[FilmShcool] What's more fun?

Hey guys, just getting and opinion here, what's more fun, finding a film school or chewing rocksalt? I'm really stuck between the two.

Everyone claims to be the best, and it wouldn't be a problem if I could get into somewhere like NYU or Columbia, but I'm looking at R.I.T., Syracuse, Ithaca, and WrightState. I can't find an honest or wide ranging source to help me rank them. It's pretty cut throat, anyone else got dem Hollywood bound woes?

And yes, the title is on purpose.

 

I've never heard anything good about going to film school.

//they mostly come at night, mostly

//watching south park

//unhelpful

 

USC is the best. Then UCLA, NYC, Columbia. Then the rest are equally-rankable wannabes.

Anyways, if I were you I'd take the rock salt. At least that's a taste you can get out of your mouth.

M. Scott

 

Hmmmm, B.F.A., or B.A. and Masters?

 

I went to RIT, myself. Ehhh...I d'know. I mean, it all depends on what you want out out of your film career, I guess.

See, the teachers at RIT are pretentious @#$%s, the lot of them, especially Howard Lester, who hopefully isn't the head of the film department anymore, but was about ten years ago when I attended. They all think of film as 'The Great Communicator' and that every film must have, as its major purpose and core, a Message?, and be about the triumph of the human spirit or something; the idea of film as entertainment and, you know, actual fun is not only alien to them, but actually anathema.
So while they were expecting 'Schindler's List' or 'Roger & Me', I was trying to make Star Wars...and getting bad grades because of content rather than technique. They didn't see any value in science fiction at all, and rather insultingly told me it was 'kid's stuff', and that I was selling out. (Selling out??? I was chasing my dreams!)
Now, on the one hand, I can see their point of view; a lot of sci-fi that gets made is schlock and goes right to video for a damned good reason. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean that sci-fi is inherently crap and just because a picture has tons of FX doesn't mean that's the only reason it was made or that it has no value. Flash and glitz can come with good characterization and plotting...but the staff at RIT doesn't see it that way at all.

However, RIT's film program is one of the few that puts a camera in your hands in the first year instead of teaching you theory for a few years before you ever film a thing.

So it's a trade off...can you endure four years of making movies set in present day with no FX where the payoff comes in your career when you actually get to make what you want? Or is your goal more to just make movies, any movies, and not being allowed to make adventures laden with FX isn't a problem?

Sorry, I can't tell you about the other schools; I never went to 'em. But that's my take on RIT. Obviously, I'm a trifle bitter about it, but I'm not going to lie or sugarcoat my experiences in the name of tact...'tact' is a four-letter word, a noun, meaning "A mutual agreement to be full of crap."

 

You'll be sad to know that Howard is alive and well and I had my second oppurtunity to meet him last weekend. I hated him just as much the second time. The director of Wright State is only slightly better, must be the lack of wookie eyebrows.

 

'tact' is a four-letter word, a noun, meaning "A mutual agreement to be full of crap."

Derived from the root "TAC", meaning "full of crap."



M. Scott

 

I say NO SCHOOL EVER!

*not helpful*

 

Derived from the root "TAC", meaning "to be full of crap."

BAM!

 

You'll be sad to know that Howard is alive and well and I had my second oppurtunity to meet him last weekend. I hated him just as much the second time.

Yeah, he's the one who actively insulted me and my motives and goals for a film career. He's the one who told me what I wanted to do was 'crap' and 'kid stuff'. Ugh... Well, it's good to know that we share the same impression of the man, and if you choose not to go to RIT, it won't just be because I bad-mouthed the place on TFN.

 

Yeah, he's the one who actively insulted me and my motives and goals for a film career. He's the one who told me what I wanted to do was 'crap' and 'kid stuff'.

I bet this year's Academy Awards shut him up some.

M. Scott

 

It's a little on the pricy side of things, but USC is fantastic. I spent the summer out there in a program and was very impressed (only a junior in high school now, so I still have some time before jumping into college). The advantages to USC are pretty simple (UCLA shares some of the same as well): it's in the middle of LA so it's each to stay caught up in Hollywood, the school can set up internships for you with local productions, and the emplyment-right-outta-college-into-the-industry rate is around 90%. The facilities there are amazing and up to date with all the latest equipment, softwares, etc. In contrast to UCLA however, USC provides your funding for most of your film projects and teaches you the hollywood side of things whereas UCLA makes you fundraise your own film and teaches you the independent side of things. To top USC off, considering we're on a Star Wars site, George Lucas went there too.

 

The advantages to USC are pretty simple (UCLA shares some of the same as well): it's in the middle of LA so it's each to stay caught up in Hollywood, the school can set up internships for you with local productions, and the emplyment-right-outta-college-into-the-industry rate is around 90%.

If you don't mind fetching coffee. This applies to all film schools, frankly. They don't care what degree you have, they care what talent you have (okay, they really only care how much money you can make them, but you make it by being talented).

The facilities there are amazing and up to date with all the latest equipment, softwares, etc.

The problem is -- and UCLA is the same way -- you can only use those facilities and equipment and softwares if you are working on a project specifically assigned for a class. That rules out fan films and pretty much anything you want to do outside of whatever they tell you to. I know people both at USC and UCLA and those contacts -- through no fault of their own -- haven't been able to get me anything at all. I've had more luck in the actual industry than in film schools.

In contrast to UCLA however, USC provides your funding for most of your film projects and teaches you the hollywood side of things whereas UCLA makes you fundraise your own film and teaches you the independent side of things.

What USC DOESN'T tell you, however, is that BECAUSE they fund all your films, they OWN all your films. And as to your other point, I don't personally think the "Hollywood side of things" is worth learning.

To top USC off, considering we're on a Star Wars site, George Lucas went there too.

Yet discovered he prefers the independent side. Interesting to consider, no?

M. Scott

 

Here's a question. I am currently attending UNL and majoring in Film and New Media (technically majoring in Theater with an emphasis in F&NM since they haven't seen fit to give film it's own major yet.) But I realize Nebraska isn't exactly the hub of all filmmaking.

So, I'd like to finish off my four years here then attend graduate school at USC or UCLA to get an "actual" film degree. Am I thinking along the right lines or do I have to give all my time to those schools from the get-go?

 

Why give your time to schools at all, I'm still saying. Just make films.

M. Scott

 

Because I can't fund myself to Africa or Whereverthehellistan to film for documentaries, which is what I want to end up doing anyways.

 

I'm completely with Mike on this issue. I'm going to some school, or some program in some school, simply because if whatever place I end up serving coffee at is stuck between a talented guy and a talented guy who also served coffee on So and So: the Movie, the latter will get hired if all other controls are equal.

 

If you don't mind fetching coffee. This applies to all film schools, frankly. They don't care what degree you have, they care what talent you have (okay, they really only care how much money you can make them, but you make it by being talented).

Very valid point and I agree. But contrary to the common beliefs that "talent," "profit potential," and/or "film school" gets you into the business is a complete falsity. It's the connections to people in the business that gets you in. Yes, talent, business and school helps, but they remain to be hard ways around. The internship deal forces ya to make some connections, however small, and widdles you into the business from the deep end. All the comments I made are from a kid who lives in Colorado who has no connections, and right now, film school in the middle of LA sounds the best to me.

What USC DOESN'T tell you, however, is that BECAUSE they fund all your films, they OWN all your films.

Yep, another fact about the school that sucks. I would go to USC to learn my craft though, not to make movies I could sell or distribute or whatever. Personally, I can't imagine a 5 minute film getting anywhere at all. Even though USC owns your films, it's not like they deny you the ability to put it into portfolios and junk to get your your jobs. Similarly, if you are assuming that the school wont let you release any of your movies at all, your poorly informed. Sites like studentfilms.com are loaded with movies USC students have made.

And as to your other point, I don't personally think the "Hollywood side of things" is worth learning.

Totally agree, because it dampers personal creativity. However, Hollywood's the easiest way in at the beginning of your career unless of course you have enough money to start your own production company and major film, and then have the luck to get it distributed. I plan on suffering Hollywood for a film or two and pulling a Lucas and breaking off into my own self-manageable company.

Yet discovered he prefers the independent side. Interesting to consider, no?

I think everybody should. But like I just addressed, Lucas had to go through Hollywood first to get where he is. That's all I'm saying and USC prepares you for that.

However, Spielberg came outta the independent aspects of UCLA and is doing just as well, so it's really hard to gage.

Overall, if you have connections into the business, have made great stuff, feel like you can squeeze into the business on your own without flashy degrees or awards, then by all means, dont waste several years of your life. But for people who haven't gotten into the deal yet, or who are like me and dont live anywhere near any film action at all, I would definetly reccomend school, and if you can afford it, a good one like USC, UCLA,, and NYU (magazine I have says those are the top three in the US anyway. It also says Colorado University is like top 5...and I recommend you hit that school up for film if you like to party every other night as well...haha).

 

Alright, something to keep in mind when considering NYU is the fact that you don't touch a camera until your third year. Your first two are spent studying film theory.

Depending on your level of experience, I'd highly recommend The School of Visual Arts (SVA), also in New York. If you've made a couple of films before you get there, it might not be your best bet. If you haven't, though, they'll certainly give you a great grounding in film. Most people in the school have NOT made a film before getting there, so if you have, things will be a bit slow. I, for example, ended up leaving after two years, and quickly got a job as a cinematographer.

Honestly, I don't know much about the schools out in Cali... I wasn't really interested in leaving New York. For the schools here, though, I have a pretty good idea of what's doing.


- Rico

 

When you say 'film' in reference to what a school will look at and notice, ALL OPINIONS OF 'FILM' ASIDE, do you mean 'celluloid strp of some pre-specified width' or 'sequence of moving images with sound, format nonwithstanding?'

 

Here's something I wonder about, does Irvin Kershner still teach at USC? He's probably retired but I was just wondering if that was confirmed or not since I hadn't heard anything on it.

 

In my experience, schools don't really care what you shoot on.


- Rico

 

You know, I really wish people would stop using success stories like Lucas and Spielberg as a way to gauge chances of breaking into film. 'Cause, I hate to tell you this people, that was thirty years ago! Hollywood's changed! They made it big because Hollywood was on the verge of switching tracks; with a "new generation of filmmakers" at its head.

If you want to consider sucess, look at today's breakthrough filmmakers. Kerry Conran, for instance. (Which is a great example of "it's all about who you know".) Conversly, fanfilm's own Sandy Collora is a great example of where raw talent can lead you. (Not to say that both cases don't involve some level of talent or networking.)

 

I highly recommend film schools. Period. If you haven't learned yet, you'll soon learn just how important networking really is. It is much, much harder to network your way into "comfortable" places in the industry when you have nothing to show. Film schools provide you with a lot of that. First and foremost they help you build a strong portfolio for you to carry with you and expand upon. Again, much harder to get this on your own with no one backing you up if you choose the other path. The contacts you make while in these schools is enough to build a very solid foundation. When Production-Company_A is coming to town and they are in need of a (good) 2nd AD, the first thing they do is call some friends. Hopefully, that'll be your friend they're calling - and furthermore refers them to YOU. Third, how much access to equipment do you have? On your own, at best you could probably scrounge enough money together to pickup an 8mm camera and projector, and may have enough left over to buy a couple cans of film. Oh yeah, but you need to edit. Guess MediaStudio Pro will have to do, right? Wrong! Where else are you going to have nearly unlimited access to $200k ProTools stations to work on your soundtrack? Where else are you going to be "onlining" your project on a big Avid station? Joe up the street certainly won't have that. Lastly, there are some things that you're just going to learn from professionals as your mentors that you're not going to learn out on your own, from a book, or on the internet. You're not going to learn cinematography from a book, but you will from a school - you provide the will, they provide the means.

What gets me is how many people knock film schools, yet they've never stepped foot inside one. Even more ironic than that are those they say film schools suck, yet they write that message during their Study Hall between French class and Gym class in highschool. Granted, film school isn't for everyone but thats the point. Figure out what it is you want to do with your career and plan accordingly. If you're looking to break into the new world of digital filmmaking, a traditional film school may not be for you. Likewise, if you're looking to learn the art of cinematography, the schools specializing in digital filmmaking might not suit your needs. Do some research and find one that seems to fit your agenda. And don't be afraid to email, call, or talk to the professors at any of these schools.

Don't rule out the lesser known, less glamorous film schools. Just because Big-Time-Hollywood-Director_A didn't go there, does not make for a bad school. In fact, you may also get some good results in searching for a university that has a film program or major, but isn't completely (known) just for that purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure USC, UCLA, Columbia, etc. are all good schools, but are they really _worth_ that much more than your ordinary film school? Wearing a USC jacket makes you look cool, but doesn't mean you know jack about filmmaking.

The university I attend has an awesome film program. While its more known for its business school, its drama and communications department (are) nationally recognized. The very first semester, we were making 8mm (silent) films. We had 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm cameras in our hands that very same semester (more of a teaser at that point - afterall, who in their right mind would let a first semester student fool around with a nice, shiny, new Arri 35mm camera?). By the third semester or so, we were shooting 16mm double system - editing on a traditional flatbed (for tradition's sake) and on Avid (not your $300 copy of Avid Xpress either (although they had plenty of those stations as well).

At the same time, I was working through our 3D animation/visual effects track as well - modeling/animating in Max and Maya, shooting against a professional greenscreen, compositing in Combustion, etc. And then comes the equipment room - full of modern and vintage equipment starting with 8mm cameras that are much older than I, all the way to the half

 

So are you going to tell us the name of said Uberversity, or are you going to wait for someone to ask?