Film school is even worse than art school (Guardian story)
- Thread starter Josh_Boelter
- Start date
Matthew B. Moore
Well-known member
I teach at Piedmont Community College in North Carolina. It's a 2 year tech school. I teach Grip/Electric, Editing, and Continuity and Locations as an adjucnt.
I teach my students to do "the damn thing". I make sure they don't leave my class empty handed. I make sure they are ready for what is out there. It's a point of pride.
I'll tell you what is great - watching one of your former students kicking ass on a feature film. Especially if he or she is working along side you.
It's a cool feeling, taubkin.
I teach my students to do "the damn thing". I make sure they don't leave my class empty handed. I make sure they are ready for what is out there. It's a point of pride.
I'll tell you what is great - watching one of your former students kicking ass on a feature film. Especially if he or she is working along side you.
It's a cool feeling, taubkin.
spidey
Shogun Assassin
I went there and I was successful afterwards; granted some classes suck but for people who want to go into grip/electric and learn how to use a camera inside and out work with film camera, edit with final cut 5 pro, learn how to do make up, this place gave it all to me and it the same program taught in florida instead of 50,000 dollars a year i paid 2,000. Matt was the best teacher I had and thats why I still work with him plus hes kick ass. so holla for dollars. But dont say flm school is completely pointless, that make you come off as a doosh.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
spidey said:
I don't know what the 'return on investment' may be for film school, but isn't that sort of the problem. If one is spending $50,000 to become an electrician, albeit on a movie set, it seems to me paying such a fee will not really give the sense of return for the price paid.
If the point of Film School is to make life long contacts (sounds like many ivy league schools...) then perhaps $50,000 is a cheap investment, relative to making those contacts which do produce opportunities which are lucritive.
It is also true that 5 years after 'school', it is mainly one's accomplishments that are the determining factor of what happens for the future, but in those 5 years, who one knows, is connected to, third cousin's boyfriend's mistress transexual lover twice removed connection, may be the determining factor of where one will get to in those critical 5 years.
As for my own personal circle of friends, the several who went the 'film school' route I have not seen in any credits list in the last 36 years since highschool... perhaps they've all found teaching adjunct positions in the universe, dropped out, turned on, tuned in, whatever, but they definately don't seem to have any references out on the Internet... I take that back... one friend ended up a cook for the Mt Wilson observatory facility... there's even an Internet picture of him at the time taken in the early 80's...
But otherwise nary a word...
Now in the ancient days of the Studio System, many people were buried alive and now one has trouble determining exactly who may have been the actual artist, trade person, or the like who actually created that 'world famous visual'... but these days where credits go down to the pizza deliver person who 'catered' the film set... it is sort of a miracle that none of these people, if they are active at all in the film industry are not referenced somewhere...
And of course, perhaps having tried in Hollywood, they all got out and are now pursuing more 'enjoyable' paths... I don't know what that says about the ability
of film school to prepare one for a career, but it would suggest that in these cases it didn't do much if anything.
Matthew B. Moore
Well-known member
That's a shame.
Since finishing film school, I've seen several of my former classmates working in the industry all over the place. We pass work to one another.
Just to keep it fair. One of the requirements for being an adjunct at PCC is that you have to be a working professional in your field or fields. It's the best way to zone your students into the here and now. It also provides a pathway to the students that are serious. There have been a bunch of times when our adjuncts have pulled students on to a shoot because the student had reached a certain skill level. It's on them to perform at that point, but they've earned the chance.
Since finishing film school, I've seen several of my former classmates working in the industry all over the place. We pass work to one another.
Just to keep it fair. One of the requirements for being an adjunct at PCC is that you have to be a working professional in your field or fields. It's the best way to zone your students into the here and now. It also provides a pathway to the students that are serious. There have been a bunch of times when our adjuncts have pulled students on to a shoot because the student had reached a certain skill level. It's on them to perform at that point, but they've earned the chance.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Greggl said:Well lets see em... at this point, they're mythical
Does winning 1-3rd place, for the last three years running, in the local county fair electronic arts category, count as 'theatrical credit'...
A friend who was v.p of a local video production house once told me that he had seen 'demo reels' from many of the parttimers and assistants in their productions. These reels always seemed to indicate the individual has having a more signifcant 'role' than third assistant to the Assistant Best Boy, which is what the actual payrolls indicated...
Credit inflation is everywhere, but I would imagine it is much more prevelent in areas were the stakes are high, and if the bullshit works, pays off... and if it doesn't, oh, well...
My interest in video production is a return to an interest that I put aside years ago, mainly because I did not what little I saw of 'standard hollywood procedure'. Actually it was 'film' but at the time, and given my head-up-the-ass purist ideals, film was took expensive... still is, but with the various digital processes now available, and the level of quality approaching at least 8mm to 16mm... I'm very much interested in making visual productions.
Whether that ultimately garners me 'theatrical credit' in some Hollywood, off-Hollywood, or heck, Chatsworth, production, is at the moment immaterial.
Greggl
Well-known member
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Nope
As I said earlier, there is a 'normal' way to get into working on theatrical
productions as your fulltime employment. Anyone can buy a dvx or a
fisher price pixelvision camera and start shooting with their friends. If you're
serious enough to invest 30-80 grand toward an education in the field, it
does imply that you expect to see some return on the investment. That
means working for money.
As I said earlier, I've encounted some common paths into the theatrical
production industry:
a. Film school educated.
b. Ivy league grads that had deep pockets but 'ran away and joined the circus'.
c. Children/neices/nephews of industry people, California born and bred.
d. Transplants that arrived in California, who had made their names
in other markets and 'networked' in.
I'm not saying these are the only paths in... but if you're attacking it from
some different angle, it'd be interesting to hear how you did it. I'm a mix
of A and D.
thematthewbone
Well-known member
Ogrus said:
sorry guy but writing a Satriani solo and playing one are two different things. I am sure with practice we could all re-shoot a great film frame for frame but that doesn't mean we could all write/shoot a tarantinoesque film. There is a reason Joe Satriani is reknowned as the greatest guitar player alive but just about anyone can sit at home and learn his riffs note for note.
hate to sound like a pessimist. but we all have heard qt and robert rodriguez telling us film school is for suckers but how many directors inside of hollywood are actually from film school?
just a thought.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Greggl said:Nope
Well darn, I sure hope the hog hollerin' competition queen doesn't hear that... I'm itchin' to cast her on my couch...
I don't disagree with this. However, I think the industry is changing. I think more people will come from different 'paths' to produce movies.
As I've indicated I don't at the moment have any 'hollywood visions'... I'll leave that to my daughter who is now working for a production company somewhere in the Carolinas... having gotten the job from a craigslist ad in LA... but anyway....
Speaking of 'children and nieces'... am I the only one who has been pretty nonplused with Sophia Coppola? I have not seen 'Antoinette', but "Lost in Translation", left me pretty cold. (Just as an aside, the 'Accidental Tourist' also left me cold... but I digress...)
But on the topic of professional work activities, I don't know if this is true for production people, but definately 'SAG' membership is no indicator of 'can support oneself on one's 'acting' income'. One often bandied about stat is that most SAG members earn lessthan $7000, per
year in 'acting'. Now that may be, because in order to get on many sets in any capacity, that one has to be a SAG member, for productions that are signatory to SAG agreements. Hence someone will join just to be there for a brief appearence, or heck just be there on call.
Some SAG stats also indicate that of the salaried actors, the 50% range was from about $20K to mid-50K. And of course there is the 10% who make over $100K...
Are the stats similar for production people, or are there more 'full time' workers, albeit less in numbers. (I think SAG has 120K members... all working in and around LA no doubt...)
Last edited:
Greggl
Well-known member
SAG is a complicated thing. I've had two SAG vouchers.. you can joing SAG with
three of em OR by getting a featured role on a SAG picture. I spent a few months
working as an non-union extra and over time, you sorta just collect SAG vouchers.
There are minimums that 'union' films that are doing crowd scenes have to fill
with SAG extras. Occasionally there are no shows so those vouchers are passed
onto the non-union ones. Overall, its a totally different thing than what we're
talking. The trade unions are a much better indicator.
I've been Camera Union and worked under Screen Cartoonist jurisdiction. To
keep your benefits and standing you have to work a minimum of hours over
a specific time frame. If you work a lot of hours, you can 'bank' the overage
for slower periods. Its expensive to join and you need a minimum of hours
on union shows to even get in... or you need to be employed on a set that
signs a union contract and thats waived. In some unions, the cost to join is
REALLY high (Cinematograpers is the big one).. others its pretty reasonable
and like 2 weeks wages. In cali, the insurance is fanastic and if you're working
steady, the pension is impressive.
The above really has no bearing though.. what is important is that the cheap
cost of the tools has made it really easy to be a filmmaker... the question is now,
are you a hobbiest or is production a career. Film school is one of the common
paths into the career... and not just for 'directors'.
The *hardest* road in, is easily the 'out of network', non-production city,
un-schooled, indie filmmaker thats desperately trying to create a narrative
film thats so good, it gets a distribution deal and directing gigs follow. Sure,
lightning strikes here and there but for every one of those, there are a
thousand that quietly 'worked' their way into film careers via conventional
means.
three of em OR by getting a featured role on a SAG picture. I spent a few months
working as an non-union extra and over time, you sorta just collect SAG vouchers.
There are minimums that 'union' films that are doing crowd scenes have to fill
with SAG extras. Occasionally there are no shows so those vouchers are passed
onto the non-union ones. Overall, its a totally different thing than what we're
talking. The trade unions are a much better indicator.
I've been Camera Union and worked under Screen Cartoonist jurisdiction. To
keep your benefits and standing you have to work a minimum of hours over
a specific time frame. If you work a lot of hours, you can 'bank' the overage
for slower periods. Its expensive to join and you need a minimum of hours
on union shows to even get in... or you need to be employed on a set that
signs a union contract and thats waived. In some unions, the cost to join is
REALLY high (Cinematograpers is the big one).. others its pretty reasonable
and like 2 weeks wages. In cali, the insurance is fanastic and if you're working
steady, the pension is impressive.
The above really has no bearing though.. what is important is that the cheap
cost of the tools has made it really easy to be a filmmaker... the question is now,
are you a hobbiest or is production a career. Film school is one of the common
paths into the career... and not just for 'directors'.
The *hardest* road in, is easily the 'out of network', non-production city,
un-schooled, indie filmmaker thats desperately trying to create a narrative
film thats so good, it gets a distribution deal and directing gigs follow. Sure,
lightning strikes here and there but for every one of those, there are a
thousand that quietly 'worked' their way into film careers via conventional
means.
MalcolmOng
Veteran
I agree fully. I myself am considering a film school course to take when I'm old enough...in 4 years time... However I'm also afraid of no employment even after a film school diploma, and as a result am also considering a law course as a 'safety net'. Tough ****. The safety net course costs more than the primary course. Anyway I suppose I might get a couple of flames for this, but I'm not too sure if going all out film is prudent considering the increasing competition that filmmaking is seeing in general....
Where I come from(Singapore), filmmaking is a rather niche hobby, with the overwhelming majority hobbyists and dabblers. That being said the film industry in my country is a pretty nascent one, despite the miniscule market for films - Films here rarely gross more than 1million Sing, thats about 600k usd. I'm pretty sure I could find employment along the lines of filmmaking/production/directing in Singapore, but 'round these parts its not really a lucrative industry...
Where I come from(Singapore), filmmaking is a rather niche hobby, with the overwhelming majority hobbyists and dabblers. That being said the film industry in my country is a pretty nascent one, despite the miniscule market for films - Films here rarely gross more than 1million Sing, thats about 600k usd. I'm pretty sure I could find employment along the lines of filmmaking/production/directing in Singapore, but 'round these parts its not really a lucrative industry...
Last edited:
MalcolmOng
Veteran
Well, when you take the law degree you have to cover all law bases anyway right? Wonder whats entertaining about law...Sounds rather boring to me...And theres hardly anything entertaining here to defend.
Greggl
Well-known member
$$$ to be made.
It also opens up avenues to produce, manage and direct.
Thats another thing that I never understood. Some folks seem to have
this all or nothing approach to film. I'm either gonna be a famous director,
or I'll go into something else.
Film production is a WIDE range of careers, from the business and marketing
side to the creative.. and people do move around and switch hats a lot within
the industry.
Your 'fallback' can still be 'film'. There is no reason to ever take a 'joe job'
outside of the industry as long as you're somewhat capable and move to
where the work is at your earliest opportunity.
It also opens up avenues to produce, manage and direct.
Thats another thing that I never understood. Some folks seem to have
this all or nothing approach to film. I'm either gonna be a famous director,
or I'll go into something else.
Film production is a WIDE range of careers, from the business and marketing
side to the creative.. and people do move around and switch hats a lot within
the industry.
Your 'fallback' can still be 'film'. There is no reason to ever take a 'joe job'
outside of the industry as long as you're somewhat capable and move to
where the work is at your earliest opportunity.
MalcolmOng
Veteran
I see what you mean, thanks for the insight!
Hmm, this forum seems to have deviated somewhat from its original creed... Anyway, I'd wanna shoot for getting into calarts or LA Film school, the latter interests me due to the fact that it only offers a 1 year course rather than a 4 year full degree that calarts provides. I'm more or less starting out with this whole video thing, with my interest originally sparked by a school project, which later got me hooked.
Really appreciate the replies, hope I didn't get irritating
Hmm, this forum seems to have deviated somewhat from its original creed... Anyway, I'd wanna shoot for getting into calarts or LA Film school, the latter interests me due to the fact that it only offers a 1 year course rather than a 4 year full degree that calarts provides. I'm more or less starting out with this whole video thing, with my interest originally sparked by a school project, which later got me hooked.
Really appreciate the replies, hope I didn't get irritating
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
MalcolmOng said:I see what you mean, thanks for the insight!
Hmm, this forum seems to have deviated somewhat from its original creed... Anyway, I'd wanna shoot for getting into calarts or LA Film school, the latter interests me due to the fact that it only offers a 1 year course rather than a 4 year full degree that calarts provides. I'm more or less starting out with this whole video thing, with my interest originally sparked by a school project, which later got me hooked.
Really appreciate the replies, hope I didn't get irritating
In the LA area there are a number of schools which have some form of 'film' program. Of course USC and CIA are perhaps more well known, but UCLA, Clairmont Colleges, as well as some 2-year colleges have programs as well. As a non-resident, the UC or the California State colleges charge 'full' tuition so these are probably just as expensive as the private colleges.