Short films are unique, moldable, and experimental in ways in that feature-length films aren't

The argument

A short film, like its name suggests, is one that lasts for thirty minutes or less. The restricted time frame puts tremendous pressure on the film to convey its message effectively while retaining the attention of its viewers. There is no room in that span for a slow accumulation of effect, so every decision has to earn its place — which is why short films are often the yardstick used to measure an artist's genius and grasp over their craft. That pressure is what pushes the form toward experiment. Directors and writers often employ different techniques to ensure that they are able to put out more thought-provoking ideas with very few dialogues and actions. They utilize processes such as jump-cuts, made famous by Jean-Luc Godard, or even create silent films, such as those popularized by Charlie Chaplin. Both approaches work by removing something a conventional film would rely on — continuity in one case, speech in the other — and making the absence carry meaning. These techniques grab the viewer's attention, much like Brecht's idea of alienation, and because of the unfamiliarity they focus attention on the content being shown rather than letting it pass unnoticed. The economics of the form matter too, and they push in the same direction. Because they are low budget and are streamed mostly on sites like YouTube, directors use short films to hone their skills and showcase new developments in the field of cinematography. A film that costs little and reaches an audience directly can afford to fail, and work that can afford to fail is where genuinely new things get tried. It is where their creativity truly shines, and they should be promoted for them to be appreciated.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Short films are one of the platforms through which people launch their careers. In today’s day and age, almost everyone has the ability to shoot their own short films. Ability does not equal talent, and there are quite a few amateurish works compared to the masterpieces. Because of the sheer number of short films being produced, there is a huge possibility of repetitiveness creeping in, which will diminish the already negligible attention given to this platform.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The definition does the work: nothing about being worth watching follows from a running time that is merely short, and compression can as easily produce a thin sketch as a disciplined one — which is why the argument shifts quietly from short films in general to the ones that succeed. [Rejecting P2] Jump cuts and silence are techniques of cinema at any length, so they do not mark the short film as distinctively experimental; and the low-budget, open-platform conditions praised as a proving ground are the same conditions that make the form's output uneven and hard to sift.