Short Film Theory

When researching short film theories I came across one teacher (whom I assume is at a university level). This teacher ran through what he believes to be the theory behind short film. He explains the conventions of short film and the difference between a short film and a student film. He also explains that sometimes there is no difference between the two at all. I have selected three paragraphs from his article to implement here.

Source: http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_05/section_4/artc1A.html :

However, I shall argue that studying short films makes possible a fruitful relation between theorizing and practice that is beneficial to both. Furthermore that studying short films may lead us to new ways of seeing spectator engagement in general.

Let us hypothesize, for a moment, that a good short film does not use dialogue. From this hypothesis we may search for counterexamples and qualifications as in conventional theorizing, but we may also discover to what degree this description helps students in their production. If dialogue is not used, and the films still suffer, we should look for another parameter-say the photography or acting-or reject the theory. Of course this is not a scientific experiment in a strict sense since it cannot be repeated by others in the same way. Nor should it be, as creation needs a certain freedom from rigorous rules. But feedback from practice may improve the traditional tools in humanistic studies and make us better at qualifying counter-examples and refining concepts

If the first thing we can learn from the short film is related to practical and "experiential" knowledge, the second concerns the spectator. What engages the spectator, and what are the different ways of engaging him or her. This second question touches upon issues that are traditionally dealt with under the headings of identification or narration, but I shall argue that we advantageously can see them in a new and more general perspective. A spectator is engaged when something claims and holds his or her attention and even more so if the film invokes empathy toward characters.

Here we should recall that film theorists have always studied professionally produced feature films. A lot of craft practices and functional principles have been invisible to film theorists because they have not compared amateur shorts to professional films. In this perspective, the insights gained from studying the transformation from primitive cinema to so-called Classical Hollywood Cinema or Continuity Film is pivotal. In these studies the logic of craft, the solutions to problems, become visible and are often very accurately described. However, the potential pitfalls when handling this "new" material, for instance seeing the inventiveness of early filmmakers as ideologically repressive in odd ways, should caution us against some established interpretative doctrines. If we accept the goal of the films as being to engage, the lack of success in engaging a spectator can hardly be seen as liberating (or "heterogeneous," if you prefer) in itself, neither in early films nor student films.