What is you opinion of Chapman's film school?

renegadewill

renegadewill

Well-known member
I'm just wondering what chapman would be ranked next to USC and UCLA? What are your experiences with any of these schools? Possibly reasons not to got to any of them? Are there better film schools out there?

Just wondering,
Will
 
I'm anti-film school so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I think Chapman is an excellent film school. I think it's better than UCLA for a number of reasons. First it has far superior equipment and facilities. Second Chapman took most of the best teachers from UCLA anyway. Third I've experienced a lot better reels and work coming from Chapman graduates than UCLA graduates. That is somewhat circumstantial I realize, but my last two DPs were both from Chapman, and the one I'm working with now, the second of those two, is amazing. He graduated a while ago though, things have changed (for the better even), but the school seems to turn out some amazing DPs, at least.

USC has such a great reputation, and they always stay on the cutting edge for equipment. They are trying to outdo Chapman now from what I understand. As it stands Chapman has the best facilities of any film school in the nation currently. That's not everything for a film school, but it doesn't HURT either. USC and Chapman I rank as the best two film schools.

UCLA.... they are surviving on reputation. I don't see what's so great about that film school anymore. It's just been noted as a great film school for so long that it won't lose that reputation apparently.
 
I have no idea, a lot of film schools are behind and only offer Avid seemingly, very bad for the professional world unless you come right out of film school and start working on major features, I guess. Almost everyone in the indie world uses FCP and frankly there's no reason not to. It's a less expensive system that works a lot better, you can get just as good of performance from a fully loaded Mac Pro (like I'm using now, just got it today) as you can out of an Avid hardware accelerator if you set it up correctly, at least.

You can shoot with film at almost any film school if you want. My friend Bryan at Chapman shot his shorts with film I think, at least a few of them. He might have shot all of them with film, not sure. I think his last was 35mm, given as a donation by Kodak. Chapman seems to have a very strong program. My only objection to Chapman, which is an objection USC kids will give you for sure (I know a girl who is friends with Bryan and goes to USC), is that Chapman isn't in Los Angeles. It's in Orange County, and that isn't L.A. no matter how much they want to act like it is. It takes an hour to get to and from Orange County even without bad traffic, more than that for sure with any sort of traffic. I've spend 1.5 hours getting there before from downtown Los Angeles. That means those students are a bit more cutoff from the world of filmmaking as it happens in L.A., not as many opportunities on weekends to go get on sets, etc. At least, it's a lot harder. It's a fair objection. I think it's overblown somewhat, though, because there are plenty of opportunities at the film school and I don't see it as a huge problem, if you want to go the film school route, to go to Chapman.

I just personally could never justify going to a film school ultimately because the money is better spent on your reel and your equipment, you can learn in the real world without too much trouble if you save the money. Then again, the world is setup to put you in debt and have to pay people interest, so of course if you don't have the money it's easy to get a student loan but you can't get a loan for buying equipment and shooting your own projects very easily, not unless you start a business and have great credit. That's what I did, only I don't borrow money, rather not go into debt for this ;)
 
I recomend Piedmiont College in Chapplehill, NC.
It's a two year program (very affordable) and you will leave with savy in production, 2D and 3D animation, compositing, editing and sound desing and your final is your demo reel. You will also be supplied with a list of regional employers who are hip to the program there. I designed this program from the ground up from course requirements and curriculum to hardware and software.
You'll shoot with a variety of cameras and post in a variety of suites. You'll leave very marketable with plenty of avid, after effects, lightwave and fcp knowledge.
 
Nice, that's always good.

I have strong opinions about film schools and what they do right and wrong, and there is a lot of good, of course, but if I made a film school I don't think it'd be that much like anything out there today. It would have a lot of common elements but the other 30% would be very different.

There needs to be more film schools that teach real-world filmmaking, not real-world $100 million Hollywood feature filmmaking. That may be "the right way" to do things, but nobody cares about that until they get there, and many people will never get there anyway. At least prepare students for work outside of film school, where people are going to have to take jobs on half-assed productions because it's work and it pays something and gives them experience. I think you learn as much from a bad production where things go wrong than as a good one. You learn the differences and why things are done a certain way.

My #1 objection to film school is the way that building a reel is structured. I find it unacceptable. My film school would not let you graduate with a narrative thesis film only. In fact I'd be likely to make that optional. If you were a directing major you wouldn't graduate without a commercial reel or corporate reel of some sort (or both), a music video at least, and then some type of narrative work whether it was a few nice scenes with great acting and blocking or an actual thesis film. The problem I see is so many students, basically 90% of them, graduate with the same thing -- narrative work only, a few short films that range from terrible to very good, and usually are just ok at best. Now, obviously the BIG money is in narrative filmmaking, that's why you look at the box office top 10 every week and these films are making loads of cash. But if you're a director how likely are you to land a directing gig doing ANYTHING like that for the first 5-10 years out of film school? Not very! The kind of work that's out there where you might actually be able to direct it yourself is Web work, corporate videos, commercials (local, regional, or national), low budget music videos, etc. Of course there's not as much money overall in those areas, but since that's realistic work that directors make money doing, especially commercials, it makes no sense to me to graduate with a reel that's useless for every purpose but TV episodes and feature films.

It seems to me most people (myself included) want to end up doing features or television shows, but you have to get there first. I have ignored the reels of many directors for my production company because I didn't feel like watching their 17 minute short films, not enough time, and because I have no idea whether the fact they have a nice short means they can do a good music video or commercial or whether that's just not their thing. I would like to see more well-rounded graduates in general. If you had a program like that, you also have editors doing that work, so you have editors graduating having done a lot of types of work.

For me right now I'm focusing on building a complete reel, or if not complete at least give people an idea of a bit of everything: Music videos, corporate work, and commercials mainly. I'll build my narrative part last because I think (honestly) it takes the most directing ability and I want to grow into that type of work. I'm more comfortable with one-day shoots and playing with a lot of footage for a music video or a commercial. I am honest at admitting I don't think I'm quite ready for a short film that will match my quality standards yet. I have directed I think 5-6 short films and 3 of them were extremely amateur, total garbage, I kind of like one of the remaining ones but it's student film quality, it's better than some peoples' thesis films in my opinion, but it's not professional. The other one I remember, my last short film, was a throw-away. I think I got some good acting out of the actor who was already really good, and I think I got not-that-great acting out of the other guy who wasn't that great. So all that tells me is I can't really make someone's performance any better yet, I basically have to rely on casting and having them be good from the start. I think I can do better than that but I'm still learning about that aspect. So I don't care for any of my own short films, I wouldn't watch any of them again basically with the possible exception of one and that's more for curiosity at whether it looks worse and worse as I progress ;)
 
there are systems created to make money and systems created to place creative people in paying positions. If you want to spend money, go to a school that boasts and then leaves ya with your initiative. If you wanna shoe-horn a fountain of knowledge into 2 years and then start working, check out the DEAT program I created for Piedmont College. If you just wanna start working in the industry, cold call all day today and go to whoever invites you in tomorrow. You will work for free for a little while and then take off. The good part is you can start making money in this field much quicker this way. The bad suide is you will learn workflows of these places, not necesarily how it's suppose to be done. Bad habbits can kill a career later on and it's a good idea to know rules before ya break em. Taking time to educate yourself is the only way to do this.
 
Chapman is a great school. I checked out them and chose them over USC and UCLA (for better or worse...) What you will get from Chapman is a great education. What you will not get is the prestige that you would from the other schools, so you have to decide what is more important.

They have a great program and a great atmosphere of camaraderie that the other schools lacked. While I attended, there was never enough time as everyone was always helping everyone else out with their projects.

To illustrate; after graduation I AC'd on a shoot with a DP who had just graduated from USC. She asked me how many films I DP'd while at Chapman. I said 20-30. Her jaw dropped. She said she shot 4. As it turned out, I was clearly more experienced (and talented) than she -but- I was working under her because she had graduated from USC. I found a lot of that, and it took a while to build my rep enough that people stopped asking where I went to film school and just knew that I was a good DP.

Chapman's rep may be changing, but that's been my experience.

Now if I had to do it all again, I'd take film classes at OCC (orange coast college) and at the same time, work my ass off in LA and OC freelancing. I'd probably get the same level of education, while not incurring the giant student loans.

Just my .02 from a Chapman grad.

BTW, I'm in Sac, so PM me if you have any questions.
 
I'm currently a third year film and media studies major at uc irvine, and I'm really interested in continuing my film education and experience at a major university or conservatory for film, namely USC, UCLA, NYU, AFI, columbia, or university of texas. strangely, I hadn't heard of chapman university as a strong film school until just now, while browsing these forums. whether or not that is a result of the bias the public has towards schools like the ones listed above or me just being uninformed remains to be seen. at any rate, I've got a few questions for any of you who know a lot of the application process to graduate schools, graduate schools for film in general, or those of you who went to chapman.

alright, I started out at uc irvine as a biological science major because I was being pushed by my parents into being a doctor. needless to say, my lack of motivation for the major contributed to my eventual major change to film - something I have loved my entire life. however, this change didn't come before a manifestation of my lack of motivation in bio-sci in my GPA. to put it lightly, I didn't do so hot in the bio-sci classes I took and now my GPA is substantially lower than it should be. and now, for the actual question: when applying to graduate schools like chapman for film production, is a GPA really important? or does your portfolio take precedence? I've made 5-6 award winning shorts in a number of genres, and I'm currently editing a feature length documentary that I shot on location in the philippines. to be honest, I've got quite a bit more experience behind the camera than most people for my age. does that help cover my GPA? also, my GPA isn't bad but it could be better. I think right now my overall GPA is around 2.7 and my GPA in my major (film and media studies) is 3.6 or something like that.
 
Finnegan, I'm sorry to say but your parents are correct as far as a career goes, because it's pretty much a sure thing & it will give you the cash you'll need & want to live---- & make movies. Bio-tech is the next big thing. $$$

Talk to the folks at Chapman or where ever about admitance, they don't want slackers, you must prove you're not a slacker. I encourage film school for those who can afford it, but passion is what is really needed, whether it's in school, on the set, or whatever profession you choose. I know you don't have it for bio-med, but someday you might really kick yourself for not pushing this. Film success is pretty much a gamble, but if it's what you love, go for it. Although, you could become a doctor and make movies on the side, hmmm. What ever you do, choose wisely, you can't go back, it's your life.
 
JonathanLB said:
For me right now I'm focusing on building a complete reel, or if not complete at least give people an idea of a bit of everything: Music videos, corporate work, and commercials mainly. I'll build my narrative part last because I think (honestly) it takes the most directing ability and I want to grow into that type of work. I'm more comfortable with one-day shoots and playing with a lot of footage for a music video or a commercial. I am honest at admitting I don't think I'm quite ready for a short film that will match my quality standards yet. I have directed I think 5-6 short films and 3 of them were extremely amateur, total garbage, I kind of like one of the remaining ones but it's student film quality, it's better than some peoples' thesis films in my opinion, but it's not professional. The other one I remember, my last short film, was a throw-away. I think I got some good acting out of the actor who was already really good, and I think I got not-that-great acting out of the other guy who wasn't that great. So all that tells me is I can't really make someone's performance any better yet, I basically have to rely on casting and having them be good from the start. I think I can do better than that but I'm still learning about that aspect. So I don't care for any of my own short films, I wouldn't watch any of them again basically with the possible exception of one and that's more for curiosity at whether it looks worse and worse as I progress ;)
Click to expand...


The most direct path to a goal is going straight to it. If you want to do narrative, practicing other forms isn't all that helpful. Would someone wanting to be a pro bowler practice baseball just because they both happen to be sports? As you stated, the competition is tough, why waste time & effort? On the other hand if you want to make a living shooting, then you'll need what you stated.
 
I only do corporate/commercial stuff so I can buy stuff for my shorts. My friend taylor who is in chapman's film program and he said that more than most of his class is full of kids who just thought it would be cool to go to film school. They don't even care about it. They are getting weeded out right now, but he was pissed using a sony handycam for the first semester.
 
I want to make a living as a filmmaker before I cut directly to the point and although I have fairly solid financial resources, I don't have enough (and I'm sure my dad doesn't have enough patience, haha) to spend my money making 8 short films that meet my standards ($10,000+ per one no doubt, easily) and spending 5 years trying to get the right connections without making money. No thanks. I know we (my production company) can make money through corporate projects, commercials, music videos, etc. because we're already doing paid work now in those fields.

Bowling and baseball, really not sure that's a good analogy at all. How many professional bowlers become professional baseball players? I don't know of any. But I can tell you A LOT of directors who started in music videos and went to feature films, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you because you know them already! The process of making a music video is 95% similar to the process of making a feature film. If you have a story you still have to cast actors, you still have to come up with a concept that makes good sense, you still spend a lot more time pre-planning than shooting, you still have to go through headaches in the editing room, you still have a crew, etc. It's like how humans and apes are 99% alike but that 1% makes a huge difference. Well, features and music videos are extremely similar in process it's just duration and some style that's different. Of course even then there's been a lot of crossover between MTV-style editing and storytelling and Hollywood blockbuster style.

What I love about making music videos, for instance, is the challenge of telling a story in such a tiny amount of time where you really have no room for BS. Every shot MUST be carefully selected and have a purpose. If it doesn't it will get cut before the end of the editing process. Unfortunately even good shots get cut, like in this music video we just finished the final color correction on today (will be up online and I'll throw it on the HVX forum here in a few hours), there were still parts I wanted in the video that ultimately there just wasn't space to include.

I think a big problem with many student short films is the lack of tight editing, the amount of time that seems to be padding rather than driving the story forward. When you start doing music videos before you do a bunch of shorts (I've done about 5 shorts, nothing above average and mostly bad because it was ages ago), you end up learning to ask yourself on every single part, "What is this accomplishing? How does this move the story forward?" Of course you can do that on a short, too, but I think the necessity isn't there because there's a lot of freedom of time. "Ah, well, I was hoping it'd be 12 minutes but 15 is fine I guess." Or 18. Or 22. Or whatever. In a music video you have as long as the song plays (well, more or less, I know exceptions exist and even my last one has a brief 4-5 second intro), so you really are forced to tell that story in a certain segment of time. I see that as a valuable skill to learn and practice.

Now of course there are differences of major note, obviously dialogue is not present in most music videos, or at least not much of it besides maybe at the very start, so you don't develop the same directing skills for features or shorts, etc. that you would throw normal narrative filmmaking. But that's just a difference, there are strengths and weaknesses to practicing both.

I am not a shooter, so I won't make a living holding a camera or lighting. I can't do either one very well, haha. I have a director's understanding of many areas of film, which is to say I know the broad strokes and how to communicate with a crew, or my editor, but I don't know every detail. I know a fair variety of cameras and have read a lot about different cameras, but I don't have practical experience with hardly any. I know what I like as far as lighting, but I can't tell you when I walk into a location what kind of lighting will be needed. I couldn't just say, "Ok get those two kino flos over here, then rig the 650 here, and put a 300 over there." No way, haha. But I know how to hire people who are amazing at that and for me to become as good as they are isn't worth it -- it's not my passion or interest.

Making money in this industry, a good living, is my first concern and I see that being possible largely as a businessman, as a producer and offering film services to clients, not through just being an artist. I am pursuing my artistic ambitions at the same time, however, and it gives me time to work on scripts and hone my craft before I start moving up, hopefully, to the level I really want to be, which is features. It's just very cliche to say, "Yeah I want to get into features," I mean, everyone wants to get into features. Very few people say, "Yeah I would like to be just a music video director for the next 50 years, I'd never want to do anything else," or "Yeah I see myself as a commercial director and that's it." That's pretty rare. Even though commercial work is more lucrative in general, I know one director who is VERY good at what he does, he helped on my last shoot actually, and he got into music videos after he had already made it in commercials. I figure that's just because music videos are fun and he wanted to try his hand at them, too. Makes sense to me.

We sell our production company as capable of making anything the client wants. If someone wants a $1 million music video, I may not be the guy to organize all of the details, but again, I have a guy who can and is a name professional. If that money flows in from any direction, it's very easy to hire the people who can make it happen as long as you are steering the ship.
 
I'm totally with Jonathan on this, music videos are what you do to make money and sharpen you craft in a very profitable manor. Oh yea, students watch too much PTA, I love the mofo, but he makes kids think that they can hold shots too. They can't, if they had daniel day lewis, Philip Seymor, or philip baker hall then they could. Yea, student shorts are like all filler of establishing shots then random tarantinoized dialogue cut slowly, then they finish off with an excess of color correction. Hey, I do it too, but we are all still learning, and no one is gonna pay ya to make those.
 
It depends what you mean by narratives -- I put narrative into my music videos, haha.

I don't think they are miles apart at all, I think there are a lot more similarities than differences. I'm not saying they are, within film, super similar, but I'm saying that you still need a similar type of crew to make both, it's more about scale than about position for instance, so you're going to get experience in production by doing music videos that translates to doing any other kind of work like that. A lot of the skills of directing are interpersonal communications, understanding how to talk with your crew and get the best out of everyone, and your cast of course. It goes without saying you are going to grow more as a narrative director doing narrative work with dialogue.
 
Let me try again so I can be more clear. If you want & need to shoot for a living, do whatever, just make a living. If you want to make movies then you need to start now. Yes, there have been some directors that have started in music videos and have moved over to narratives. Narratives are regular movies, stories, i.e., the pictures at your local theatre. Putting together a narrative story is much different and far more difficult than a music video even if they (music videos) are suppose to have a theme and some sort of a story. You're trying to tell a real story, that is what is so different about narratives. This is tough stuff! it's not easy to do it well. I understand avoiding this work.

This brings up my analogy of someone wanting to be a pro bowler. Would you suggest to this person who wants to be a pro bowler to practice baseball because they're both sports and therefor it will help him become a pro bowler? No, you'd tell him to practice bowling. So I'm suggesting that music videos are like practicing baseball when it's bowling you really want. If you want to make narrative "hollywood" stories, it's best to proceed directly to it, because the time & effort in music videos will not transfer much value to you. Yes, there are a million difficulties in narrative story telling, but that's why you need to get your mind around it now. Cinematic narrative story telling is very different & it's a steep learning curve. It will take much time & effort. Also, you can always do music videos on the side, they're not that tough and it's fun to try out creative shots, but once again, the sooner you get your head wrapped around narratives, the sooner you'll get to your real destination if that is where you really want to go.

Also, learn to shoot the camera for yourself, don't be above it.
 
I don't think that is his point 10s. He's saying as am I that we do music videos and shorts. Why do you make it sound like I have to commit to this I'm only 19, I don't feel like I'm that old. Do you fully support yourself as a narrative filmmaker?
 
>My friend taylor who is in chapman's film program
>and he said that more than most of his class is full of kids
>who just thought it would be cool to go to film school.

That sounds about right for the undergrad program. I went for the grad program and and everyone there was focused and dedicated. It's probably the same in any school.

>They don't even care about it. They are getting weeded out right now,

Good.

>but he was pissed using a sony handycam for the first semester.

No offense, but your friend should stop whining. There is a reason you shoot with a palmcorder in the first semester. He is there to learn the craft of film making, foremost storytelling. For that all you need is a palmcorder. Once he learns the fundamentals, exposure to high end equipment will come with the advanced classes. To be handed an SR or in the first semester would only be a distraction. Besides, nothing he does his first semester will end up on his reel. I guarantee it. 99.9% of first semester "films" are just painful to watch. The very few that are entertaining are so because of story anyways...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top