Hey everybody. I'm new to this site and am looking forward to getting in on the action here. Crucial details about me: Name's Maoz, recently graduated from Rutgers University, applied to UCLA and USC (top choice) for Fall '08 MFA Production.

I want to bring up a topic that I've been thinking about for a while. It's clear that people have certain impressions about each film school, perhaps best illustrated by NYU vs. USC. Simply put, NYU is more artsy/indy and USC is more commercial/mainstream.

I can see how this might be true based simply on the locations. USC is closer to the studios and NYU is located in a city that is known for being a hub of artistic innovation (in film and across the board).

But do these "personalities" really restrict a film student from making the films he or she wants to make? I recently visited USC and talked with students and professors about this, and I got the impression that, yes, USC generates more "mainstream" cinema than NYU does, but also that there is plenty of room for experimentation and collaboration among students with different tastes and backgrounds.

I met lots of students (not the majority, but still present) who are into making experimental films and plenty of professors who encourage this. I realize others have said that USC tries to make students conform to a formulaic moviemaking process, but is this really true, or does it just seem that way because most of the students who go to USC want to be closer to Hollywood and, therefore, are more apt to produce this more mainstream cinema anyway?

Any thoughts?

I go to UCLA, and can tell you that while it is, in terms of physical distance, literally "closer" to the studios than any other film school, it is decidedly more "indy" in persuasion than USC. Which is not to say the school has not turned out mainstream filmmakers, or that the workings of the industry are not discussed and taught, but the school encourages personal filmmaking, and the cultivation of writer/directors who leave school intending to find funding for their own film projects.

I agree that some schools are more indy in persuasion, but I want to know how much this reflects the teaching style and curriculum. Does USC put out more mainstream films simply because it gets more aspiring mainstream filmmakers (if I want to be an aspiring filmmaker, there's a good chance I'll want to go to a school associated with Lucas, Spielberg, and Zemeckis) or because the teachers there encourage students to adhere to the three-act structure and other facets of traditional cinema? Basically, does USC really actively mold these film students into commercial filmmakers?

Similarly, if I want to be the next Michael Bay, would I have a difficult time at NYU because the professors there are just not as receptive to that cinematic style?

Quick correction:

Change "(if I want to be an aspiring filmmaker..."

to

"(if I am an aspiring mainstream filmmaker..."

You can make what you want here.

You do learn the formulaic aspects, but you're not pigeonholed into them, just shown how and why they work.

You're given the tools, but what you make is up to you. Wanna film a lemon floating in a toilet because you think it's the best visual representation of feeling lost in a crowd?

Go for it.

I've kinda always thought the NYU USC battle was kind of one sided, with NYU being the one side, hating on USC for no good reason...but after hanging out with some cool peeps from NYU Tisch in the Hamptons last year, I gotta say, we all just love making films.

Do what you will.