World's best Film School..

[Jason Ing]

I won't bore you with the details of my bio, but I agree with Bruce and Chris. There is a big difference between the dream of what the best film school in the world can do for you (wherever that is) and what reality is in the real world. Other then a few exceptional teachers at USC, you can get everything you get there elsewhere and no where near the cost.

Not to mention having to take and pay for other "required" classes that is useless to you. And not all the teachers are great. Even at the USC film school, when you apply the bell shaped curve, you'll get a lot of average teachers and a few exceptional "A" listers. In fact, there were many classes that I thought, "I'm paying how much for you to tell me what I just read in a book?" And this bell shape curve includes students. I thought after the high standards of admissions into the school, you would have really talented students and student films. Or so I thought when I first went to see a batch of student (graduate) films. NOT. Oh my god, they were so bad, even I was embarrassed.

At the time I went, having access to 16mm cameras, a sound stage, equipment, editing bays, and a cinema library were great. But nowadays, you get the entire post in a small box called a PC. And now with Red, the "benefits" of a school like USC isn't so uniquely beneficial.

Don't get me wrong, USC is a great school. So when there is an "A" list teacher or class, you're talking about the best in the world. Drew Casper is more then just a teacher, he's an experience. And being taught sound by the guy who invented THX is a mind expanding experience. And getting to go to a class that invites crew and cast members (including James Cameron and Linda Hamilton) to soley discuss Terminator for the entire semester, cannot be gotten anywhere else. Maybe that's the only benefit that I see USC offering anymore. So are those few classes worth the time and cost? (and consider dvd's with director commentary, specialty cinema books, and the internet)

But that's just the production program, I don't know about the other programs.

And yes, the name opens doors.

But only partially, and only momentarily.

The rest is still up to you.

Ironically, I learned 95% of my skills outside of class on my own.

 

[Joe Carney]

No opinions on New York?
(Closer to me than LA).

 

[Jason Ing]

I've heard good things about New York as well. But I think what has been said about USC applies to all film schools. The basic knowledge of movie making is the same and can be taught and learned anywhere. The fundamentals can be learned from books and "on set" (real life experience). Beyond that depends on the caliber of the teacher. And "most" of the great teachers that can offer incredible insight and what can't be found in books (unless they write the book) are too busy working. If you're lucky to find them in a school, it will be at USC, UCLA, etc.

But an example of a great teacher who wrote a book, but actually taught at the university is Howard Suber at UCLA. I never took his class, but if his book is any indication, great class, great teacher. Great book! "The Power of Film"

Also consider David Mullen. The knowledge you get from him is fantastic. But is he going to be teaching at USC, NY, UCLA, etc. etc. semester after semester full time or will he be shooting a film? I don't know if he ever teaches at the university for entire semesters, but I find it amazing that he even finds time to come here to RedUser and shooting movies. I consider his thread a rare gold mine.

It comes down to the teachers. Consider the reality that these top film schools have to find qualified people to teach. Where do they find them? It's just like any other employer/employee/head hunting situation. You might think that most of the teachers at these great schools are the best. But unless they're retired, "taking some time off", or appearing especially or as a favor for..., you might think again.

There was one teacher who was so under qualified (although he had "production experience"), us students were going to petition to get him fired and get someone else to teach us. It was a sad day when he had to stand in front of our class, almost trembling, and literally plead not to continue with the petition (he found out) and to give him a chance to make it better (it never did, but the students felt sorry for him after that; it was apparent he really needed a JOB).

But some people need that structured academic institution and imposed discipline and requirements. Nothing wrong with that. But if you can learn on your own, have the drive and self-discipline, you'll advance much quicker and learn a lot more in the real world. Consider even one of those trade schools (or online as someone said) to provide those fundamentals (anyone can teach it). Then all you have to worry about is if the fundamentals they teach is any good (and if they're understandable, etc.). And that's much easier to find out, cost less, and takes a lot less time (you don't need a four year bachelor).

But you also might miss out on the "university" experience. heh-heh.

But to answer the question, at the time I went, the "best" that came up on the list in my research for schools in the United States were USC, NYU, UCLA, and Cal Arts (I think it was Cal Arts... I forgot... it was some art/design school).

 

[M Most]

But I think what has been said about USC applies to all film schools. The basic knowledge of movie making is the same and can be taught and learned anywhere. The fundamentals can be learned from books and "on set" (real life experience). Beyond that depends on the caliber of the teacher.

A lot of things have been said here that I think are really missing the point. If you want to learn the techniques of how to run equipment, what you say is true. However, if you want to be a "filmmaker," that's not about tech knowledge at all. It's about life knowledge. It's about having a point of view and stories to tell. It's about art, music, architecture, and literature. It's about studying the masters and learning from them. It's about attempting to understand the human condition. In short, it's about being an artist, not about being a camera operator. If you view film school as a way to learn about the specific techniques of using film production tools, you're much better off doing that as a graduate program - or not at all - after spending at least four years learning about the REALLY important stuff. And I say "at least four years" deliberately. A true artist never stops learning, as life is its own best teacher.

Filmmaking is not about a camera. It's about expression. That's what you should really want out of an education. The rest is basically an elaborate operator's manual. And my friend David Mullen would likely point out that for all of the knowledge of techniques that he very generously shares here and elsewhere, his real inspiration comes from exactly what I just enumerated - years of study of art, music, architecture, literature, and the past masters. David is almost a walking encyclopedia of art and film history - and that's what inspires him as an artist. Not what camera is on the dolly, and not which filtration is on the lens.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Amen, Mike.

Reminds me of a Q&A with Chris Doyle that I went to a few years ago. In response to a film student's question about what his influences were (obviously expecting a list of names), Doyle replied (more or less) that the most important thing he did for his own art was to work as a sailor, travelling, working, and living life around Asia and the Pacific for about 10 years before he ever picked up a camera.

Similarly, one of my professors (who taught film studies), in response to a similar question (should I major in film studies?), responded that if I really wanted to be filmmaker, I would probably be much better off studying something along the lines of physics, history or philosophy, because (in his words) "at least then you'd have non-film experience to work from, and something to say, unlike 95% of film studies majors out there."

(I ended up in Art History. Happy medium of sorts.)

 

[Jason Ing]

However, if you want to be a "filmmaker," that's not about tech knowledge at all. It's about life knowledge. It's about having a point of view and stories to tell. It's about art, music, architecture, and literature. It's about studying the masters and learning from them. It's about attempting to understand the human condition. In short, it's about being an artist, not about being a camera operator.

I think what you say is obvious. It's easy to say it's all about the "art". "Filmmaking is about LIFE!" Sounds nice. Yes, it's correct.

OF COURSE it's about expression.

But life doesn't teach you about film MAKING.

Here's a dose of reality.

When I was talking to a USC faculty member who was on the cinema school's board of admissions, he told me that they're not looking for students who have this great portfolio of films, film experience, etc. They don't want anyone to have experience in it because, he said, "Then we would have nothing to teach them." But, he said, they do want students who have something to say, something to contribute... or in other words, students who have already experienced life or will in such a way as to bring a unique and interesting voice to the world of cinema. That's what "they" were most interested in. That way, they can teach you about movie "making".

 

[M Most]

Here's a dose of reality.

When I was talking to a USC faculty member who was on the cinema school's board of admissions, he told me that they're not looking for students who have this great portfolio of films, film experience, etc. They don't want anyone to have experience in it because, he said, "Then we would have nothing to teach them." But, he said, they do want students who have something to say, something to contribute... or in other words, students who have already experienced life or will in such a way as to bring a unique and interesting voice to the world of cinema. That's what "they" were most interested in. That way, they can teach you about movie "making".

Seems to me that's exactly what I said when I offered the advice that one should either enter such a program as a graduate student, or find direct work experience instead.

 

[jpp]

When I was talking to a USC faculty member who was on the cinema school's board of admissions, he told me that they're not looking for students who have this great portfolio of films, film experience, etc. They don't want anyone to have experience in it because, he said, "Then we would have nothing to teach them." But, he said, they do want students who have something to say, something to contribute... or in other words, students who have already experienced life or will in such a way as to bring a unique and interesting voice to the world of cinema. That's what "they" were most interested in. That way, they can teach you about movie "making".

But, if that's really the case, they fail miserably. Have you ever seen the student films which come out of USC?

But I think you're right to this extent: if a would-be filmmaker reaches the age of 18 or 20 with no passion for literature, fine art, philosophy, music, theater, and who knows what else (string theory? microtonal tuning? sociobiology?) university course work probably won't help. And the life experiences of most 18 year-olds will be bound up with their level of intellectual excitement. If there's no such excitement, "life" may come largely from TV and other movies.

It may still be possible to have a viable or even a glorious career in the movies without such passions, but it would probably make more sense not to talk about "art". The number of film students with absolutely no interest in or exposure to the preceding 2000 years of culture is astonishing.

So it's something of a bind: if would-be filmmakers aren't already passionate about the arts and/or the life of the mind, film school or university course work probably won't supply that interest and curiosity. And if folks are going to film school just to learn filmmaking mechanics, which aren't mysterious, it's probably a waste of money.

So it may really come down in the end to contacts, industry access and whatever advantage you can get from forced production assignments and free crew.

 

[Jason Ing]

"life" may come largely from TV and other movies.

Tragically true. Hence the "hacks" who churn out the garbage we see in TV and the movies. But thankfully not everyone.

 

[M Hsu]

world's best film school: Ask David Mullen anything thread.

There's your famous instructor.

 

[M Most]

The number of film students with absolutely no interest in or exposure to the preceding 2000 years of culture is astonishing.

They're going to be awfully overwhelmed when they get into their first meeting with a director, cinematographer, or even a producer and the conversation turns to visual and musical references they're thinking about as a jumping off point for their production design. High end directors and cameramen are among the most literate and educated people you will ever meet, particularly when it comes to the arts. Nearly every director I've ever worked with will refer to some piece of art, music, motion picture, or architecture when they're describing what they want to achieve. If you can't keep up with them, you're out of the conversation and often out of consideration for whatever position you're applying for. Now THAT'S a dose of reality.

 

[jpp]

They're going to be awfully overwhelmed when they get into their first meeting with a director, cinematographer, or even a producer

Oh, there's nothing to worry about. They're all going to be writer/directors.:wink: