WHO WEARS SHORT SHORTS?

Looking at the Ideas Factory site, I'm stunned by the number of film schemes and competitions. Surely a good move, some would say. But am I wrong in thinking that the rise in 'opportunities' is linked to the duration of these movies? Because if anything, shorts are getting shorter.

Take your pick - Pocket Shorts, First Light, Every Object Tells a Story - inviting 30 second films, as does the CNN Infommercial Competition. There's even the Ten Second Film Festival.

The point of these schemes I suppose is to sharpen up filmmakers' thinking - to dream up snappy little ideas that tell a story faster, getting rid of the flab, then chop the movie into teeny weeny bites. This might work for attention-deficit donkeys, I suppose. But hey, aren't we forgetting that video tape's dirt cheap and now everybody and their dog has a camcorder, what's with shorter shorts? In fact, what's the point of any of this, if it's not to keep non-filmmakers in admin jobs?

Unless there's a conspiracy to turn the next generation of filmmakers into blipvert makers. For all the yakking about new media - the web, mobiles, even telly - and the endless demand for content - will the future of filmmaking be sixty second movies? How much narrative and depth of character can you pack into ten or fifteen seconds?

Considering the budgets on offer for these schemes - usually a low five-figure amount - it's impossible to pay the cast or crew a decent wage. Plus, funding comes with a lot of strings, dictating the kind of story you make and censoring anything remotely subversive.

Wasn't subliminal editing banned way back in the 60s? The way short films are heading, you'd better not blink.