Scripting a short film
I’m about to get cracking on my submission for a prestigious short screenplay competition. I wondered if you had any advice specific to writing shorts? If you were judging a shorts competition, what would you be looking for?
– Kirsty
York, UK
A short film, like a short story, can’t waste any time. You need to give us your principal characters and establish their motivations immediately. There’s very little stage-setting before you get to the inciting incident and the ensuing complications.
The hero’s fundamental problem/challenge/obstacle needs to occur by the time you get to the 1/3rd mark. So, if your short is meant to be three minutes long, the big event needs to happen on page one. If it’s a 10-minute short, it happens around page three. It’s not that you’re worried about your reader getting bored before then — if you can’t entertain us for three pages, there’s a problem — but rather that if you delay any longer, your story is going to feel lopsided: too much setup for what was accomplished.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t worry much about traditional structural expectations. Funny almost always works better than serious for a short, because there’s not enough time to create the narrative movement you expect in drama. But there are exceptions. The Red Balloon for example. And I loved Walter Salles’ chapter in Paris, je t’aime, which was simply a sad rhyme.1
So think funny, or poignant — but only if French.
I’ve put the script for my 1998 short film God up in the Downloads section.2 It’s 30 scenes in 11 pages. A lot of story happens, quickly. But many successful shorts take the opposite tack: they’re essentially just one joke, fully exploited. Todd Strauss-Schulson’s Jagg Off is that kind of short, as are most of the SNL and Will Ferrell videos you’ve seen.
For the competition you’re entering, however, I’d be careful not to submit anything that felt too much like a comedy sketch. If I were a judge, I’d be looking for a script that doesn’t seem like it could end up on Saturday Night Live. (Or the British equivalent.)
Good luck!
- That said, it probably wouldn’t have stood out in a script competition. ↩
- The short is a bonus feature on The Nines DVD. ↩
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
Ah… John! Thank you soooo much
I’m about to write a short screenplay (10-11 pages max) for college. It’s so difficult to write 10 pages… I love to evaluate stories and characters little by little.
And good news… my ever first screenplay has entered the Big Break Contest! yippie
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
You know, I would have said that you couldn’t end a short on a “poignant” note, but this short does (if the link doesn’t work, it’s also part of my “Website” link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2BdTO0wSMQ
I think it probably works because there’s still a surprise element contained therein.
(Full disclosure - yeah, I wrote the short I linked, but only to back up my statement. You can judge for yourself whether or not I’m right.)
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
John must not be very fond of the Academy Awards for short films, then, because a lot of them are not comedies (neither the kind that would wind up on SNL, nor the other kind that win short script awards).
The Danish film “Between Us” (which won a Student Academy Award) is not a comedy, nor is it about the typical subject of so many poignant French short films — lonely, whimsical sadness — but I think it’s one of the best shorts around (it’s also 36 minutes, so it may not serve well as guide or inspiration for writing for a competition if the guidelines require shorter entries).
And, it certainly is possible that none of the short dramatic films nominated for Oscars would have stood out as scripts in a pile. However, the nice thing about shorts is that it’s relatively easy to go make your short film even if no contest judges like it. Lots of shorts work better on-screen than on the page (while some, unfortunately, have the opposite problem).
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
John, was your short “God” ever produced? I found it on imdb.com but there isn’t much on it. Tried searching youtube and your store as well. Just curious.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
@Steve:
See the footnote: God is on the DVD for The Nines.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
As part of a Filmmaking I took that was taught by Writer/Director Jason Bailey, I got to see his short film: “Chem 102″ which was based on an urban legend of sorts. Yes, jokes and urban legends do lend themselves well to the short format.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The key to a good short is to not try to make it a mini-feature, but one unique and interesting idea executed well. There, that’s my ten second film school for today.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Thank you for the response John. I downloaded God and was surprised to see just how fast-paced it was (by the way, the downloads link within the post didn’t work, case sensitive?)
I also went off and watched The Red Balloon, which made me cry; then Jagg Off, which made me laugh. Thanks to everyone else for their input too. Josh, I loved the ending of your short!
It’s all given me plenty to think about and certainly a new approach.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“Funny almost always works better than serious for a short, because there’s not enough time to create the narrative movement you expect in drama”.
I disagree.
A dramatic short can easily be pulled off, if you tell the story visually.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Just curious John, what was your budget for GOD? & was it shot on 16mm? I ask b/c I am gearing up to shoot a 30 min. short later this year.
And BTW Melissa McCarthy is great in both GOD & NINES; she was sooo amazingly painful to watch in Part II w/ Ryan. Jeez I cringed…
February 24th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I am a big fan of noir and I think short is really good example of what John describe as a thriller in 16 minutes.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BidbnmrhsLg
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw90Maq1QFk
February 25th, 2008 at 3:12 am
If it suits the story, using voiceover can also be a great help in imparting a lot of information/set up when you only have 10 pages to do everything. It also helps to keep the story as visual as possible since dialogue scenes tend to feel rushed because of the time constraints. The last short I wrote took the idea of a young couple who have a baby that won’t stop crying and what they do about it (I promise, it is a comedy). The way it turned out, there’s only dialogue near the end and it works pretty well. If you have 10 minutes, see what you think… http://www.atomfilms.com/film/jellybaby.jsp
February 25th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Now that’s my kind of dark humour… Wonderful Pierce; the last line was priceless!
February 25th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hehe, I finally have an idea for my 10-pages-script for college. It’s a combination of the Wonder Boys and Happy Hour and more of my own idea. And yes, I support the fact that it’s definitely easier to write a comedic short than a dramatic short, but I think that my story has at least 49% of a drama in it
February 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s watching a short film that is essentially either an elaborate knock knock joke, an ‘urban legend’, a variety of ‘whoops vicar, my trousers just fell down’ kind of a skit or some kitchen sink misery fest with no empathy. My heart sinks like a torpedoed battleship whenever I come across one at festivals. As for comedy… seeing as it’s practically the hardest thing to write well ever, I fail to see how writing it as a short is any easier. I’d always try and go for the human drama told visually, cinematically and under 15 mins max as if there’s also another thing fests hate are long winded short films (the clue is in the name!).
February 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Thanks Kirsty for the kind remarks about my short! If it helps, there’s one more short I wrote also on the net. It won a couple of awards a few years back, so could be worth checking out (hopefully!): http://tw.video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1338066
February 25th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“…but rather that if you delay any longer, your story is going to feel lopsided: too much setup for what was accomplished…”
How can you know and preach this and still like LOST!? I’m puzzled
February 25th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Pierce, that one was so bizarre! Seemed awfully sad really… without needing to say so — in fact it reminds me of ‘Big Fish’ in that way. Totally helpful, thanks =)
February 26th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I agree, it is tough to make a compelling dramatic story in short form.
I have been writing my next short and the strangest thing happened. One of the characters was screaming at me in regards to the set-up of the story. Well I never had a character talk to me like that before, so I put that story away from my hand and into my head.
It is 2 months later, and the story has completely changed. I think that character was right in telling me that a short does not allow enough time to set up and explain the somewhat complicated story.
Here it a short I made under 6 minutes……it does the dramatic visual quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqoMaMgunKo
February 26th, 2008 at 2:14 am
“the clue is in the name”
Yes.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I’m working on a short right now and I’m really fighting the urge to expand it. What would you say are the advantages of keeping it under 20 minutes rather then stretching it out to say 40 or 50. It’s a simple take on the awkward romantic situation that is the first date. Should I sideline some character development for times sake?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Kevin.
Maybe the fact that just about every festival prefers to program shorts at 10 minutes and under? Also, it’s easier to get a short financed and made rather than something that’s going to be half a feature film. If it’s half a feature, hell why not go all the way? And from a writers perspective, a discipline thing. A 40-50 minute short isn’t a short, it’s a TV episode and no one wants to watch a TV episode at a film festival! Expanding your short film just means that either you’re right at the start of the writing journey where you write everything THEN chop it back or you’re at the end and you’re just being self indulgent, which is bad man, VERY BAD!
March 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
MikeO,
Thanks for the input. I am a new writer and I’m really just trying to get my feet under me right now. I honestly don’t have a chance to be self indulgent yet since everything I write is normally filtered through at least three other people. Your right about the length though. I had no clue festivals programmed shorts at 10 minutes. Sorry if it sounded like a stupid question. Chalk one up for a newbie. Thanks.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Thanks John, great read.
I came across a short film/comedy on Youtube and I wanted to share it with all of you. I think it’s well put together. It’s only 7 minutes but it takes you a hilarious and wild ride. It’s called Backjumping. I’d love to create something as fast paced as this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paiC98FhPxQ
March 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Arghhh! im not sure what to do. I just won an award for a short 9 minute film. And now I have been writing a new film- slightly longer. I have been blessed with amazing, semi-famous actors, an amzing CG guy who wants to work on this, amazing locations and stunt team. I keep writing and the story seems to get deeper and deeper and longer and longer!! I dont think a 10 minute film, would do justice to what I have avaliable. I estimate it would roughly be about 35-40minutes in length. Is that still eligable for festivals?? Im finding it hard to keep the time down. But maybe I can make the cut to 30minutes. Its a very complicated story, with twists etc–following four characters, leading up to an event. If I make the film, not explaining everything, and every reason for this and that, leaving some bits unexplained–would that be alright? To me,as a film, it would feel incomplete and rushed–but it would also be a showcase to producers etc, that this is a strong idea and has potential to be turned into a feature…. am I wrong thinking this??? many thanks