Thoughts on Short Film
In the introduction to a collection of his shorter works, the author J.G. Ballard wrote, "there are many perfect short stories, but no perfect novels". Though one might question the possibility of a work of art being 'perfect', the aphorism has an apt succinctness to it: brevity can acheive a precise unity of form which verbosity cannot. As a devoted cinephile, might he have considered that this idea could be applied not only to the realm of literature but to that of cinema too? Just as there is the notion that the short story is somehow an inferior form compared to its bigger sibling, there are some who might regard the short film as subordinate, incomplete, a miniaturization lacking the fine detail and rigour of a full feature-length work. Yet at very their best, short films are able touch those same heights that Ballard wrote of.
The negative view of short films is, to an extent, based on the false presumption that the short form is somehow an offshoot of the longer form, at which juncture it is instructive to remember that for at least the first decade of its history, cinema was in its entirety composed of what we would now consider 'shorts'. The feature film's eventual hegemony over its prior form can be seen to have been as much a product of economic and technological factors as it was about its artistic possibilities; perhaps with the current proliferation of less costly filmmaking equipment these same factors may well see the balance swing back the other way in years to come.
The great virtue of the short film form is its versatility. Feature-length films, by dint of their longer duration, may be able to explore characters and themes with a greater depth than shorts, but there are commensurate handicaps, obligations with regard to structure and narrative which short films can more happily choose to sidestep, a flexibility which allows a much greater scope for experimentation. Rather than seeking to conform to a pro forma prejudice of how long a film ought to be, they can last for as short a duration as they require and no longer, and more strongly focus on the thematic focus of the film rather than burying it in the subtext. For the filmmaker, this is not restriction but liberation; for the viewer it can reaffirm the belief in the limitless possibilities of the artform.
Roman Polanski believed the "proper" form of a short film was for it to be entirely free from dialogue, and though this is overly dogmatic, what is implicit in his suggestion is that the short form places a greater emphasis on non-verbal, purely visual storytelling. Yet along with this emphasis on what is shown, the need for concise storytelling also places a greater importance on what is not shown. It is akin to painting either with broader strokes or on a smaller canvas, neither of which necessitates any less of an artistic vision or technical expertise. David Thomson wrote of Jean Renoir's 40 minute film Partie de campagne (1936) that "if [...] it was the first film you saw you might automatically conclude, Why should any picture ever be longer, or shorter?". Short films at their finest inspire this very same feeling of wonderment.
