Short Films: The Art, the Money, and the Slingshot
By Matan Tal
At a 2019 panel on short filmmaking, I was asked a few questions that cut to the heart of what it actually means to make and release short films today — the lack of coverage, the funding problem, and why people keep doing it anyway. Here are my answers, as honest as I could make them.
Q: Will the lack of media coverage discourage short filmmakers from making films?
A: Short filmmakers will not be discouraged by coverage or non-coverage — they'll keep making the art no matter what. I think it's like a slingshot: the more you take from them, whether that's coverage or criticism or attention, the more it gives back. You pull the slingshot back and it just propels them forward with more strength, more perseverance.
If they're passionate enough, they'll keep striving and creating no matter what. With or without coverage, they'll just keep making it until it gets the attention it deserves.
Q: Who finances short films? How do filmmakers actually get the money?
A: Most short filmmakers are doing it independently. That means using their friends' funds, other people's money, or maxing out their own credit cards. There are some companies that invest in short films — in Germany there are a few — but it's a limited number compared to feature films.
The companies that do fund shorts usually only take the leap with filmmakers who already have some ground under them: someone who's made a feature and now wants to do a short, or someone who's made a couple of shorts that won major awards and got real attention. You need to have already built something before the money comes.
"Short films can go straight to the jugular — just throw that one punch that hits you and stays with you."
Q: What does film criticism and coverage actually do for filmmakers?
A: It depends entirely on the filmmaker and whether they know how to use it. If they do, it can have an immense impact. Think about it from a search perspective: if you look up a filmmaker or a specific film and there are plenty of articles about it, that's a stamp of approval. Someone took the time and interest to write about it and sit with it. That film is no longer just one of the mass — it has significance, it's worth watching, it's worth experiencing.
That's a huge potential impact. Not just emotionally, but practically — in the way people discover and trust what they're about to watch.
Q: When you make a short film and present it, what are you looking for beyond people just watching it?
A: Honestly? You just want people to see it. That's the basic, fundamental need — more and more people seeing the film itself, encountering its truth. That's the starting point.
Moneywise, I don't think most short filmmakers expect to earn anything meaningful from a short. Maybe a prize at a festival, but not really. It's the love of it. And that's the tension in the world we live in — even if your passion is short films, the system pushes you toward features and TV just to sustain yourself. But the short film itself? It can go straight to the jugular. Five or ten minutes to reveal a profound, unique truth about the world. That's exactly why a lot of short filmmakers love it.
Q: Do film directors have to do their own PR?
A: Oh god, yes. It's basically our second profession. And it has to be, because no one else is going to do it for you at this level. You make the film and then you become your own publicist, your own distributor, your own social media manager.
There's a short film that recently got something like 10 million views on YouTube — and it's a ten-year-old film that was completely forgotten. The only reason it exploded is because a YouTuber named PewDiePie mentioned a game the film was based on, and suddenly the film's entire history changed overnight. That's the reality of distribution now: you can do everything right and still need one lucky chain reaction to break through. Which is all the more reason to keep building your presence and never stop putting the work out there.
