I’m looking for some honest outside perspective from festival programmers, screeners, reviewers, or filmmakers who have a good sense of how shorts are evaluated.
I have a roughly 12-minute horror short currently on the festival circuit. It’s a recovered-media/found-footage-style film dealing with conspiracy culture, AI, isolation and psychological deterioration. The film is professionally produced, and the response from people who have actually watched it has generally been very strong.
The festival results, however, have been much tougher.
So far we’ve had 22 completed decisions: 2 selections and 20 rejections. One of the two selections has since advanced to Finalist status. We intentionally aimed fairly high with a number of submissions, including several major and highly competitive genre festivals, but we’ve also now been rejected by a number of smaller or seemingly strong-fit horror/genre festivals where I thought the film had a more realistic chance.
What has made the results difficult to interpret is that the actual feedback has often been much more positive than the acceptance rate would suggest.
One horror festival scored the film 7.7/10 overall, with most individual categories receiving an 8. Another festival provided a very positive written jury review and specifically praised the filmmaking, editing, production design, sound and thematic execution. A third festival director told me directly that there was “no negative feedback,” that their team really liked the film, and that it narrowly missed fitting into one or two programming blocks.
I’ve also had a professional producer/festival judge review both the screenplay and finished film. Her assessment was very positive on the technical and creative execution and she originally felt it should be competitive with strong Tier 2 festivals.
At the same time, I have received one particularly useful piece of critical feedback from a programmer at a larger genre festival, and there is some overlap between that note and something the producer above had previously wondered about. I’m intentionally not including that criticism here because I don’t want to influence anyone’s reaction before they watch.
At this point I’m trying to determine what the results are actually telling me:
Is the film good but simply not quite strong enough for the level of festivals we initially targeted?
Is there something about the film itself that is consistently keeping programmers from advancing it?
Is it difficult to program because of runtime, tone, structure, subject matter, etc.?
Or am I over-interpreting a rejection rate that can simply happen in an extremely crowded short-film landscape?
I’m not looking for reassurance, and I’m not trying to argue with festival decisions. I’d genuinely rather hear, “Here’s why I wouldn’t program this,” if that’s your reaction.
The film is still privately circulating, so I don’t want to post the screener publicly, but I’d be happy to DM an unlisted link to anyone with relevant festival programming/screening/review experience who would be willing to watch it.
The most useful questions for me would be:
- If this came across your screening queue, what would keep you from advancing it?
- Was there a point where your engagement dropped?
- Did anything feel underdeveloped, unclear, overlong or too compressed?
- What level/type of festival would you realistically see this playing at?
- Does anything about the film make it harder to program even if you think it’s good?
I’m especially interested in first impressions before I share any of the feedback I’ve already received.
Thanks to anyone willing to take the time. I’m trying to learn as much as possible from this film before deciding whether the right move is to adjust the submission strategy, revisit anything in the cut, or simply take the lessons into the next project.