John Paines wrote:You're putting me in an impossible position; if I decline to celebrate the material it amounts to an insult. And the term "well produced" is probably too vague anyway. It may be better to talk in terms of production values, dramatic/literary qualities and performance, and distinguish between them. Shorts, after all, don't often "get it together", thanks to limited resources. (It's my view that the rare ones which do "get it together" are "well produced", requiring money and resources beyond anyone's personal means, but never mind, that amounts to a circular argument.)
In North America the established festival circuit for shorts where applications are still accepted would include Sundance, Slamdance, SXSW, Telluride, San Francisco Int'l, Toronto Shorts, Tribeca, Aspen Shortsfest, Palm Springs, Seattle Int'l, Maryland Film Festival, Florida Film Festival, among a dozen or so other regional festivals.
Acceptance at the established festivals can be capricious, especially now when identity-politics dominates the selections, but nothing can be concluded about the rest. Acceptance rates, financing sources, the staffing, etc. tend to be matters of concern.
But now your moving the goal posts.
As you think that a handful of North American festival, where knowing someone is going to help determine you being accepted, are the only festivals validating quality/production.
I've seen a lot of downright dreadful films that have made it into those festivals.
As someone else stated. Shorts are also a way to improve one's talents.
One can sit at home and have ideas, waiting for the planets to align, so they can go out and spend a fortune on something that won't make any real money.
Or one can go out, make shirt films, and improve their skills.