Moving to California or NYC/ Film school?

Hey, I was going to post a thread but feel it would belong under this title, dies anyone know how somelone like myself (a UK citizen) would go about getting a 6 month visa to work in LA?as while im renting my apartment I would like to be trying to get work as an actor and if i strike up a deal i would like to be able to get payed for it.

Thank you.

David.
 
Really, don't look so much at NYU and the bigger guys. Do some research into the school not just because of the name.

NYU is more geared towards documentary, and most schools you can't touch upperlevel cameras until junior year.

Most of this industry is built on what you can do for yourself. Self-promote.
 
NYU has lectures from Scorsese, I know Robert Rodriguez went to NYU as well as Spike Lee. Just my prefference. I heard you have to send them a short film to even be considered. My opinion tho is that most people who end up going there are too artsy and pretentious. They seem to forget that they wanted to tell story's and entertain, and they start making black and white silent films that have some retarded riddle of a meaning. Besides those alot of great directors come from there
 
I found out today I was accepted to Temple University in Philadelphia. I didn't really research the school at all before applying because I had all the essays and things necessary to get in so I figured what the heck. Any thoughts on their film program and Philadelphia as city for a filmmaker to live in for atleast 4 years.

PS: Still waiting to hear back from NYU and University of Austin at Texas. (not very likely I will get into either)
 
Last edited:
salils said:
I've never really gotten that many replies back for jobs in general the few that I have gotten replies from were just people looking to leech off me and use my equipment for free. (DVX100B, tripod, shotgun, etc) I don't mind working for free on creative projects (ie: not 99% of event videography), but I mean it's difficult to trust a stranger with bringing $5k of equipment and work for free unless it's some sort of amazing script...in which case they could probably get funding.

The only two places I ever got highered are event videography companies. One of them, the guy never called back or had any work; the other guy I work for regularly during the summer -- the work can be awfully boring after the first 1 or 2 shoots but I still find it better than flipping burgers.
Click to expand...

If you are not getting replies from Chicago, what makes you think you'll get replies from places like L.A. and New York, where there are more competition and potentially more people talented than you are? I have been thinking about moving to L.A. myself, but every time I think about it, I always ask myself this same question.

I graduated from a very small film school in Moorhead, MN and although I didn't get a lot of outside film experience I do have to say that I learned a lot. I was able to get on some shoots in Minneapolis and meet filmmakers at the Fargo Film Festival. Personally, I think going to a smaller film school is better, because you'll get your personalized attention and learn more that way. With the bigger schools, it'll be harder to do what you want to. At the school that I went to, I get to try out a couple of things, because I actually get to make my films. I get to see what the other positions do and that makes me more of a conscious shooter when I shoot.

Whatever school you choose, I do think it's the effort you put into that will
get you the most experience and knowledge.

My 2 cents.


Kak Lee
www.myspace.com/kaklee
 
kakfilm said:
If you are not getting replies from Chicago, what makes you think you'll get replies from places like L.A. and New York, where there are more competition and potentially more people talented than you are? I have been thinking about moving to L.A. myself, but every time I think about it, I always ask myself this same question.
www.myspace.com/kaklee
Click to expand...

I was thinking that possibly more productions are being shot in LA and New York (both big and small) since that's where a lot of the industry is.

Thanks for your advice about film school Kak Lee.
 
Here's a non-scientific exercise of how to find out how much film work is being done in a city. Check out the mandy, craigslist, etc. crew listings for that city as opposed to those in NY/LA. NYC definitely has more than LA but like Timur said it's really seasonal.

Also, if you're willing to work for free you're bound to get a lot of experience in NYC, probably anywhere. Or are you more interested in making money? That's hard to do while you're in school since film jobs don't pay that well when you're starting out and they eat up time. Bartending is a better option.

I still think that you should make sure you go to a place that gives you a really strong liberal arts education and not just a background in film. Reading essays and interviews with greats from Eisenstein to John Alton to Storraro to Coppola to Christopher Doyle shows that a huge part of their inpiration comes from mediums other than film: literature, music, paintings, photography.

I was talking to my boss recently (I have a graphic design internship) and he told me that he wanted to start hiring more designers who went to liberal arts universities rather than specialized design schools. The reason is he felt that their background would let them look at problems differently and give them a broader set of things to pull on when looking for inspiration.

davide
 
I recommend you look at the following:


in Los Angeles:
Loyola Marymount - Highly Competitive
UCLA - Most Competitive
Chapman - Highly Competitive (and expensive)
Cal State Fullerton - Competitive
(forget USC and NYU...USC is turning into a video game school and NYU is excellent but overrated)

elsewhere:
University of Texas-Austin - have their own production company - "Burnt Orange" Highly Competitive

Florida State University - the state of Florida will pay for your student films. Most competitive

University of Nebraska-Lincoln - they received a TON of money from Johnny Carson's estate to retool and revamp the film program - and how cool would it be to have a degree from "The Johnny Carson School of Theatre and Film"? It's similar in structure to UCLA's program. Competitive.

Boston University - decent program that has a LOT of grads working in high profile documentaries. Competitive.

non-accredited:
Full Sail
Brooks Institute
New York Film Academy (people tend to recommend the Universal - LA campus)

I got in for post-grad at Loyola Marymount and nearly went (I had also applied to FSU and Texas). I had just graduated from Nebraska and I was moving out to LA to either work or go to grad school. However, I had a long discussion with the department head at LMU...and I asked him "If I go through the program here, when I graduate, will I be any further ahead of the pack than if I just start work now as a PA?" He said "probably not...and it's not a reflection of the school...it's a reflection of the industry." He saved me about $90k!

My advice is, wait on school until you've given a few years to the industry. Then you will know if you really want to invest such massive amounts of money into furthering your film education, or you may absolutely hate the Hollywood political system and decide to go elsewhere and do it your own way (like I did:)). Or you may rise through the ranks so fast that school is not necessary. Work first, learn the business and the craft, and then schools will fall over each other to enroll you!

Curtis.Laronde said:
NYU has lectures from Scorsese, I know Robert Rodriguez went to NYU as well as Spike Lee.
Click to expand...

Rodriguez actually went to the University of Texas at Austin.
 
Wilshireblvd said:
I recommend you look at the following:

My advice is, wait on school until you've given a few years to the industry. Then you will know if you really want to invest such massive amounts of money into furthering your film education, or you may absolutely hate the Hollywood political system and decide to go elsewhere and do it your own way (like I did:)). Or you may rise through the ranks so fast that school is not necessary. Work first, learn the business and the craft, and then schools will fall over each other to enroll you!
Click to expand...


The original poster is talking about undergrad though. Taking a year off after high school can be cool, but a couple years? Besides, if he needs to get a side job to supplement his income it'll be much easier if he has a college diploma. I say go straight to college or take one year off tops. Once you graduate, yeah, take some time off and test the waters before jumping into grad school.
 
davide said:
The original poster is talking about undergrad though. Taking a year off after high school can be cool, but a couple years? Besides, if he needs to get a side job to supplement his income it'll be much easier if he has a college diploma. I say go straight to college or take one year off tops. Once you graduate, yeah, take some time off and test the waters before jumping into grad school.
Click to expand...

Ah...thanks Davide for pointing out what I missed. I agree completely with your points. Got a bit ahead of myself.

In addition, I think a film degree in undergrad is probably less necessary if you want to do grad school... (I would even suggest maybe getting a more rounded degree and take classes in film on the side as an undergrad rather than getting a BFA. You'll learn on the job pretty quickly after college...but at least with a liberal arts education, you'll have knowlege and stories to make movies about instead of just technical skills. That's the advice I got from a hero of mine and I always pass it on when I can)
 
I wouldn't describe Chapman or LMU as highly competitive. They are selective, at best, I got in to Chapman years ago with a presidential scholarship and still turned them down -- 3 years required living on campus if you're 18, until you're 21, girls and guys dorms like a mile apart, it isn't 1912, seriously. Chapman now, though, as a grad school is in my opinion the best film school in the country. USC may have more spoiled rich kids with money, and they have Lucas's support and a proud history, but their facilities right now are inferior to Chapman by a significant leap. I hear they will catch up in several years and already have plans underway to own Chapman's facilities. I've been to Chapman recently, though, and it's an amazing school. I also have worked with many older graduates of Chapman and they produce some of the best cinematographers around, hands down.

The best work I see, reviewing DP reels and directors reels, is usually from Chapman. Not USC, and definitely not UCLA, which has an undeserved reputation of being some great film school despite terrible, outdated facilities that don't compare to any decent film school and having lost almost all of their best professors to Chapman. I also rarely ever see UCLA students sending me resumes or reels that are any good. For being so hard to get into, UCLA is the most overrated film school in the country. I'm sure it has its good points but you shouldn't have a reputation forever despite really doing nothing lately. Sort of like Avid, a terrible editing program that lives just on its reputation and has decided to make no updates, not to keep up with current trends and technology, etc. and is basically content with just being like, "We're Avid. We rule." That will end soon if they don't get on the ball, that company won't have any future, just like UCLA's film program will eventually fall off top lists if they don't start putting some more money into it and making it competitive again.

As for LMU, I went there, too, for a semester and was accepted to their film program easily. It's not that hard, it's not that selective, and it's not really that good either. I don't have many opinions of it because I wasn't in there long enough to form them, but there aren't that many talented LMU graduates. They are out there for sure, but it's not exactly like LMU is your path into the industry. Then again I'm not sure any film school is.

I would honestly say avoid film school at all costs (and there will be many costs!) unless you can get into USC or maybe Chapman is worthwhile, expensive but still a great school that will probably teach you quite a bit, especially if you're ambitious.

Avoid LAFS like the plague, it's the worst film school around, maybe not as bad as NYFA though, I'm not sure. Those schools both suck hardcore. I went to LAFS for 7.5 weeks before quitting, the second film school I've quit, because I learned ten times as much on my own as they taught me, and if anything the severe breaks in philosophy between me and the school made it more of a negative experience than a learning experience. I don't believe in film, they are still pushing that outdated "technology," I don't believe in Avid, they only use Avid, and the way they teach filmmaking is big Hollywood shoots only, with almost no attention paid to the fact that most people will not be on major Hollywood sets right out of film school so they'll have to adapt. That's a problem with most film schools -- too much emphasis on the "by the book" way of doing things. I definitely prefer having a full shoot where I have a 1st A.D., hair/makeup artist, camera operators, plenty of grips / electrics, etc. That's awesome! But in reality it's not a luxury we all have on every shoot. It takes money to get that together and sometimes you have to cut corners, so the attitudes of film school students is usually that you can't work without 20 people on the set. I can't tolerate that type of bad attitude and that makes many film school graduates almost impossible to hire in my opinion.

PS: Go to Los Angeles. New York City sucks, terrible weather all year, it's too hot in the summers, too cold in the winters, buildings everywhere, no green whatsoever, no nice beaches, snooty people with bad attitudes almost everywhere, impossible to drive anywhere (L.A. traffic sucks but just avoid rush hour and you can drive just fine), too expensive to live even a meager lifestyle (costs $10,000/month to live somewhat well in NYC, let's be honest, and that's not living it up that's just a decent lifestyle). Los Angeles is where the real film industry is -- New York is a pretender. NYC is better for financial companies and modeling / ad agencies. It's not for mainstream filmmaking. It may be the 2nd best film city in the U.S. but it pales compared to L.A. There's a reason this is the entertainment capitol of the world!
 
JonathanLB said:
PS: Go to Los Angeles. New York City sucks, terrible weather all year, it's too hot in the summers, too cold in the winters, buildings everywhere, no green whatsoever, no nice beaches, snooty people with bad attitudes almost everywhere, impossible to drive anywhere (L.A. traffic sucks but just avoid rush hour and you can drive just fine), too expensive to live even a meager lifestyle (costs $10,000/month to live somewhat well in NYC, let's be honest, and that's not living it up that's just a decent lifestyle). Los Angeles is where the real film industry is -- New York is a pretender. NYC is better for financial companies and modeling / ad agencies. It's not for mainstream filmmaking. It may be the 2nd best film city in the U.S. but it pales compared to L.A. There's a reason this is the entertainment capitol of the world!
Click to expand...


Not to hijack the thread but the New York City Metro area has both beautiful green parks and (in Long Island and Fire Island) great, albeit cold, beaches. Also, you can get a decent apartment in the yuppie sections of town (Williamsburg, Greenpoint, East Village) for $2,000. Add to that $81 for a monthly metrocard and a thousand dollars for food/alcohol and you're living quite well for far less than $10,000 a month. Although you and I could be talking about different circles when it comes to living it up. I'm more into the young hipster crowds who try to act like they are poor by drinking PBR. The cost of living for that set, aside from housing, is pretty low. I agree with you when it comes to the weather and LA larger film market. NYC is one of those cities where people live against their better judgment.

And as Wilshireblvd said I agree that you should consider majoring in something other than film for undergrad. At least keep it as a possibility. I do hope we are being more helpful than the average high school counselor.
 
Michael Mann is a chitown native. Heat, Collateral, The Insider, Ali, Miami Vice, I for got to erase that last one just because it was so pretty to look at.
 
Curtis.Laronde said:
NYU has lectures from Scorsese, I know Robert Rodriguez went to NYU as well as Spike Lee. Just my prefference. I heard you have to send them a short film to even be considered. My opinion tho is that most people who end up going there are too artsy and pretentious. They seem to forget that they wanted to tell story's and entertain, and they start making black and white silent films that have some retarded riddle of a meaning. Besides those alot of great directors come from there
Click to expand...

Robert Rodriguez went to NYU? I really doubt it becasue he got a scholarship to go to some texas college, but his lower division grades were not good enoguh for the film school so he left and made "Bedhead." His award winning short film that beat out the film school that wouldn't accept him. Then he made El Mariachi and the rest is on his wiki.
 
No, Robert Rodriguez did not go to NYU. I read Rebel Without A Crew, and first off, he didn't go to NYU. Second and more importantly, he didn't graduate from a film school at all. In fact he's a prime example of someone who didn't go to film school and made it big.

The way some people imagine they will be directors, I really wonder whose footsteps they are following in because I have certainly never heard of what they think happens. This idea like, "Well I'll start as a PA, then be a grip, then maybe work my way up to gaffer, and eventually 2nd A.C. and 1st A.C., and then hopefully DP some stuff, then after like 10-15 years I'll direct." Uhh, who did that... exactly? Lucas? No. Spielberg? Ha, no. Tim Burton? No. Tarantino? Not even close. Rodriguez? Nope. I can't think of anyone who has ever done that. Nobody does that. It's just a great myth to keep people working for cheap on film shoots hoping to realize their "dream" of being a director. It's sad to me. I mean I think it's good to have an understanding of how you can get to where you want, and if you want to spend a few years around sets learning how they all work, that will help make you a better director, absolutely. I just feel sorry for people who somehow think that they'll be asked to direct a big feature because they did such a sweet job moving c-stands on a set. Like somehow just being on a set will give them a chance to get their "big break." Just doesn't work that way, takes a different approach to show yourself that way. Honestly if I see someone as a PA or a grip, I probably always think of them as a PA or grip until they do something to prove that wrong. I mean if they show me a great short they directed and I love it, I will see them differently, but you have to sell your name big to expect other people to take you seriously. Tarantino didn't come in and sell himself as a grip and hope to move his way up. He sold himself as a writer-director with a vision and people believed in his vision(s) and he became, well, Tarantino! Same with Rodriguez. I know not everyone can be Rodriguez, but the point is he had the balls to make work and direct it himself without worrying about what other people would say, whether he was doing things the "professional way," or whether he was "putting in his time," he just had the balls to make things happen and be aggressive. There is always room for people like that. The great successes in history don't follow any established path, they make their own, ala Bill Gates. He quit college. He's the richest man in America.

I think the best advice I'd give is whatever other people are doing, do the opposite.
 
Last edited:
snooty people with bad attitudes almost everywhere,
Click to expand...

New York City is actually one of the most polite cities in the world. Though Manhattan always is portrayed as a nasty place in films, but in the real world - people are pretty nice.

And the former president of Viacom, who I've spoken to, started as a runner in LA. I mean, if you want to direct - yeah, go and do it.

But if you want to be a grip, or an AD, or something else? Good luck getting hired with only self run productions. Those hardly count on a resume. You have to start there somewhere. Most people start as a runner or a PA and show they have skill. I was a PA for a time too. It was great to be on set and see how things actually work. If you want to send out an application to AD a set without ever being on a professional set, or AD'ing a professional shoot with many many people on set...then best of luck to you. No one will ever hire you if you don't have the resume.

The resume is more important than anything, especially when you want to be anything on set aside from a director.
 
Good advice, I suppose. I don't want to do anything besides direct or produce, and I don't need a resume to produce. It's my own company and I produce for our own clients. I can build my own resume through my production company, we're not a fly-by-night operation, this is a real company incorporated in the state of California with all of the insurance, equipment, office space, and capabilities of any other small company. The last shoot I co-produced, and directed, was just as professional as anything that would be done for a record label shoot, just on a smaller budget. We still had a cast and crew of 20 people, which is reasonable for a music video shoot, where even some well known directors have worked with 12 people on their crew, up to about 40 usually.

As a DP or a director, it's all about your reel, not your resume. I don't even bother looking at most DP or director resumes I see, I just look at their reels and if I like what I see I consider them for current or future work. I might glance over the resume to see if they've done the type of work we have in mind, but sometimes it's not a big deal if they haven't either. As long as what we're doing is less complicated than stuff they've already done I'm ok with it.

I think it's great different people want to do different things in the film industry, that's how it SHOULD be, not everyone can be a director or a DP or a producer, etc. We need people of talent and ability in all areas of pre-production, production, post-production, etc. That being said, I came here to direct and decided I also like producing, both of which will take more time to develop all of the skills I need for increasingly higher budget work no doubt. But other peoples' attitudes are just different from mine. For me it's directing / producing or out of the film industry. No interest in being a grip for 5 years, or an AD, or anything else. I know what I want and that's what I try to achieve. If I can't make it in those fields, I'll go make my money elsewhere and return later. That's not a problem for me. Not everyone is in the position to be that way, and a lot of people are fine with working a ton of other jobs first before going into what they really want to do. I don't have the patience for that, I pursue what I want relentlessly and will take my chances along that more dangerous road. At the same time, a lot of people just want to be a 1st A.D. or just want to be a great gaffer, etc. Good for them, I need those people on my shoots, they make the difference between a great shoot that goes smoothly and one that's a disaster. There's always room for people who are great at their jobs no matter what that job is, in my opinion.

As for people in New York City, I've visited many times, everyone from the hotel employees to the people in my experience are fairly rude, uptight, and have short tempers in general. People honk at RED LIGHTS just because apparently they're angry it's red and think if they honk it will somehow make it green, I guess. I am not a fan of the East Coast in general, I don't like the weather, I don't like the people in general, I have limited use for it besides visiting. I'm admittedly very provincial, I love the West Coast, it's clearly the best coast, almost always is for weather no matter what continent you look at, and there's just really no reason to leave the West Coast except on vacation or work. I am sure there are lots of nice people in NYC, I just haven't had good experiences with them in general in my time there. I found the attitudes just too snooty for my tastes. Also I cannot stand the mentality of everyone dressing up for everything, it's just obnoxious. In the Pacific Northwest it's exactly the opposite, and it's equally annoying, nobody dresses up for anything. I like Los Angeles, people dress nicely to go out to clubs on a weekend but other than that things are casual as they should be. The only thing I love about New York is the Yankees, and I will always be a huge Yanks fan. Besides that, no thanks.

Also my version of living a decent lifestyle isn't taking the metro, if you don't own a car you can't really say you have a decent lifestyle unless you have a limo driver. I mean come on, there's no freedom in not being able to hop in your car and drive anywhere, any time, without hassles like a bus or subway or something. On the West Coast we don't care for public transportation too much, it's full of bums and weird people, lol. For me to get a condo as nice as I have in L.A. (and I live in a small condo here, the smallest model in this building, nothing uber-luxurious) in New York City would cost me $2 million, which I cannot afford. To live a similar lifestyle in NYC would in general cost me twice as much money, and I pay enough just to live in L.A. It's expensive here, but it's way more expensive in NYC. I think even SF is more expensive than LA from what I hear...
 
WHOA dude, I never said that RR went to NYU I have read Rebel without a crew as well. I also have the mexico trilogy boxset, so don't be actin like I don't know my share of rodriguez's trivia. He made mariachi for the spanish video market so that it would never see the light of day if it sucked and so he could possibly get his money back from the production costs (that were mostly film and processing). I was replying to some guy who said that RR went to NYU on like page two.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top