Could You Be the Greatest Sci-Fi Filmmaker on the Planet? 

The Quantum Shorts film festival wants to know, and the deadline for submissions is coming up on December 1

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Quantum Shorts 2016, organized by The Centre for Quantum Technologies, calls itself a "festival for quantum-inspired films.” The rules for the competition are simple: Film makers should craft a great five-minute story inspired by quantum physics and submit it to the festival by December 1, 2016. The film should be suitable for general audiences and either be in English or have English subtitles. There is no entry fee. Up to ten short listed films will be screened by Scientific American and Nature on our video platforms starting Feb 3, 2017. The judges’ top pick is awarded $1500, second place takes home $1000, and the People’s Choice gets $500. All short listed films are paid a $250 screening fee and get a free one year subscription to Scientific American.

As one of the judges, I can tell you what I value in a film. Of course, since this is a competitive festival, I want to know that the film fits within the festival guidelines, including relating to quantum physics in a meaningful way, respecting intellectual property, and achieving high tech standards. The visuals should be powerful, beautiful, and grab me within the first 3 seconds. I like a simple narrative arc I could explain to someone else. But I also want the story to have enough subtlety and creativity that my description ends with “but you have to see it —it is so much more than what I can say in words alone.”

I want to learn something I did not know or appreciate before. I hate films that make me feel stupid or uninformed, which happens when the tone is either condescending or calibrated too high. Finally, I like films that show confidence in themselves. I tend to roll my eyes when a character in a film says “Wow” to indicate to the audience that that is how they should feel at that moment. If a film maker has constructed the scene right, the audience will say “wow." If not, then having the character say it on screen won’t fix the problem.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Good luck to all the entrants! For the rest of us, I can’t wait to see some talented film makers show us something we never saw before!

FYI, here are some examples from past winners 

Eliene Augenbraun is a multimedia science producer, formerly Nature Research's Multimedia Managing Editor and Scientific American's senior video producer. Before that, she founded and ran ScienCentral, an award-winning news service providing ABC and NBC with science news stories. She has a PhD in Biology.

More by Eliene Augenbraun

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe