Is Film School Obsolete?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 10:19AM Dave Basulto of the most badass Filmmaking Central podcast, on which I had the pleasure of appearing at the end of last year, has been featured in a very interesting New York Times article. If you don't have an account, the entire text is available here. Here's a taste:
When David Basulto decided to become a movie producer, the first thing he did was enroll in a class at a film school in Los Angeles. The second thing he did was drop out.
“I absolutely didn’t learn a damn thing from the course I took, so I went out and bought a couple of books,” Mr. Basulto said. Home-schooling worked where the classroom failed. After 45 days Mr. Basulto, who is 41, had raised enough money to produce his first feature...And so on. Like I said, good stuff.
Personally, I had a great time at film school. I met friends who went on to become luminaries in the animation and effects worlds, some of whom I still work with today. I made movies with borrowed equipment and got internships at Oscar-winning effects houses. I saw plays and concerts and bootleg John Woo movies, had formative social experiences, and most importantly learned that wherever there was a system—even one designed to help you—true success is only to be found by working around, not within, that system.
But that was before thousand-dollar HD cameras, and before any cheap computer could be an onlining station capable of mastering a film. Has the equation changed? Seems to me the answer is yes if you're focused on results, but what about the journey itself?
Reader Comments (13)
I don't know if this is the right place to discuss David's claim about film school - but I have to speak up. As someone who has capitalized on an EXQUISITE film school eduction, and as a professor of film I have to say that his issue is not with film school perse - but with the problem that there are very few of any quality out there. As a professor I can tell you - the Deans pressure you to teach as little as possible to give the students a false sense of accomplishment. At $30,000 a year, of course the students should complain that "film school sucks" - it's actually capitalism rearing its ugly head. Good film schools need great teachers and fabulous equipment. The "bad" schools prefer to spend a lot of money on PR and make themselves sound fabulous. They are a scam. That said - the relationship with a REAL teacher, a mentor is invaluable to any filmmakers career. YOU CAN'T BUY THAT IN A BOX ON THE INTERNET! I think the Maine workshops are a great example of a solid film school that is not a structured 4 year commitement. You can attend whenever you want, how often you want. The teachers are amazing DP's for instance - and you get to buy them beers and pick their brains all you want. Another experience that would be hard to achieve in a box. I am sorry there are such lame schools out there, racking in cash and duping naive filmmakers to-be. But not ALL schools are like that. Sweeping generalizations are not the way to talk about this subject.
I too went to film school...and again, this was when we shot on film. Video was available, but those were the TV departments, and they were HUGE packages. So pre-affordable DV cameras, and right at the beginning of Avid's encroachment into Hollywood. And AVIDs, as we know, weren't cheap. So if you shot on film, you had to edit on a flatbed, or moviola, or Avid, or tape to tape linear editor. None of which was available to the masses.
Now that they are...I can see the validity of stating that film school is obsolete...to some. I am a hands on guy, and need people to show me stuff, or I need to watch it, so going to film school (Montana State iffin you were wondering) was valuable. I learned every aspect of the craft. And I met a lot of people and was in a network that landed me jobs.
Still, if you have the drive, and the talent, and read books, watch movies...and practice...a lot...you can get by without film school. Put your tuition towards your films. SMALL amounts...for the first ones. Don't blow your wad on your first film. They tend to suck. Mine sure did.
I think it depends on the student and the school. Some like David have done well without it! Some like Marco did well with it.
I went to film school at Florida State.
Shot all my projects on film, with all high-end film equipment. We had G&E trucks. We had cranes, steady cams, 2 state-of-the-art soundstages.
On the post side, we all edited on AVIDs. Even edited one project on a flatbed.
The experience was priceless.
Cirriculum doesn't mean much to me. But being in an environment with other students trying to top each other (in a friendly way of course) was the key.
Video is great. But when you have 2 400' rolls of film to make your movie - and no more. I had to choose every shot very carefully. I had to get my shots with as few takes as possible. It made me more creative. It forced me to think things through.
To top it all off. Went to college for free. The school paid for everything! :)
They even handled sending my projects out to festivals.
I could have learned everything on my own. But in those 3 years of accelerated learning... I left with an incredible wealth of knowledge you can only get by making and working on dozens of film projects. That environment is hard or impossible to create on your own shooting video projects on the weekends.
Film school (or any art-oriented school, for that matter) can be valuable still. Obviously anyone can lay their hands on the gear so one of the reasons for film school has vanished - the need to access gear. Still, I went to art school and I could easily have just gone out and purchased a bunch of pencils and brushes and skipped the school part altogether. So what does the school offer? Several things (and bad schools don't offer all - or sometimes any of it, of course). First, there is community. You are a part of a group of (mostly) dedicated individuals all trying hard to become filmakers of some sort. There is an energy in a community like this that can't be duplicated sitting in your home studio by yourself. Plus, you have easy access to people to help crew your shoots (as long as you reciprocate). Second - as has been pointed out in a previous post - you have access to mentors. Again, this is something that's very hard to find on your own. There's also no guarantee you'll find it in film school - or any school - by the way. Finally, there's access to a world of film that a person might not have been exposed to, especially if they are coming from a smaller town and only ever see the blockbusters. There's a lot to be learned from film history. Is all this worth $30,000 a year? It depends on who you are. Some people will do better spending the money making actual films. Others will do better spending the time in school. You have to weigh the alternatives based on your own needs. This argument predates DV, by the way. Stanley Kubrick disdained film school and advised aspiring filmakers to spend the money shooting film. An interesting aside - I read a few months back in the New York Times (I think - or perhaps the WSJ) that a lot of corporations like to see new hires with film degrees. I guess there's something about managing a large group of people to achieve a vision that is attractive to them. Much more practical than a relatively abstract MBA.
Arthur Vibert
I would also like to note that getting a college education was good as well. All the other subjects I took improved me as a person...the knowledge I gained was invaluable.
I did not go to a film school. I learned all I know about film and post-production from other art- and computer-related schools.
I agree that it is the environment and access to equipment that made the biggest difference. Not the actual classes themselves. A good school in any artistic field needs to have a lot of "free time" where students can let their creativity run wild.
There is the fact that it is your own drive that defines what you will learn at university. Everyone I studied with now have different jobs and skills simply because of what they focused on between classes. Those that got stuck in a 3D-application became good at 3D. Those that could not keep their hands off cameras and editing software leraned a lot about making films.
And those that spent all their free time in the pub... :)
Is film school obsolete? Perhaps. Are good film schools obsolete? Absolutely not. Plus, not every film 'student' is the same. For that matter, plenty of folks in the visual effects industry, for example, could use some good ole fashioned film schoolin'. You know, simple things like 180degree line, rule of thirds, real camera basics, etc.
I've always said that what you make of your opportunities at college are more important than what college you go to. I have friends from no-name schools and friends w/masters from top name film schools and we're all still pretty much in the same boat. I've yet to really see an advantage to shelling out a significantly larger chunk of change to get a degree from a big name school.
Good or Bad, I, like most, am stuck with going at it without the benefit of film school. That being said, I've found that by ruling certain options out (i.e. film school) new opportunities present themselves that may have been otherwise unnoticed. For instance, I learned that simply by taking a class, any class at a local community college, one would have access to any of the equipment available from their film making course. I haven't taken advantage of this myself (yet), but, from what I hear, the equipment is pretty good.
What I have taken advantage of is our local public cable channel. I went to them expressing interest and some knowlege of film making and, in turn, they've allowed me to borrow any of their equipment to film my first short. I've used their Canon XL2 camera, lights, boom mike, green screen; they even have Final Cut available. It's not the best equipment but certainly good enough to build on my experience and "portfolio". Their only stipulation is that they're allowed to broadcast what I shoot on the public access channel..."Okay!"
Six months ago, I couldn't tell you the first thing about a DV camera or what editing programs to use. But with the internet and great film making podcasts like Dave Basulto's Film Making Central and blog's like Stu's here; not to mention Robert Rodriguez's commentaries and "film schools", anyone with some drive and common sense can get started making their own movies.
I agree with everyone's positive comments on going to a real film school, but if you can't afford it, or you have a full-time+ job and a family to raise, that's just not a viable option. You gotta find another way. And speaking from experience, there's another way out there!
I will agree that there are "other" ways to accomplish the same results (or even better results) than a film-school education. The diploma means nothing . . . it's just an education. What you learn is everything.
Fundamentally, no matter how you decide to learn this, in order to be an artist, you need to have the dicipline and training to really learn to "see". You can't be a true artist if all you can see is a world blinded by the crusty insensabilties and natural human filtering mechanisms that jade our existence and cause us to spew out regurgitated group-think and personal or culturally assumed stereotypes. You have to learn to think beyond your existence, to see a world beyond your POV, to capture life in it's entirety, assimilate it, process it, and then whittle it down to it's most basic and important elements so that you can deliver it in a clear and concise manner that allows others to touch and taste and see that world outside the "cave" (plato) that you took a glimpse of.
Using Plato's analogy a little more, non-artists keep regurgitating the same dumb shadows on the wall. Young but immature artits see the world outside but it's information overload . . . the revelation is lost in translation since they don't understand what they have even experienced. True artist have developed the ability to refine those experiences to their finite elements, capturing, reassembling, and then communicating that message in a manner that would be akin to main-lining heroine . . . the impact of what they deliver is not watered down by confusion, or in-experienced self-awareness.
Is film-school (or any art school) required for such a thing to happen? No, not really. But it does help when you place yourself in an environment where the flow isn't heading down-stream towards more blind consumption and jaded regurgitation. Sometimes you have to seperate yourself and get under the mentorship of those who have learned how to "see" in order to find the narrow path.
Don't go to film-school to learn *how* to make a film . . . go to learn *why* you want to make films, and why anyone out there would want to watch what you make. Hopefully you'll learn just as much or more about your audience as you will about yourself, both important ingrediants to being a good film-maker/artist who isn't drowning like the rest of our society in our heavily mediated culture.
You're right. Art can't be taught.
But, discipline and process can.
Filmschool is a training ground. It's a place where you can make mistakes in an enviroment that mimics that of the professional world. It offers, to those of us who need it, a good kick in the ass to get started.
I don't think filmschool in necessary, but very few people are built with the stuff to do it on there own without some mentor-like interaction.
Again, I'm basing this off my experience at a really great film school, but it was what really lit the fire for me. It was a place where I discovered what it was I wanted to do -- aside from just "make movies." :)
I hope I don't get killed for saying this, but if you have to ask whether you need filmschool or not... you probably need filmschool.
Hey All- I'm a recent grad with some production experience. I've done internships and post-production work, a post-grad semester in a creative non fiction writing program in portland, ME. I'm now working as a producer's assistant on a doc that will probably go to Sundance, and air as a special on HBO or PBS. My job is not nearly hands on enough, and since I'm realizing I need the discipline of 'film school' (and that post-production just aint all that fun sometimes), I'm thinking about taking the plunge and applying. You all talk about the pro's and con's of film school--- can you list some actual film school names that you would recommend, or conversely stay far far away from?
i should also say that as far as money is concerned, going for a state school (im from ny, but would gladly spend a year getting residency in cali, florida--if it made sense for networking).