Cinema has never had a series of films that has touched the lives of so many people around the world as much as Star Wars has.  Since it’s premiere in the summer of 1977, George Lucas’ creation has gone on to become one of the most profitable and influential films in the last half century.  And it’s influence extends far beyond just the big screen.  With sequels, prequels, published extended universe novels as well as merchandise and product tie-ins, Star Wars has continued to remain relevant in our culture at large and will remain so for some time.  No other series has managed to cross the generations as well as it has, to the point where older audiences are now sharing their Star Wars memories with their grandchildren.  And it’s that broad appeal that has helped the series grow over the years and continue to find new stories to tell.  With the acquisition by Disney in 2012, Lucasfilm (the company behind the series) has promised to open the flood gates, not just continuing the beloved story that we all know, but expanding the broad scope of the universe to tell all kinds of new stories in the same setting.  This bold plan started off perfectly with the release of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015), which is now the highest grossing film of all time domestically.  But, that was just the beginning.  Coming this December, we will be getting the first of the extended universe spin-offs in the form of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.  The recently released teaser was universally praised (and rightly so), but it was also met with controversy, which unfortunately addressed an issue which shouldn’t be all that important in the first place; that being the gender of the main character.

The Rogue One teaser introduces us to Jyn Erso (played by Oscar nominee Felicity Jones from The Theory of Everything) a rebel spy who is recruited by the rebellion to help a band of rebel fighters steal the blueprint files for the Death Star away from the Imperial Forces of the evil Empire.  As we see in the trailer, Jyn is somewhat of an enigmatic figure who may or may not be the most trustworthy person for this task.  It’s an intriguing introduction for the character, and I for one am very interested in learning more about her and how she fits into the Star Wars universe.  And that’s a sentiment that’s shared by the vast majority of fans who are just excited to see more Star Wars anyway.  But, some people have foolishly complained online that Star Wars is making too many movies with female characters at it’s center, and that it’s a betrayal to the Star Wars franchise as they see it.  This is presumably in response to this movie coming on the heels of The Force Awakens, which also centered around the character Rey (played by Daisy Ridley), who’s also female.  The assumption that focusing on female protagonists is against what Star Wars is about is wrong on many levels.  For one thing, who says that Star Wars was only meant for boys?  There are just as many female Star Wars fans out there as male, and they’ve never once complained before about all the male heroes in the series.  Secondly, it doesn’t matter what gender the character is; it only matters what part they have to play in the narrative in this universe.  And thirdly, Star Wars hasn’t just suddenly awakened to the notion of gender equality in their narrative; it’s been a part of Star Wars from the very beginning and both The Force Awakens and Rogue One are continuations of that principle.  Jyn Erso and Rey aren’t just filling some gender mandate for the franchise; they are continuing the rich legacy set from the beginning by one Princess Leia.

Leia Organa of Alderaan holds a special place in the hearts of Star Wars fans, and it has more to do than with just her place in the story.  Leia was never your average damsel in distress, because not once in the story does she ever in distress.  She is fiesty, independent minded, resourceful, and above all else, a natural leader.  A lot of her personalty certainly derives from the equally independent minded actress playing her, Carrie Fisher, and her portrayal can’t be understated.  Up until the 1970’s, Science Fiction was not exactly a gender neutral genre in Hollywood.  For the most part, female characters were either potential victims of spaced-based monsters needing to be rescued by the hero, or the exotic object of desire that our hero aspires to claim for his own.  You can see a strongly minimized role for female characters in many B-movie Sci-Fi films of the 50’s, with many of them basically in there to scream as the giant monsters come their way.  And Science Fiction films that did center on a rebellious female character would usually turn them into the monster themselves like The Leech Woman (1960) or Attack of the 50ft. Woman (1958).  Basically, 50’s Sci-Fi reinforced outdated gender roles as opposed to breaking them and their rebellious 60’s counterparts didn’t help much either. 1968’s Barbarella did feature a female protagonist who was liberated, but mostly in a sexual sense, which merely just fetishised the sci-fi heroine in the end.  After all of these, Princess Leia was a huge step forward for the presence of a heroine in the Sci-Fi genre.  No longer would the girl be a bystander to the heroics of her male counterparts; she would stand out on her own and be the hero herself.

Of course, Star Wars (at least in the original trilogy) is Luke Skywalker’s heroic journey for the most part, but Leia carries a captivating arc of her own.  She’s a vital member of the rebellion against the empire, entrusted with delivering the secret plans for the Death Star to her base.  It is through her resourcefulness that the plans stay out of the hands of the villainous Darth Vader, who captures and imprisons her.  The remarkable thing about her character throughout the whole movie, which marked a big departure for female heroines in the overall genre to that point, is that not once does she feel helpless in the face of her predicament.  She’s defiant towards her enemy, even dissing her captor by saying “I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board.”  Even being rescued gives her no pause, as she reacts sarcastically to her rescuer Luke by saying, “Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?”  All this shows that she’s a woman who determines her own fate and is not waiting for her prince to sweep her off her feet.  And it’s not as if George Lucas set out to rewrite the books on how to create a compelling heroine in Science Fiction.  Leia is a product of her environment.  In a conflict between an Empire and a rebellion, a woman at it’s center would indeed be defiant and independent as well as resourceful, and that’s what makes her so appealing a character.  She plays a part in the story that only she can fill, and it’s far more complex than just filling a female quotient to the cast.  She’s on a mission just as much as Luke or Han Solo or any other male character.  So, by giving her that complex role, Lucas was able to change the Science Fiction heroine forever.

Leia would begin an era in science fiction that changed the role that female characters played in each story-line, though probably not by design.  Lucas merely made her equally important as her male counterparts because it was essential to the plot.  But, that simple act of elevating her purpose paved the way for Hollywood to accept more of a female presence in the genre.  The influence of Leia perhaps played a part in the casting of Sigourney Weaver in the role of Ripley in the classic Sci-Fi thriller Alien (1978).  Had Star Wars not been a success, I don’t believe Fox would have gone forward with Ridley Scott’s dark take on the genre, and had Leia not been such standout in the movie, I don’t think the studio would’ve comfortably gone with a heroine at the film’s center.  Amazingly, Ripley was originally written as a male character and it was only later that the decision was made to swap genders, with little to no change to the script.  That decision would propel the presence of female characters in the genre even further and through much of the 80’s, it became more frequent to see films with heroic women in big Hollywood productions, especially in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres.  James Cameron in particular made the heroic female character archetype a special trademark of his writing style, with Sarah Connor of the Terminator series being one of Science Fiction’s most iconic characters, as well as one of it’s toughest.  Princess Leia may not have much in common with these other heroines, but her influence can be felt in a lot of them.  Had Leia not been such a hit with fans, female characters in the Science Fiction genre would probably be very different today.

At the same time, Star Wars doesn’t flaunt the fact that it’s rewriting gender roles into the genre.  When George Lucas wrote the character, I don’t think he had it in his mind to make a statement about gender politics.  His upbringing probably gave him a more progressive view of the role of women in society in general and it’s that worldview that just ended up being reflected in his creation of Leia.  Leia Organa is not written to represent the idealized, women’s lib poster child; she is just who she is and that’s what makes her essential to the story.  I think it would be a mistake to say that Leia only exists because of some greater statement on gender roles in society.  Certainly the women’s liberation movement came into it’s own around the time of Star Wars premiere, but I don’t see it reflected in the characterization of Leia.  The reason she stood out was because the genre itself had been stuck in the past and George Lucas was merely writing his story with a mindset caught up to the present.  Leia was both timely and timeless, and that accounts for her enduring appeal.  She was modern in design, but still belonged within the world of the setting.  I think it would have spoiled the character for her to have been too much of a winking gesture to the gender politics of the day, because that would have dated her character and limited her legacy.  Such a “white knight” gesture to female audiences would have diminished the film’s appeal too because it would have come across as cynical and disingenuous.  It nevertheless is beneficial to the series to have had an up to date sense of women’s roles in society and by making that an underlying subtext in the story, it has helped to make Star Wars both influential and revolutionary to audiences of all genders.

That legacy continues in the series, though not without some minor missteps.  Though I don’t think it was intended to be such a big deal, the Leia “slave girl” outfit has become a contentious point of interest for both female and male fans.  In Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), Leia’s attempt to rescue Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt results in her own capture, and she is forced to wear a revealing, gold-patted bikini outfit for Jabba’s pleasure.  For male fans, this turned Leia into a “sex idol” and many claim that this endeared her to them as their first big screen crush.  Meanwhile, female fans complained that this reduced Leia’s character to a sexual object and that it was a big step backward for the character.  There is merit to the last point, and it is sad to think that some only find Leia appealing because of this version of her.  But, at the same time, I don’t feel that the character was ruined by this either.  Story-wise, you can tell that Leia wears the costume under protest and her only satisfaction in the sequence is at the end is when she uses her own slave chain to choke the life out of Jabba.  Still, it’s unfortunate that a sensationalized aspect of the character’s overall story has turned into such a contentious point and that the progress made with regards to gender roles in the series was overwhelmed by the preoccupation over what Leia was wearing.  Honestly, it matters little how she dresses; she certainly was not any different a person in her slave outfit as she was with her bun-haired get-up in the first movie. But, doing this probably diminished the idea that gender roles were meant to be equal in this story-line, as the studio perhaps saw an opportunity to capitalize on a little sex appeal with their heroine.  This certainly didn’t help much in the prequel trilogy either, where Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) is diminished in the story to just being a love interest and mother of Luke and Leia, as opposed to a genuine force in the story overall.

That is why I am glad to see more focus on female protagonists in the Star Wars franchise today, because it feels like a nod to the overall legacy of Princess Leia in the series.  It’s especially great to see Carrie Fisher return to the character as well, showing that this renewed focus has the full blessing of the one who started it.  I especially like the fact that having strong central female characters in Star Wars only feels natural at this point and that the large majority of Star Wars fans accept that fact.  Anyone who complains that Star Wars has too many girls in it and has been taken over by a feminist agenda clearly doesn’t understand Star Wars at all.  This has always been a part of the the franchise from the very beginning, and it all comes from George Lucas’ own choice to not reduce his heroine to strict gender constraints and instead make her an active force in the story.  Princess Leia is rightly held up as one of Hollywood’s most iconic heroines, and she has achieved that status by never compromising who she is, even when put into compromising situations.  How can you not love a character who tells her potential love interest that he’s a “scruffy looking nerf-herder.”  The fact that she’s still a present in this series today, handing off the reins to the new generation while still being the face of the Rebellion, is a treat for every Star Wars fan.  I also can’t wait to see the future Jedi training that awaits Rey in Episode VIII, as well as learning what intriguing role Jyn Erso plays in this universe.  I like the fact that Disney and Lucasfilm are choosing to put strong characterizations to the forefront and that the genders of the characters are becoming more of an afterthought.  It’s a reason why Star Wars is as relevant today as it was nearly 40 years ago, because it stays relevant with the times and values that we live in.  The force is still strong with the ladies of Star Wars, and may it forever be so.

When we watch movies, we for the most part accept it all as good escapist fun.  If the story is strong enough, and the characters are likable, then the movie will stand on it’s own.  But, we also must know that behind every story is a storyteller, and they have real lives of their own that sometimes turn out to be more compelling than fiction.  While the Hollywood industry is built around entertainment in storytelling, it’s also built around the ability to sell and promote talent as well.  Publicity, marketing, and celebrity journalism is just as much a part of Hollywood as actual production, and in some cases, they tend to outweigh the other costs in the long run.  Hollywood is just as involved in creating a positive fiction about itself than any of the films it produces.  For the most part, it’s not hard to see why.  When you are spending so much money making a movie, you want to create enough goodwill with the audiences to see a return on your investments, and that involves making sure that no bad press circles around your projects.  Most of the time, a film company can spin a good outlook on a troubled production, but one thing they have less control over is the behavior of the players involved, which can sometimes derail a project at the worst possible moment.  We tend to forget that some of the people in film-making are only human in the end, and like all humans they carry their own behavioral baggage.  The most professional of talent in Hollywood is usually able to separate work from real life, but there are others who have so much baggage, that it tends to overshadow the good work they do and as a result, it casts a bad light on everything else.

Hollywood has always had a longstanding battle against scandal and negative press.  Like many other high profile professions, Hollywood is held to a higher standards than normal.  Actors and filmmakers are considered role models to many in society and because of that, moral standards affect them more than usual.  Only politicians who work in government face as much scrutiny as celebrities do, but unfortunately for Hollywood, the press in their industry is far more intrusive and is less concerned with the consequences of invading the privacy of their subjects than their Beltway counterparts.  The sad thing is that the public feeds this animal more.  We concern ourselves far more with what’s going on in Tinseltown than we do with any other part of the world, and for the most part, it’s a whole lot of nothing.  But, sometimes the higher standards we hold celebrities to also exposes bad behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated at all and it causes us to question whether or not the person responsible is still worthy of our goodwill in the end.  For some, evidence points to the fact that there are some celebrities that are very bad people despite being very talented in front or behind the camera.  Usually it’s from a pattern of terrible acts or just committing an inexcusable crime in general, and despite the person’s attempts to undo their past deeds, it sadly casts a dark pallor over everything else that they do.  This also tends to be compounded by media that feeds on bad press.  In Hollywood, there is an unfortunate confluence between the work that people do and the way they live, and this often takes it’s toll on the art of film-making, because despite what a person does in the public eye, they still are capable of creating great art as part of their job.  So the question is raised, can an artist’s bad behavior really condemn the work that they do forever, or is it possible to separate the two?

What is interesting about the way we react to a celebrity’s bad behavior is that it tends to be a different reaction for different people.  Take for instance, some of the more recent celebrity controversies that have erupted in recent years.  A perfect example would be the string of incidents surrounding actor/director Mel Gibson.  When he self-financed his religious passion project The Passion of the Christ (2004), claims of antisemitism arose based on the reading of the shooting script used for the film, which the A-list star was able to escape partially due to his goodwill with audiences that he built up for years; and the movie became an overwhelming success.  Cut ahead a couple years and those rumors of Antisemitism became less rumored and more fact due to a drunken rant that the actor went on during an arrest for drunk driving (the infamous “Sugar Tits” incident).  He apologized, but the shiny veneer of his celebrity status was forever tarnished, because his bigoted statements were now publicly known.  Still, he hoped to revitalize his image through better roles and with the help of his close industry friends, but those efforts were again undone by his messy divorce and disastrous relationship with a new woman who also exposed more inflammatory statements in recorded tapes of their private conversations.  Of course there’s absolutely no doubt that Mel is responsible for his own downfall, but is everything he has done capable of making him un-hire-able in Hollywood today?  For some people, that’s absolutely the case, and if they are repulsed by Mr. Gibson’s behavior, it’s within their right to reject him.  But, what about the close friends that still stand by him?  Are they in the wrong, or do they simply want to allow the talent that still exists within him to flourish and possibly give him a chance to redeem himself?  That’s ultimately the question we ask ourselves as an audience when we judge the movies and the man separately.

Gibson’s case is interesting because while what he has done is clearly wrong and bigoted, he at the same time has not broken any laws.  His only crime is acting like a narrow-minded jackass, something that he might even fess up to on his own.  But, is that something that makes everything he has done before and since toxic?  It asks us to consider if a piece of art is forever tied to the individual that made it.  That can all depend on the audience member who carries their own prejudices with them depending on how they view the individual.  I for one try to take perspective into account, and while I can’t excuse Mel Gibson for what he’s done, I’m still able to divorce his behavior from his work, because despite it all, he still makes great films.  Braveheart(1995) is still a favorite of mine and I believe he still deserves those Oscars.  The Passion is more of a mixed bag, but his follow-up Apocalypto (2006) is an astounding and underrated piece of film-making that does deserve a second look.  Also, bad behavior aside, I feel that he’s still capable of great things and I am eager to see what he’s capable of doing next.  In Hollywood, there sometimes comes a point where the industry is able to put a person’s past behind them, as has been the case with amazing career turnarounds like Robert Downey Jr.’s (who coincidentally is one of Mel’s longest friends) so there may come a day when that will happen to him too.  I think it’s been his string of bad choices that have compounded his situation, so it’s up to him to make the move towards redemption.  Certainly making good use of his talent will help, but we’ll need to see more of a public commitment out of him for it to seriously stick within the eyes of the audience.

More of a problem arises when a celebrity gets involved in an actual crime, and it’s in these cases where the opinion of the public matters in how well a person is able to recover, depending on the severity of the crime.  Sometimes the audience will show sympathy and allow the person to recover their status, like the aforementioned Robert Downey Jr. (drug possession), or to another extant Winona Ryder (shoplifting), both who committed punishable but not unforgivable crimes.  The harsher reactions tend to follow after more severe crimes, such as sexual or physical abuse perpetrated by the person.  In some of these cases, there seems to be different degrees that we’ll tolerate a persons personal life in opposition to how we’ll view their work on film.  Directors Woody Allen and Roman Polanski have both run up against this dilemma, with histories of sexual crimes coming to light in the press.  In Woody’s case they’ve been limited to accusations of child molestation (though not formally charged), but in Polanski’s case he has been convicted with the crime of statutory rape and in response, he’s fled the country and lived in exile in order to avoid jail time.  Despite how guilty both men may be, they continue to make movies to this day, and many of them are still quite good.  Polanski in fact won an Oscar for directing The Pianist (2002), but because of his self-imposed exile, he’s unable to claim it.  This presents the awkward dilemma of whether or not honoring a movie is right if the person who made it has done something incredibly unlawful.  For both Allen and Polanski, they’ve managed to stay relevant even despite the tarnish to their public image.  But, make no mistake, if the evidence proves misconduct on their part, their celebrity status should never shield them from facing punishment for the crimes they’ve committed.  And in the end, even if celebrity status does help them out of a jam, a lifetime of misdeeds will still ruin a person’s reputation for eternity, as we’re seeing unfold right now in the case of Bill Cosby.

With regards to whether or not we should honor a person’s film despite their misdeeds, the answer should always be yes.  And that’s because film-making is a collaborative art.  The director has the most influence, of course, but there are hundreds of people who have a hand in the making of a movie, and dismissing a movie just because of something bad that one person involved had done outside of work would be doing a disservice to everyone else.  Some people were wondering whether the accusations against Woody Allen would hurt actress Cate Blanchett’s chances of winning an Oscar that year for appearing in Allen’s film Blue Jasmine (2013).  It didn’t, she still won and she thanked him personally in her acceptance speech, even despite the controversy.  I believe that it’s that belief that a film is more than just the vision of it’s director and instead a collaboration of many talented efforts that enables us to accept art on it’s own merits.  Film history is full of examples where influential art often comes with less than ideal baggage attached to them.  D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation wrote the language of modern cinema that we still adhere to today, but we also have to live with the fact that the same movie was a piece of racist propaganda that made the Ku Klux Klan look heroic.  The works of Sergei Eisenstein and Leni Reifenstahl also represent great artistic advances in film-making, but their films were also in the service of promoting horribly brutal dictatorships at the same time.  Even the many wartime propaganda films that were sometimes made by some of our greatest filmmakers (John Ford, George Stevens, and John Huston for example) often come across as xenophobic in attitude when taken out of context of their period.  Attitudes change over time, but celluloid remains constant, and not every artistic expression ages well.  Still, we have the ability to discern the craft from the intent, as well the cloud around their creators, and be able to respect the creation while not wholeheartedly embracing everything about it.

The worst thing that we can do is to standardize morality around art in order to prevent a shadow of controversy from surrounding it.  Sometimes controversy can be a good thing for a work of art, as long as it generates discussion.  Sadly, many can’t accept anything that challenges their world views and that leads to acts of censorship.  This has always been a struggle for Hollywood, and for the most part they’ve managed to keep outside influences from imposing their morality upon them.  Still, a self-policed standard in Hollywood has led to unfortunate overreaches by the industry, including the restrictive Hays Code that they were pressured to adopt by religious organizations, or the even more intrusive Blacklist that was created in response to the House on Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) led by Senator Joseph McCarthy.  The Blacklist was especially destructive because it put good people out of work simply for their political beliefs, or their refusal to cooperate with the committee.  This is a case where a standardized code in place to avoid controversy only creates a worst atmosphere for the industry.  Hollywood believed they were doing the right thing for itself by avoiding the cloud of controversy, but with such an unfair overreaction that put a lot of people out of work, Hollywood only made themselves look weak and untrustworthy as a result.  And the unfair standards that they’ve place on themselves wasn’t just limited to political controversies.  Actress Ingrid Bergman was forced into exile for many years because of the revelation of her adulterous affair with director Roberto Roselinni, which kept the Hollywood icon out of the limelight for many years.  Again, no one would ever have judged a person’s work in film any different had Hollywood not brought attention to it with such reactionary aversion to anything controversial.  As time goes on, we can see that tabloid scandal has a much shorter shelf-life than the work of a true artist and that censorship is not a practice that helps to secure a good audience reaction over time.

Despite the tight controls that the industry puts on it’s talent, it’s ultimately up to the audience to decide if the final product is worthy of attention or not.  Certainly, it’s hard to ignore the real life drama of an entertainer’s exploits outside of work, especially when the Hollywood press makes such a big deal out of it.  But, at the same time, a movie should be able to stand on it’s own; by it’s own merits even if it includes the involvement of some very unsavory people.  There is still value in a well told story crafted with bold artistic choices.  Despite what I think about people like Mel Gibson, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and other controversial figures, I am still interested in watching their films, because they are still capable of putting effort into their art.  The ones that I actually hold more disdain for me in the industry are people who have just gotten lazy and put little effort into their work, instead just coasting by on their fame.  And that seems to be what really makes someone undesirable in Hollywood; being unlikable to the point where no one wants to work for them.  Gibson, Allen, and Polanski may have done bad things in their life, but they are at least professionals when they’re on the set and that’s why people still want to work with them.  If you’re a bully on set who demands too much, as has been rumored with filmmakers like David O. Russell and Jason Reitman, or are a self-absorbed narcissist such as been reported with actors like Shia LaBeouf and Kathrine Heigl, then you begin to see a pattern where the person gets fewer options given to them.  Even though it’s always hard to appear to be a good person, especially in the oppressive limelight of Hollywood, a commitment to making good art does go a long way and in the end, art can overcome the dark shadow cast by it’s creator by just being intriguing, thought-provoking, and overall entertaining in the end.  And in turn, a person may find redemption through the good work that they do.

We all go to the movies either for entertainment, or for escape.  The business requires a consistent flow of titles to choose from, and at the very least, they must hold our attention for an hour or more.  Given the complexities of production, it’s really a miracle of the industry that full length features have become the norm.  Anyone in the film industry will tell you that it’s a long process getting a film made, and the fact that they have to produce a minimum of 90 minutes of content that feels cohesive is quite daunting every time they do it.  It’s probably why full length features are the most valued form of entertainment made today, and it’s not an undeserving distinction to have.  But, what does that say for a different kind of market that specializes in shorter, more compact films.  The Short Movie market is somewhat undervalued in the film industry compared to it’s bigger counterpart.  They are usually little seen by the public at large and really only get spotlighted at the various festival screening or rediscovered many years later in some university’s video library.  Sadly, this leads to a reputation that Short films are worthless in the grand scheme of things and are better left out of the conversation when discussing the extensive work done by filmmakers and actors.  But, I would argue that Short films are not just worthy of the spotlight, but are even more deserving of praise than most full length films.  In Short Films, you see an exciting burst of creativity and experimentation that is rarely seen in Hollywood today, and that’s why they are much more than the scant few minutes in total that they run.

We all know the kinds of movies that we classify as a short film.  These are the films that usually run a half hour or less, were made on a shoe-string budget, and tell an intimate and sometimes unusual story.  Because of these elements, short films have a decidedly non-Hollywood feel to them, and that partially contributes to the lack of prestige that they usually get.  The Academy Awards try their best to give some of these films their due, but even then, most people dismiss that part of the show as the “who cares” awards.  But, honestly, people should care.  If it were not for the hard work and thought put into these short movies, the big ones would cease to be relevant.  Many of the innovations made in cinema over the years got it’s start in short subject features, including advances in CGI technology and camera techniques, as well as being the incubator for rising talent both in front and behind the camera.  Some of the most successful filmmakers today got their start making short films before they advanced to feature length, and it’s usually the shorts themselves that propelled them forward.  Short films allow people a bit more freedom than what the industry allows and in this industry that is something that is valued highly among artists.  Not only that, but the short film market that runs through multiple channels like film festivals and streaming services also opens up the door to multiple diverse voices that normally would not be heard or seen in the more restrictive full length market.  So, while the movie going public might show apathy towards Short Films overall, these same movies could be among the most important made today, and should be valued more as a result.

Short films haven’t always been a niche market in Hollywood however.  For a time in it’s early history, short movies were just as common as the full length features.  When people went to the movies in the early days, they weren’t just paying for one film, but an entire program filled with newsreels, cartoons, and yes, even short subjects played along side their featured presentation.  The short movies (or two-reelers, as the industry called them) were not particularly geared for narrative purposes.  More often they were part of on-going series, either for light entertainment or for educational purposes.  This was the realm of the Three Stooges and Laurel & Hardy; vaudeville acts that allowed their patented routines to play out in quick, hilarious sketches.  Serials were also present in those days, allowing for on-going, feature length narratives to play out over several weeks, giving theaters an extra reason for repeat business with their audiences.  These films were popular, but far from unconventional.  More often than not they were cheap to make and were often taken for granted by the industry.  As long as they filled a program lineup at the movie theater, Hollywood cared little how they looked or sounded.  Once television took hold, viewing habits changed and the short film disappeared from the local theaters.  Over that time, a short film more or less evolved into the experimental, closed off market place that we know today: cut off from the machine of Hollywood and somewhat liberated at the same time.

There is one area of Short film that did remain a part of the Hollywood system, at least some of the time, and that’s the animated short industry.  Today, when we look at the short films that gain the most attention, it is usually the ones that are animated. In fact, the only time you will see an short feature shown in theaters across the country nowadays is when it’s attached to an animated film; a small little call back to the early days of theater programming.  Disney and Pixar are two animation giants that still practice this today, and it’s not hard to see why; both studios built their foundations on the success of their early shorts and would not be here had those been a failure.  In fact, both Disney and Pixar’s mascots are characters that were born and popularized out of short cartoons; Mickey Mouse for Disney and Luxo Jr. for Pixar.  But, it’s not just these giants that continue the practice of keeping short cartoons in the spotlight.  Dreamworks and Blue Sky have recently gone into the practice of promoting their upcoming features with introductory shorts released in advance, such as the “Scrat” shorts that are released in preparation of each upcoming Ice Age movie.  Animated shorts are also the best way for up-and-coming animators to make a name for themselves.  Aardman Studios gained notoriety in the stop-motion world through their critically acclaimed Creature Comforts (1987) and Wallace and Gromit shorts, long before they started making features.  And an independent animator named Don Hertzfeldt is making some of the boldest and unique films today solely with the use of hand drawn stick figures, such as his recently nominated World of Tomorrow (2015).  So, while short films have been closed off for the most part from the industry, it’s in the animation field that we see the most continued interaction and spotlight between the two markets.

But, that’s not to say that live action shorts have no connection with today’s film industry.  In fact, the short film market is where the filmmakers of the future are often cutting their teeth and finding their voice.  For many, the short form is where most filmmakers begin, either shooting home movies with their friends when they are young, or working with a collaborative team during their studying at film school.  Film school movies sometimes can feel like it’s own class of film in a sense, because it shows the filmmaker’s learning curve documented in bold experimentation.  If made available, many of you should check out as many student films as you can.  In them, you see how filmmakers, writers and actors that are still learning the trade make use of their limitations and tell their own story their own way.  Having gone through the film school experience myself, I saw first hand the value that a film short has in developing a filmmakers skill.  It teaches you how to manage a story due to the shortened time frame, makes you rethink the stories you want to tell and find new avenues to present them, and above all, it teaches you how to manage expectations.  Sometimes an idea might be too big to contain in a short, but small ideas can also expand beyond what was these limitations as well.  Sometimes we see student filmmakers turn their shorts into features after making a name for themselves, sometimes based on their own works from school.  Fresh new filmmaker Damien Chazelle took his low budget short Whiplash and turned it into an Oscar-winning feature.  Neill Blomkamp likewise took his experimental, resume builder Alive in Joburg (2005) and expanded it into the box office hit District 9 (2009).  So, short films can often be the place where small beginnings can turn into huge possibilities.

And that’s why Short films tend to be where you see the most exciting and diverse stories told on film today.  Looking at the live action shorts nominated this year at the Oscars, you see a wide array of stories told, some that Hollywood itself seems to shy away from too often.  You have Ave Maria, a culture clash comedy set in one of the most war torn areas of the world (the West Bank); Shok, a story about two boys caught up in the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo during the 90’s; Everything Will Be Okay, a story about child abduction told through the eyes of the abducted child; Stutterer, a story about a man who is unable to express himself because of his speech impediment; and Day One, the story of a female interpreter for the US Army starting her first ever tour in  Afghanistan.  And these were only the five finalists selected out of the many that were eligible for the Academy Award.  I try to watch all the nominated shorts every year and it always strikes me how these films are so unafraid to tackle harder issues in a subdued and honest way, as compared to the way that Hollywood would take these issues on.   Perhaps it’s the independent nature of the market that allows for the creative freedom, but the amazing thing I always find is the boldness of the stories told.  These are films made by filmmakers who clearly believe in what they are doing.  They are not cynical or commercial; they are the kinds of movies that make us think afterwards.  And in these shorts, we see the ultimate purpose that all filmmakers want to have, which is to tell stories that matter.  They don’t always have to have a message, but they still need to resonate and that comes out of a full investment on the part of the storyteller.  That’s why I often look at the Shorts as a film-making safe haven, where the industry nonsense is stripped away allowing pure film-making to blossom.

But, at the same time, the short format is not entirely disregarded in the industry.  There are many avenues taken by filmmakers to work in a short film form, and its not always related to story.  Sometimes great film-making can rise out of little things like music videos and even commercials.  Yes, even these can be classified as short movies, though certainly worlds away from the awarded ones we see in film festivals and attached to full length features.  Though they come out of a different industry all together, music videos do require the same level of film-making skill behind them, and sometimes even require a more complex level of production.  While many filmmakers never rise out of the music video world, a couple have made a name for themselves in this market and have since developed into acclaimed filmmakers on their own.  Few remember this, but director David Fincher developed his very unique style while making music videos like Madonna’s Vogue and George Michael’s Freedom, long before he brought it to the big screen with movies like Seven (1995) and Fight Club (1999).  Spike Jonze likewise gained notoriety for his experimental videos for the Beastie Boys and Fatboy Slim, before Hollywood allowed him to make Being John Malkovich (1999).  Sometimes even established filmmakers can turn to these shorter experiments as a refresher for their own styles.  Michael Jackson was noteworthy for attracting big time filmmakers to make his music videos, like Martin Scorsese who directed his Bad video, or Francis Ford Coppola, who directed Captain EO, which played in Disney parks around the world.  And I’m sure that many of you probably never realize that some of the commercials that you watch everyday on TV had been crafted by the likes of the Coen Brothers or even David Lynch.  It shows that the short form is a highly valued format of storytelling for all filmmakers and is often where many of them find the freedom to try new things.

So, despite seeming small compared to their full length brothers, short movies should not be undervalued.  In many ways, it’s the short film market that enables the feature film industry to flourish at all.  In it, we see the emergence of new voices and well as new techniques, and the creative freedom to let these elements flourish.  Short films are certainly valued in some way by the industry, who do look at Shorts for inspiration or new talent, as well as venue for established pros to get experimental, but audiences still seem to disregard the short film format a little too much.  I don’t know if it’s because they view short films as not worth their time because in their eyes length means quality, or if because short films have just developed a reputation over time as being pretentious fare.  Yes, there are some short films that are a little full of themselves, but no more so than any other form of entertainment, especially full length features.  I think presentation has affected the way short films are viewed by the public over time.  Animated shorts are thankfully still widely seen, but that’s only because they have the benefit of their full length brethren to carry them.  Live action shorts don’t have that kind of support and are only seen when you seek them out.  Sadly, quite a few great shorts fall through the cracks and fade into obscurity.  One wishes that Hollywood would bring back the kind of programming that they used to have, but that is unlikely because viewing habits have changed.  For those who want to see the great short films that have yet to be discovered, there are many that have thankfully ended up on places like YouTube or Vimeo.  Itunes and other streaming services also make newer shorts more widely available as well.  And in the rare cases, I highly recommend trying to see these shorts on the big screen whenever possible.  Though short in length, these films do end up having a big impact, and it’s sometimes in some of the most unexpected ways.