~

Alas, Average Person is generally clueless when it comes to the realm of short films. And in the implausible event that she isn't, what's the likelihood she'll be able to rhyme off the director and cast of a short that was even remotely "successful"? Not huge.

Part of the reason for this is that shorts aren't readily available for consumption. Theatrically, they are generally seen by only a handful of festival-goers (most of whom - lets face it - are other filmmakers sporting their all-access passes).While some shorts land a broadcast license, good luck trying to find them in prime time slots. Internet? Yeah, maybe. But it's not exactly the "cinematic experience" we hope to give an audience. So the short is often relegated to the fringes, where it kills some time before a feature or is clumped together with other shorts and invariably becomes a contestant in some random festival's cinematic beauty pageant.

I used to be bitter about all this. I used to despise the Hollywoodized masses that lacked the cinematic savvy to recognize that shorts were people too. But I'm not bitter anymore. Because I've had a small epiphany; a minor revelation that's altered my attitude toward short films in general, and my own mini-oeuvre in particular. Ready? Here it is: short films are made for the benefit of just one person - the short filmmaker.

Admittedly, such a statement is a bit of a feather-ruffler. But it was never my intent to be a provocateur. I've simply managed to come to grips with the fact the vast majority of short films out there (including my own) are self-inspired and/or self-indulgent and/or self-serving.

Self-inspired: Given the colossal amount of time, effort, and cash it takes to give birth to a film, it's unusual for a short to be conceived by anyone other than the writer or director. Obviously, producers can think this stuff up too, but in the world of shorts, it's unusual. More often than not, it's the director that looks back on some painful/profound/ponderous moment of a former life and manages to wran-gle/bribe/coerce others'help to bring it to the screen.

Self-indulgent: Forgive me. I'm really not a vulgarian. I'm simply stating the facts when I assert that we've all been subjected to the cinematic splooge of masturbationists who make films simply because they get off on it.We shut our eyes and ask, "Why? Why? Why?" If we're polite, we endure. If we're having a bad day, we snicker. Then, when the house lights come up and we start wiping up the mess, we discover the very same filmmakers milking the Q & A for all it's worth.

Self-serving: The calling-card.The résumé-builder.The hunger for a three-picture deal. For many a filmmaker, shorts are a respectable and reliable way to move on up into the coveted land of feature films. A good-story-well-told in five minutes suggests an innate ability to craft a good-story-well-told in 90. Naturally, the theory doesn't always play out like that, but as a general rule, it's admissible. So when we see a good narrative short on the screen, we inevitably assume the filmmaker is bound for bigger budgets.

Lest my tone suggest that I'm upset by the above classifications, I feel it's important to stress that I'm not at all bothered by them. Self-inspired films are often the most rewarding to see on the screen. Self-indulgent ones can be a lot of fun to make, and self-serving shorts are nothing to scoff at – after all, we need to pay the bills somehow.

I simply wish to illustrate that most (if not all) short films are in one way or another a personal experiment: of soul, of spine, of space.That they practically never hit the commercial stratosphere probably isn't such a bad thing. Because if they did, we might quickly lose sight of the value of shorts, where, for each individual filmmaker, imperfection speaks of an ideal, failure speaks of a lesson learned, and the very act of experimentation speaks of hope, faith, and indelible courage.

~ ~