Growth of the Short

I love short films. I mean, who doesn’t want a ten minute piece of added joy in their life? It was Pixar who first introduced me to them with shorts like Luxo Jr. and For the Birds before their feature films. I watched, enthralled, in the cinema, but they often seemed like a warm-up act before the main thing began. The thing is, shorts shouldn’t be like that. Many of them are amazing and can stand alone in their own right, and they should be given more attention.

I have noticed them becoming more prominent, Paperman, for example, has become massively popular thanks to the Oscars. Some advertising spots are even beginning to resemble shorts, some of the older Cadbury ones particularly, or the ones from Thinkbox that advertise TV advertising. They may not be as long as an official short, but they each have their own story.

Luckily for me though, adverts are not all I have to rely on. Filmmakers are now submitting a lot of their work to Vimeo and YouTube and are getting a huge audience (some even to the millions). Of course, you can go to those websites and sift through all the content to get to the quality (be my guest) but there are some lovely people over at Short of the Week who will do it for you. This website is incredible, and pretty much all of the shorts they feature are of amazing quality. I haven’t even scratched the surface yet. One of my current favourites (I’m sure that will change pretty quickly as I watch more) is The Come Up, which features Patrick J. Adams (yes, from Suits). Watch it here.
Finding a new great new short is, for me, like finding a little treasure. Generally they are free and online, so all I need to do is copy the link and sent it out to my friends. They are called ‘shorts’ for a reason, because they only take a few minutes out of your day. And if you’re like me and are revising a lot for exams (ahhh!), a ten minute short is a much needed excuse for a break.

Movies vs. Films

There is a problem that has been bothering me since I began properly taking an interest in movies (or films). The problem is which word to use, are they movies or films? Are the words interchangeable? Are some, erm, cinema(?) films, while others are movies? I have been told by multiple people multiple rules for the words.

Let’s start with my friends. I am British, and I use the British vocabluary: pavement for sidewalk, boot for trunk, queue for line, and trousers for pants. And I have been told that film is the British word for movie. According to them, movie is a ridiculous word (I mean, who shortens ‘moving picture show’?) Now, I don’t believe that this idea is upheld by many people, and I’m pretty sure that it is the wrong definition (it’s not to bad though, they are only 17).

Movies according to the NYLFF

Another way of thinking is by defining each piece of cinema by its qualities. The folks at the New York Latino Film Festival have made a series of funny posters, showing the difference between films and movies. The general consensus for this definition is that films are more artistic and cultural, while movies are more generally appealing or blockbusters.

Movies according to the NYLFF

Finally, though, there is the idea that the two words can be used interchangeably, and this is the one I have been using on this blog. To me (any many others) the two words mean the same thing, but just have different roots. Film is named after the photographic film used to record, while movies are (as I mentioned before) an abbreviation of ‘moving picture show’. It is this version of the rule that I will continue to use until I am proved wrong for sure.

But that’s okay. It’s my blog, I can do what I like.