What about the 'more than one version' idea that I sometimes go with?
It is difficult and time consuming but may have to be done by those that
make films for purposes other than competitions.
By the way Willy you are right, 21 minutes for category C in the Cotswold
this year, last year was I believe 25 - does the loss of four minutes really
help the organisers?
OK it seems that no one is keen on my 'extract' suggestion even thogh I disagreeThere is more good sense in the posts on this topic than any other subject
we have covered! Most people seem to be broadly agreeing with Cinema-for-Thurso's
views.
The Festival of Nations - a week-long event in Austria which is open to
all
non-commercial movies has official time limits of between 5 and 30 minutes.
This is the only competition I know which has a minimum length requirement.
Like many European festivals a pre-selection team choose what is to be screened
and then the final jury sits with the audience watching the entries.
As a member of the audience I find this range of lengths seems generally
satisfying. But for many years the festival has devoted one evening to "shorties"
- movies which are below the minimum length. These are screened and discussed
by the jury but not voted on since they are not elegible for the main competition.
The organisers also reserve the right to consider any longer movies of exceptional
merit. Last year they included a 40 minute extract from a feature-length
Chinese movie. This year they experimented with late-night screenings of
long movies, but these were poorly attended and I suspect the experiment
will not be repeated.
Part of me rather likes the notion that a festival can find a place for
exceptional
movies which are outside its normal limits.
What do you think Peter and all?
Dave
with the opinion expressed that the 'flavour' of a film is lost in an extract.
What about the 'more than one version' idea that I sometimes go with?
It is difficult and time consuming but may have to be done by those that
make films for purposes other than competitions.
By the way Willy you are right, 21 minutes for category C in the Cotswold
this year, last year was I believe 25 - does the loss of four minutes really
help the organisers?
-
Peter Rouillard
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
Dave wrote;
yet have official time limits of between 5 - 30 minutes ! - also, they showed
late night screenings of long movies. Does this mean entrants ignore these
rules in the hope of getting a screening ? I know rules are made to be broken
- but, who decides on the screening of a film too long for the competition
rules ? in other words, how do they get away with it ?
Peter
The Festival of Nations - a week-long event in Austria which is open to
all
non-commercial movies has official time limits of between 5 and 30 minutes.
This is the only competition I know which has a minimum length requirement.
Like many European festivals a pre-selection team choose what is to be screened
and then the final jury sits with the audience watching the entries.
Dave. You say that they showed a 40 minute extract at the Festival of Nations,The organisers also reserve the right to consider any longer movies of exceptional
merit. Last year they included a 40 minute extract from a feature-length
Chinese movie. This year they experimented with late-night screenings of
long movies, but these were poorly attended and I suspect the experiment
will not be repeated.
yet have official time limits of between 5 - 30 minutes ! - also, they showed
late night screenings of long movies. Does this mean entrants ignore these
rules in the hope of getting a screening ? I know rules are made to be broken
- but, who decides on the screening of a film too long for the competition
rules ? in other words, how do they get away with it ?
Peter
-
Willy Van der Linden
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
"AnimatioN" <Animation@btinternet.com> wrote:
is excellent. Length of your film = 1min45 seconds. Imagine that the length
is 5 minutes. Then it would be too long. Imagine that my documentary about
the history of Ireland is 7 minutes. Then it would be too short. Such a short
length of time is not enough to tell the eventful history of that country.
But once more ... I agree. It's better that film makers always do their utmost
to limit the length of their films. I will think about it more than ever.
I agree that many films are too long. Your "Button Ballet" for instanceOf how many amateur films has it been said,
that they were too short? Very few.
Of how many, too long? Very, very many.......most?
Albert....veryly I say unto you!!
http://www.retinascope.co.uk/index.html
Congratulations for your mini-cinema, Albert. I enjoyed your animation films.
is excellent. Length of your film = 1min45 seconds. Imagine that the length
is 5 minutes. Then it would be too long. Imagine that my documentary about
the history of Ireland is 7 minutes. Then it would be too short. Such a short
length of time is not enough to tell the eventful history of that country.
But once more ... I agree. It's better that film makers always do their utmost
to limit the length of their films. I will think about it more than ever.
-
Ken Wilson
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
A film is as long as it needs to be. I don`t really understand why there is
such controversy about this issue. The biggest problem with longer non-professional
films, is associated with the discomfort when viewing them. I have raised
this issue before in FVM. As we usually see our films at festivals in venues
which are ill suited to the purpose where the chairs are rock hard plastic
"dining" chairs or straight backed "waiting room" chairs which hotels can
stack and move away, we get fidgetty and uncomfortable when the film lasts
20 minutes or more. This is more to do with the environment where we view
our films than the actual content. On the occasions when I have watched films
at home which have been sent to me, I can concentrate far better and this
is not an issue. Although I agree that some films are too long at 5 minutes
due to them being boring and others are fine at 30 minutes or more.
At the cinema, I have heard people behind me moan about the length of "Epic"
films which run for 3 hours or more. This happened years ago at "Dances With
Wolves" and again more recently with the first "Lord of the Rings" film.
Neither bothered me at all as they were engrossing films AND the seats were
comfortable with a clear view of the screen and plenty of leg room. Sadly
this is not the case at our film festivals where heads block the lower third
of the screen and I end up with neck ache trying to see the bottom section.Especially
when they are subtitled.
Good films are good films and bad ones are bad ones no matter what the length.
I have made several which run for 4 minutes (my shortest films) but these
are the film-to-music variety which last as long as the music track does.
The longest has been the new "Take One" documentary at 1 hour long. Most
are in the 10 to 12 minute range, which seems to be the average for many
non-professional films shown at clubs and festivals, though in recent years
with more complex plots and usually a larger cast, 20 to 25 minutes seems
right to be able to expand the story. One minute films don`t interest me
as a film maker, though there are some funny ones which usually come from
Scotland. A one-joke film is ok but not something which attracts me to make
them.
10 minutes in the company of yet another documentary about a steam railway
can seem longer than all 3 "Lord of the Rings" films put together.
Ken.
such controversy about this issue. The biggest problem with longer non-professional
films, is associated with the discomfort when viewing them. I have raised
this issue before in FVM. As we usually see our films at festivals in venues
which are ill suited to the purpose where the chairs are rock hard plastic
"dining" chairs or straight backed "waiting room" chairs which hotels can
stack and move away, we get fidgetty and uncomfortable when the film lasts
20 minutes or more. This is more to do with the environment where we view
our films than the actual content. On the occasions when I have watched films
at home which have been sent to me, I can concentrate far better and this
is not an issue. Although I agree that some films are too long at 5 minutes
due to them being boring and others are fine at 30 minutes or more.
At the cinema, I have heard people behind me moan about the length of "Epic"
films which run for 3 hours or more. This happened years ago at "Dances With
Wolves" and again more recently with the first "Lord of the Rings" film.
Neither bothered me at all as they were engrossing films AND the seats were
comfortable with a clear view of the screen and plenty of leg room. Sadly
this is not the case at our film festivals where heads block the lower third
of the screen and I end up with neck ache trying to see the bottom section.Especially
when they are subtitled.
Good films are good films and bad ones are bad ones no matter what the length.
I have made several which run for 4 minutes (my shortest films) but these
are the film-to-music variety which last as long as the music track does.
The longest has been the new "Take One" documentary at 1 hour long. Most
are in the 10 to 12 minute range, which seems to be the average for many
non-professional films shown at clubs and festivals, though in recent years
with more complex plots and usually a larger cast, 20 to 25 minutes seems
right to be able to expand the story. One minute films don`t interest me
as a film maker, though there are some funny ones which usually come from
Scotland. A one-joke film is ok but not something which attracts me to make
them.
10 minutes in the company of yet another documentary about a steam railway
can seem longer than all 3 "Lord of the Rings" films put together.
Ken.
-
Cinema For Thurso Group
Re: How long should an amateur movie be?
People who complain about the length of a movie they are watching should bare
in mind that they are aware of it's length before entering the cinema as
it is on the programme schedule. In my previous job I met so many new-starts
who complained about having to work in the place. I made it clear to them
that having heard so much about the place before they applied for the job,
they needed start complaining as it wasn't like they didn't know it would
be hard going.
Of course some movies are genuinely a chore to watch simply because they
are dire but much of the problem may be the modern generations' lack of ability
to wait patiently to see how the story pans out.
in mind that they are aware of it's length before entering the cinema as
it is on the programme schedule. In my previous job I met so many new-starts
who complained about having to work in the place. I made it clear to them
that having heard so much about the place before they applied for the job,
they needed start complaining as it wasn't like they didn't know it would
be hard going.
Of course some movies are genuinely a chore to watch simply because they
are dire but much of the problem may be the modern generations' lack of ability
to wait patiently to see how the story pans out.