I just flipped through a new edition of Film School Confidential in the bookstore. After 10 years, it's been updated for 2007 and includes descriptions and somewhat subjective reviews of lots of schools, all MFAs if I'm not mistaken. Definitely interesting and for anyone who finds themselves still torn between programs, it might be what you need to find the right fit.

I am so glad that they decided to do this.I will definately pick up a copy of this.

Get any specifics when you flipped through?

There's actually a lot of specifics in there.

I didn't have the older edition to compare it to, but going on memory, it seemed to me like half the material was recycled, and half was updated.

Definitely a good resource though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BillyD,

It's about time. The original, which I have, of course, was written the same year I graduated high school...and my ten-year is this summer!!

It's nice, too, because they profile the screenwriting programs at some of the schools, as well as the production or directing tracks.

Just went to the book store and read it for about an hour. Seems pretty good and accurate (though it just addresses graduate schools). They REALLY like Chapman in the book.

Can anyone who has read it sum up their opinions or ratings on specific schools, mainly the big 5 afi, nyu, columbia, usc, ucla . And what other schools they liked, like Cinematical mentioned Chapman. Im very eager to go out and read it, but im kinda stuck in a hotel room for the rest of the night. :/

Oh and specifically Columbia. I remember in the 1st book Columbia was totally scolded for their lack of equipment and funds. The last thing it said was something like "your throwing away your money if you go there". But of course, considering it was 10 years ago I completely disregarded their opinion and did my own research. Just curious what they have said about it now.

Hey Tima,

For Columbia it still says the equipment is somewhat lacking and that it's expensive. But, it also mentions the fact that since 1990, only NYU has had more student academy award winners - not to mention 10 percent of all shorts at Sundance this year. Also, they argue that the school's focus on storytelling and performance don't necessarily require extensive equipment. They pretty much make it clear that if you want to be a technician, don't go there. But, if you want to focus on written and visual storytelling, and working with actors, then it might be your school.

For me, it's confirmed that it's just where I want to be (other than the killer cost).

I remember that the book also had a lot of good things to say about UCLA. A part of me wishes I would have applied there, but having lived in LA, I didn't want to get there any sooner than I had to!

Oh, and whether it's a factor or not with reviews (I don't totally think it is), the authors are both NYU grads.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BillyD,

I think only covering MFA programs is a major flaw of this book. I looked at it in the store but never bought it, for this reason.

quote:

But, it also mentions the fact that since 1990, only NYU has had more student academy award winners - not to mention 10 percent of all shorts at Sundance this year.

BillyD, do you mean "Columbia" instead of "NYU"? Or no?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that only NYU has had more student academy award winners than Columbia. And that Columbia had 10 percent of the shorts in Sundance.

Ah, i see, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly did it say about Chapman vs UCLA. I can't get out to a bookstore that carries it until this weekend but would love to hear a general overview.

I didn't read UCLA, but the book was VERY big on Chapman. In fact, the only downsides they really listed were that it's not a good school for experimental or documentary films. It's all narrative all the time (which I would think is good). Other than that, they liked the facilities (likening the Marion Knotts studio to an actual studio rather than a school), the faculty, the curriculum, and the fact that Chapman pays for films AND the student owns them.

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
I think only covering MFA programs is a major flaw of this book. I looked at it in the store but never bought it, for this reason.

I don't think it's a huge flaw. BA programs also require a look at campus culture, GenEd requirements, housing, etc. There's more to a BA than an MFA. Grad programs are focused and specialized.

The MFA info is helpful to prospective BA students, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayimess:
I don't think it's a huge flaw. BA programs also require a look at campus culture, GenEd requirements, housing, etc. There's more to a BA than an MFA. Grad programs are focused and specialized.

The MFA info is helpful to prospective BA students, as well.

Yes, but it assumes that everyone who reads the book agrees with their opinion on the matter, which is that everyone should get an undergraduate degree in english or history and then go to grad school for film. It states this clearly in the introduction. I personally don't agree with that, and therefore didn't like the angle that the authors took on critiquing film schools.

I know the UT Austin and Columbia programs really well, and I read the new book's sections on those schools and to me it seemed pretty accurate. The book does seem biased toward NYU, probably because the writers went there...but it's hard to tell, maybe they really just liked it more than the rest...

Good to hear, sa.

One thing they got way wrong about UT Austin was saying you don't need a car.....