Short films give voices to people otherwise ignored

The argument

Often times, short films can be a lot more personal than features. They can focus on individual lives, rather than trying to intertwine some complicate storyline in with a multitude of characters. Personalities of individuals can be explored in depth. Short films are also often created in the form of documentaries. This can bring awareness to certain communities that would otherwise be ignored. One source states that, "The medium of the documentary in short film form gives audiences access to topics and issues they otherwise would not know about". They are in short form, and thus can cater to short attention spans. They're educational, and maybe even life-changing.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Feature films can give voices to an even wider variety of people, and even go into more depth. There are also feature documentaries. Why waste time with a short, when one can just go all in with a feature?

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Brevity forces focus, which is not the same as depth. A short has less room to develop a life than a feature does, and the premise treats a constraint as an advantage without arguing for it. [Rejecting P2] Reaching an audience is where short documentaries are weakest. Distribution runs through festivals, streaming sidebars and social platforms, so the capacity to bring an overlooked subject to notice is limited by the audience the form can actually find. [Rejecting C] Feature documentaries also give voice to overlooked communities, at greater length and with far wider distribution. The premises identify something short films can do without showing they do it better, which is what the conclusion requires.