1.1 Early American short film
In 1914, at the age of 24, Charlie Chaplin wanted to create a new persona. Working for Keystone Pictures in Hollywood, he journeyed into the wardrobe department and exited with the costume and make-up of the character he would become famous for. Chaplin's Tramp, his most iconic comic creation, was born. He had invented many stage characters before, and he would continue to experiment with others on the screen; but no figure that he or any other comedian created would ever be so potent.' (Robinson, 1997. pg. 84)
He first showcased the Tramp in the film The Kid Auto Races at Venice, which was followed in 1914 with a drunken Chaplin chasing a woman named Mabel, after she locks herself out of her hotel room. The convoluted tale of embarrassment and sexual irony didn't amount to one of Chaplin's most popular films, but the slapstick humor such as him falling down stairs and manic brawls with the hotel's waiters, proved he was eagerly learning his craft. The film entitled Mabel's Strange Predicament was a stepping stone for Chaplin's career to blossom. David Robinson writes: Chaplin revealed qualities that were then quite new to film comedy mime that achieved the highest level of acting art, pathos, and daring commentary on social issues.' (Robinson, 1997. pg. 85) By 1918 he had built his own studio.
Both The Kid Auto Races at Venice and Mabel's Strange Predicament were short films. The name derives from its initial use of short subject' that referred to shorter films that would accompany feature length movies. These short one or two reel films would usually precede the feature and this practice became commonplace in America during the 1910s.
Chaplin wasn't the only would-be star to profit from Keystone Pictures producer Mack Sennett's ambitious use of the short film. Sennett continued producing two-reel comedies starring such comics as Andy Clyde and W.C. Fields. He also signed an up-and-coming singer named Bing Crosby for a series of six short films, establishing Crosby's appeal on the big screen.' (Eder, 2004)
Many famous actors such as Buster Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy started their careers in this fashion, starring in short films that would be screened before the main feature began. The form was so popular, other genres surfaced such as animation and non-fiction newsreels, and many of the major production companies had outlets that made short films primarily, with some smaller companies working exclusively with the short subject.
1.2 Britain
The one-reel film was similarly adopted in Britain and dominated the film industry between 1908 and 1913. As John Hawkridge says the tendency among film historians has always been to represent the British cinema as having had influential and innovative beginnings.' (Hawkridge, 1997, pg. 130) This is seen in Britain's many non-fiction actuality films, and narrative based series' films such as the commercially successful Lieutenant Darling series. The series' in which many short films were made over a period of time with a continuing narrative thread binding them, can be seen as an early form of the television serial.
Certainly, British filmmakers tried to push the medium further and were more willing to test the medium than their American counterparts. Sometimes this caused problems such as The Passion Of Men where the temporal logic of the narrative is at times disrupted when shot transitions are made by fades rather than cuts, and vice-versa' (ibid., pg. 131) Yet at other times their ingenuity worked in such films as the two-reel A Visit to Peek Frean and Co's Biscuit Works which is remarkable because of its use of high-angle shots, panning, and tilt movement, and its use of scene dissection to give a more complete view of specific factory processes.' (ibid., pg. 131) British filmmakers also pioneered the ingenious cheat' whereby actor movement is used to simulate camera movement' (ibid., pg. 131). In Britain the short film was being used to break new boundaries in the medium, it wasn't creating stars like the American films.
1.3 The Modern Day Short Film
By the 1930s the short subject as a viable commercial product in America was in serious decline. Charlie Chaplin had moved onto feature films and Mack Sennett was out of business. After 1935, Laurel and Hardy moved full time to feature films, which left the short subject bereft of talent and only exhibited via independent production houses and at times through block-booking. The reason short films struggled to find an audience was largely due to the exhibition of two feature films at the same time (the double feature) which meant there was no need for them. The short had become the poor relation of the feature film' (Eder, 2004) with short-film units relegated to run down pieces of property separate from the main facility.' (ibid.) But ultimately, it was television that killed the Hollywood short. As audiences shrank and production costs rose, it was no longer possible to supply the shorts. Nor did the theaters want them - with the competition from the box in the living room, theater owners wanted to get as many showings of as few films as possible in during a day.' (ibid.) As the short film made no financial sense from a commercial standpoint, it ceased being exhibited theatrically.
Since the 1980s the short film has been defined by its running time of less than 40 minutes according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in America (this differs in the U.K slightly as the British Academy of Film define a short film as being no more than 30 minutes (see appendix A.7, pg. 53) (Bafta.org, 2006)). (Oscars.org., 2006) It is seen as non-commercial, where filmmakers can often use it to express and experiment with ideas that would be deemed difficult or untenable with the commercial film. Young filmmakers have been drawn to this type of cinema because it is much cheaper to produce, and with the widespread use of digital media, equipment for production and post-production is much more cost effective and easier to use than ever before.
1.4 Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese
Perhaps the short film represents the only way into the industry for new filmmakers? It's certainly an argument that has plausibility since three of America's most famous directors began their careers by making short subject films. Just as Chaplin learned his acting craft in the one and two-reel films he made for Keystone Pictures, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese were doing the very same thing in the 1960s, only they were learning what it meant to be behind the camera.
In 1973, George Lucas rose to fame with his film American Graffiti. Yet, as Tom Shone claims, Lucas' feature film debut was a culmination of the lessons he'd learned producing two short films entitled Herbie and 1.42:08 A Man and his Car. American Graffiti, a film about a group of young friends driving around town getting drunk and racing their cars, had very similar attributes to 1.42:08 that was simply about driving fast' (Shone, 2004. pg. 48). Before that, he made a film about just driving: Herbie, in which Lucas' camera went cruising around town, catching the street life in its gleaming hood and polished fender.' (ibid.,)
Spielberg was no different, producing several short films before his first feature. One of which was named Amblin and this would later become the name of his own production company. Likewise, Scorsese directed The Big Shave, a six minute film that served as a metaphor for the Vietnam War. The film is famous because it launched Scorsese's career as he was immediately signed up to direct his first feature.
1. 5 History Repeats Itself
The short film enabled Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Laurel and Hardy, to get a footing in the film industry during the 1910s, as it did with Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese in the late 1960s. It's only logical to suggest it is a viable way for new filmmakers to get noticed, and with its condensed production value, and cheaper costs, it appears it is an excellent way for new filmmakers to attempt the medium.
Since Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese all produced their films whilst studying film production in America. It does create questions of whether or not the medium will be inundated with Spielberg 'wannabe's' making amateurish films whose makers no very little about the craft. With digital technology making basic film production easily attainable, it raises questions of whether this type of cinema will be flooded with bad filmmaking, or if it will indeed liberate the medium, freeing it as an art form to be influenced by more people than ever before. Robert Rodriguez seems to think so, telling new filmmakers to save their university funds and put them into their own films.
Take that $20, 000 you were planning on spending at UCLA or New York University and put it right back in your pocket. They can't teach you how to tell a good story in film school, and even if they did, you wouldn't want to learn from them anyway. They teach you how to make big movies, with a big crew so that when you graduate after spending $20, 000 on a diploma, you can go to Hollywood and get a job pulling cable's on someone else's big movie.' (Rodriguez, 1995. pg. 201)
If short film has had a life cycle then it is one that started as a commercial medium, died, and then reinvented itself as a pedestal for young filmmakers to exhibit their talent.
1. 6 Experimentation
The Short film from the beginning was one of experimentation. It was an excellent way for the major studios to experiment with new technology, especially with the growth and development of sound and animation' (Turner Classic Movies, 2005), and Warner Bros. for example, used the Vitaphone shorts as vehicles to show off synchronized sound.' (Eder, 2004) Yet, the short film was still a commercially viable product. This, however, has more to do with cinema being in its infancy, than pre-1930s audiences wanting short films over feature length. Many of the early talkies were awkward in their use of sound, clunking along for 90 minutes to two hours. The shorts had the edge in that they only had to conjure their tricks for 10 or 20 minutes at a time.' (ibid.) Filmmakers were learning their craft, and at the time they were simply better at producing short work than long. There was less risk of boring the audience, and with the abundant crop of available music entertainers and vaudeville professionals, the results were often more diverting than the main features.' (ibid.)
The Short film is still used in the same way. Experimentation, obviously vital to the growth of the short film is still something that sets it apart today. Coupled with the freedom of expression enjoyed outside the rigid studio system of the 50s and 60s, saw more experimental work and bolder subject matter.' (Turner Classic Movies, 2005) And now there is further technological advancements to reinvigorate short film-making again: the digital camera, the internet and computer editing facilities.' (ibid.)
Works cited:
Bafta.org (2006) British Academy Short Film rules [online] available from http://www.bafta.org/site/page45.html (accessed 6 March 2006)
Eder, B (2004) The Hollywood Short Film A History [online] available from http://www.criterionco.com/asp/in_focus_essay.asp?id =10&eid=208 (accessed 27 Feb 2006)
Hawkridge, J (1997) British Cinema from Hepworth to Hitchcock London: Oxford
Oscars.org (2006) Rules for Short film entry into Academy Awards [online] available from http://www.oscars.org/74academyawards/rules/rule19.h tml (accessed 6 March 2006)
Quinn, A (2006) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens with Andrew Quinn at Slack Video Hull
Robinson, D (1997) Charlie Chaplin Biography The Oxford History Of World Cinema London: Oxford
Rodriguez, R (1995) Rebel Without a Crew New York: Faber and Faber
Shone, T (2004) Blockbuster How the Jaws and Jedi Generation turned Hollywood into a Boomtown London: Simon and Schuster
Turner Classic Movies (2005) A Short History of Short Film [online] available from http://tcmonline.co.uk/microsites/classicshorts/clas sic-shorts-short-history.jsp (accessed 5 March 2006)
Wilson, A (2005) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens with Andrew Wilson at Short Circuits Huddersfield