Within the world of cinema, short film has often suffered the same kind of criticism levelled at its literary counterpart. Among the myriad of disparagements, one of the most common and frequent is that it is impossible to tell a real story in less than twenty minutes. Surely the story, characters and style have to be simplified and diluted in order to squeeze them into the restricting time frame? Well, quite often the answer is yes. Many short films, and especially micro shorts, rely on gimmicks and cheap plot twists to push the story along. But equally, many doní¢â‚¬â„¢t and it is often a lot more difficult to tell a good story effectively in 15 minutes than 115. Another claim is that short films are nothing more than a platform for new directors to show off their talents, intended purely as a kind of one-way ticket into feature film. Again, fair criticism for some, but the best short films manage to stand as works in and of themselves as well as acting as a showcase for the talents of the director.

It seems that shorts lack the credibility of feature films; as if by virtue of being a certain length they fall foul of the category of í¢â‚¬Ëœrealí¢â‚¬â„¢ or í¢â‚¬Ëœproperí¢â‚¬â„¢ cinema. This popular opinion is ironic considering that early cinema consisted solely of short-form work. Although the first ever feature length film (totalling 80 minutes) was released in 1906, it wasní¢â‚¬â„¢t until the mid 1910í¢â‚¬â„¢s that features began to be widely produced, a good ten years after cinema was first introduced to the paying public. Until this point, many of the major studios ran fully staffed units for producing short films and some even produced them exclusively.

Another irony of this attitude is that shorts are now one of the few areas within film where experimentation and innovation can really take place. Mainstream cinema has no room in its budgets or schedules for work that can begin to push the boundaries of visual entertainment if it means sacrificing box office takings.

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons for this general censure of shorts as a serious art form is that it is rare to find them at all outside of a scheduled screening at a film festival. Despite the BBCí¢â‚¬â„¢s excellent website dedicated to showcasing short film (http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/) they fail to dedicate any scheduling time whatsoever to showing them on their numerous terrestrial and digital channels, and the same can be said for Channel 4. Neither has any major cinema chain adopted the European model of showing shorts before a feature. In the UK at least, short film is practically invisible to the general public.

But recent technological developments may go some way to remedy this situation. YouTube.com, the saviour of bored office workers all over the world has more to offer than seeing what happens when you mix together Diet Coke and Menthos. Whilst YouTube undoubtedly provides a platform for people to upload all manner of useless crap, it also allows for quality short films that have had little exposure to be available to the general public.

Watching a poor quality video capture on a tiny screen on a computer is not the ideal way to view a piece of cinema, but with few other options, it seems like a positive step forward for the short film world. Unfortunately, YouTube and similar sites are far from starting a short film revolution and there is still a long way to go before this genre of cinema garners the respect it deserves.

As with so many other things, it is all about knowing where to look and in honour of this, check out Capitalí¢â‚¬â„¢s Featured Short Film and Music Video of the month where we will be showcasing a variety of excellent shorts. Check out the short film for Diversions. If youí¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen a great short or music video that you think deserves to be featured then get in touch: leanne@capitalmag.com

In the meantime, check out these links for upcoming short film events and festivals:

http://www.futureshorts.com/

http://www.rocknrollcinema.com/

http://fasterfilms.ukonline.net/

http://www.onedotzero.com/