I recently transfered to SVA this past Fall and, based on how things have been so far, the school represents everything a film school can and should be. Frankly, everything we do is hands-on and involved. Personally, I won't listen to a professor's criticisms unless it's insight since I refuse to have my style dictated. IE. "You could have done" rather than "you should of done". Most of my professors are open minded and encourage individuality and personal film styles rather than the "correct" way something should be done or "how it should be done". These reasons alone are what convinced me to avoid applying to a school like NYU. I'm sure SVA is one of many film schools that rely on "learning by doing" rather than being lectured on "the right way" to make films. Then again, I started making films LONG before college or even high school so I'm at a point in my life where I have a grounded understanding of film and don't need any teachers telling me how to make a film.

I'm still making the same types of films I made before going into film school (I spend more time on my personal projects than I do on film school projects). Film school's best purpose is a networking forum or a place of "free" resources to use but, honestly, film school won't teach a film maker anything they can't learn on their own. I think the ONLY major thing I learned from SVA was how to work with shooting on film (which I could have learned on my own).

Meh, that's just my two cents on this whole film school necessity thing. In short, film school isn't necessary, but hey, it's got it's perks....depending on which school you go to!

Again, you're talking about undergrad. Graduate film school is a completely different ball game.

Speaking as a parent who has been saving since birth for my son's film school education, university is just one path a person can take and it's not just about whether my son will have a career when he graduates. It is a lot of money, but elitist paths are expensive. I don't know that investing $156,000 or whatever in a film will give him the same experience as four years in academia. It's apples and oranges, I think.

These people railing against filmschools are just trying to justify their choice/inability to go to one. Yes, filmschool isn't for everyone, but the fact is that nearly every single successful and/or talented director went to film school.

'Nuff said.

quote:

Originally posted by Cinematical:
the fact is that nearly every single successful and/or talented director went to film school.

Hmmm... I am pro-film school and all, but I don't know about that.

Wachowski, Cameron, Jackson, Raimi... those names ring a bell?

I've actually recently been talking to a lot of MFA graduates who ALL tell me that they wish they didn't go.

I'm starting to lean more towards the boat of get an MFA, but get it in a skill that will give you an X-Factor.

For example, if you are a writer/director go get a Producing MFA or an Animation MFA instead.

Get skills that set you apart. Still make your shorts, and your first low-budget feature -- which everyone has to do anyway.

So, I'm pro-film school, but I think you should think outside of the box.

Whoa! "A lot of MFA graduates" wish they hadn't gone? That IS harsh! I wonder what they expected? It was the same story when I graduated (albeit from a different faculty) 20+ years ago..."if you don't do this, then this won't happen". It always comes down to doing the best you can, doesn't it? What follows, follows. Graduate school: apples, oranges, pears?

Yes, there are some who didn't go. But for every one you name that didn't I can list a dozen who did. Most directors recieve some form of instruction related to filmmaking - though, not all from the "big" schools.

I think the problem is this:

People go to grad school and assume that that's how you make it. I have an MFA. THE END

Then they get out, can't find a job, have 150,000 or more in debt...

I just think people need to be realistic, and get the most out of the time spent.

Write several screenplays. In fact, screenplays are more important than the short films you'll make while you there. Why? Because look back at the history of the big schools. Maybe ONCE a decade a short is the reason someone finds success. The first feature is what brings success.

Also, an MFA is almost frowned upon in the film business. Several books say this (Film School Confidential, for example), as well as several of my friends actually in the business...

I personally WILL get an MFA eventually, but I know that I'll still have to make my first feature when I get out. No one is handing me the keys to the kingdom.

I totally agree with you; I think this is the best attitude to have, keeping things in perspective.

the problem of not going to film grad school is finding right people to work with...it sounds like couple people here don't have a real working experience...

im not trying to talk people down or anything...but there are more pimps born every second than all the films ever made combined

i think about 50%-70% of the people that goes to grad school understand this...it's the overwork environment that provides a chance to create a bond between students...if you have that bond upon graduation...then you don't need a Pimping Hoe Degree taught by the film industry to survive on your own

50% of the people graduated from art school switched their career to something totally unrelated...that's a real statistic...some people say it's pointless to go to art school, some people say they're missing the point

*yawn*

I don't think this issue's worthy of a yawn... and what does that seriously offer to this discussion?

I made a list of all my favorite directors.
Out of 32, 3 went to film school.

So, it's something worth talking about. The most important thing is to just go make films, and go write screenplays, whether you're in film school or not.

Agreed that there is absolutely an incorrect perception about film school in general. And there's definately differences between undergrad and grad. But the benifits are there: do you want to learn in a more structured environment, where you are guarenteed to make benificial connections? Or do you prefer more literal freedom and the idea of developing your talent more independently? It's all preference.

For certain things, though, going to school is amazingly superior - in just 2 semesters of screenwriting classes, I've learned more than I think I could have writing my own scripts for 5 years. It's simply the benifit of working under/with professors who have a lot of experience (I mean, you simply can't replicate learning screenwriting from the writer of Raqing Bull).

This subject is in constant debate on this site and points beyond, and nobody's ever said anything new about it since 1927...I've been asked "why go to film school?" when I could go use that money and "just make a film." We all have.

And plenty of directors "make it" either way. Stats of who you like and their educational history...who cares? If anything, DHC, that should stop you from applying...but it hasn't.

No one will ever win this verbal joust, yet each side is convinced they're right.

So yeah, the conversation bores me, and that was my apparently quite offensive to you way of saying,

"This is the song that doesn't end,it just goes round and round my friend..."

And good for you for applying again, btw.

heh it's like how my philosophy instructor used to say to our class..."it's ok, it's just a mental masturbation"

i think the points on both sides are somewhat irrelevant...however i do like the money aspect that Film School Confidential points out...personally i think the book hit the jackpot...capitalism gave birth to a world full of pimps

i remember taking the Kaplan GRE class for my application to USC...one day before the generic class started, a fine art student got into a discussion with the teacher about the current trend of the art industry, when they got to the problem of the industry, i jumped in and said "the problem in the industry is money."

both of them immediately said no, and defended their patriotism towards the system at the same time, "it's the direction"

i mean there's so much things i coulda said in response to that...but i just smiled...after all, the idea of money altering human beings' way of thinking is just absurd right?

That's precisely why I think the whole feeling sorry for yourself because you spent years in school instead of splurging the tuition on making a film is counter-productive. I always tend to use experience as the determining factor in how to spend my bucks; personally, I think you get a helluva lot more experience grinding it out with your peers and taking the time to mature in the world. Cronenburg is a example of a filmmaker who took an entirely irrelevant undergrad education for his purposes...A little knowledge keeps you off the streets and away from those nasty pimps.

Against my better judgement, I will make one ickle observation on this weighty matter before vanishing into the aether:

Yeah, plenty of folks "make it" in "the industry" without attending film school. It does not, then, follow that aspiring filmmakers should skip school and "just make a film."

The vast majority of non-film school success stories involve folks related to industry people or successful artisans in related fields (novelists, playwrights, comic book writers, video game programmers, visual artists, etc.). Some successes come from the world of advertising. Some are just unfathomably lucky people. At least one guy I heard about got his break as part of a legal settlement.

As for random, unconnected people who "just make a film" for the price of film school or less? Try asking the Sundance festival staff about their (the filmmakers') chances of success.

Expressed as a percentage, the track record for even high-profile film schools is, admittedly, terrible. But I'm quite certain that the track record for "just making a film" is worse.

I guess it's just a tough business.

--Icarus

i just hopped onto this thread and i read through the entire thing and i love this debate.

i think icarus is dead on while referencing sundance. the sundance filmmakers every year are seen as some of the best of the best in independent film (minus those "buy in" filmmakers, but thats another debate). i look at those sundance filmmakers as the brightest of the bunch, but tell me, how many of them actually ever make anything of their career?

they have made huge accomplishments by getting to sundance, but how many of them have a huge 3 picture deal? not sure, but not many. its all what you make of your opportunity while you are at sundance and what you do to sell yourself.

the same goes for film school, no teacher is going to tell you how or do it for you. you all have talents for the industry and it will never make or break you to be in film school. the resources are there and it is the extent that you take advantage of them. those flagship stories of nyu have made it for a reason and they bought into the ideology of film school and found a way to make themselves somebody.

there is no formula to making it in the industry, but there are common paths in order to do so. i mean look at diablo cody. who would have thought that a stripper/blogger would win an academy award with her first screenplay about a contemporary pregnant teenager with the diction of a 70's hippie?

name your favorite filmmakers. but dont expect to follow their footsteps and make it big, it all is a chance game.

best,