Ask and Discuss |Shooting People

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

Chill Vasco...

10 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Students are paying (or at least as likely, Daddy's paying) for the dream of working in media because it looks more glamorous than Sainsbury's. Film schools therefore need to appeal to that dream rather than the reality of 'you'll spend 16h/day standing cold and unloved in a wet field'.

We all know only a fraction of students stay with it and end up working full-time in the industry. It may be partly the fault of the schools for perpetuating the myths of easy glamour, but the industry itself spends a lot of money to create and nurture the glamorous, easy-life image. I'd suggest what film schools need is to stop perpetuating the myth of glamour and get students out on real shoots as interns. I've had so many students/fresh graduates say how much they learn on the job on a real project (ie professionals plus students, not students plus students)

Response from 10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa SHOW

10 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Maybe a part of why we're talking at crossed purposes sometimes is that 'working in film' isn't a single role, but a massive spread. Each role needs significantly different skills and theoretical knowledge. And don't get me wrong, there's a heap of value in understanding the academic side of any subject - just (as with every other industry) students come out of the other end thinking they know the subject end to end, but the real learning is yet to begin. Hence suggesting a lot of internship to give them a head start on their peers who have spent 3 years in a rarified environment of experimentation and other great student experiences.

There's a lot of work in art department, creative design, set building, construction management, etc which seem to be underrepresented on some courses, for instance. Or people who want to produce who can't handle a spreadsheet - the producer's main tool. Intermediate excel skills should be mandatory, as should a grounding in the business side of showbusiness. Contracts, insurance, etc are a fundamental part of making a film - but don't seem to be touched on. I've had graduates who couldn't name the actors or technicians unions, yet they're going to have to deal with them in one firm or another. You don't have to be an accountant, but you certainly need to know how to find one and talk to them. Likewise lawyers. This is all so fundamental, so core to real film industry work that it upsets me that it isn't taught better.

Why not teach how purchase orders and invoices work? How to chase overdue payments and what interest you can apply when at what rate? How to threaten small claims action? How expenses systems generally work? Timekeeping? You can argue that film degrees aren't vocational (they're generally not), but that should be made clear to students signing up - that the course doesn't get them a leg up in the industry where almost all the roles are skills, trades, or creative (ie vocational). I am a qualified engineer, that's an academic degree with lots of hard maths etc., you don't just pick it up on the job - but mist film roles can be picked up through experience and repetition, therein lies the difference.

Just to be clear, I'm not bashing film students at all - they are being sold short by most film courses. I'm not bashing vocational training, it's perfectly apt for a vocational industry. I'm not bashing academic study, theoretical film analysis can really help produce a deeper understanding of the storytelling medium, no question. I just think courses need to be very clear not just what they offer, but how what they offer actually fits in with the real world.

By all means spend £40k on a theoretical film degree, and please enjoy every moment of it - but don't get a superior attitude over the more vocational guys who will end up being your real teachers in all the practical aspects! Some graduates really do, they expect preferential treatment when they really need to start back with the basics.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I remember when students protested against 1k tuition fees. It's amazing that it went up to 40k so quickly. Until Flavio said so, I didn't know that tuition cost that much. To me, it should be about time and effort, not money.

But yeah, in the old days the tuition was low enough that you'd get far more than your money's worth in equipment and software use alone.

I agree that there is great value in vocational training. Unfortunately, there aren't many film NVQs around in Wales. (Even in England, I had trouble finding anything other than lighting.)

The training we got in Lampeter was pretty much class-based vocational. Not much theory, more on how to use programs like Maya and Final Cut Pro and a few machines. (It reminded me of a secretarial vocational course with different programs like Word and how to use a photocopier, only in a parallel universe which much more expensive toys.)

Instead of essays, we did practical projects (I remember discussing how long a dissertation by practice should be in minutes.) We got lots of hands on experience, albeit mostly with people who had close to no experience. But, it cost much less back then, and with scholarships it was practically free for me. Only one thing that could pass for an essay was required, and that was a proposal for the dissertation by practice.

The dissertation by practice was done for a client. Unfortunately, it didn't include any pricing or time scale or even limitation in scope, just how to keep working for the same client for free and keep expanding the scope until the client was satisfied or bored of asking for more favours. (This really ticked me off because I was also a freelancer, so it's like do your work for free to get uni credit. When the client who would normally pay said "and the best thing is, it's free" I almost bolted. Good training for Shooting People projects though. :) So I got them to allow me to limit scope, but they marked me down for it.)

Digital Production required some writing in taking down continuity notes, and other practical skills. I wrote a few scripts for that class, but they weren't required. (It just made the productions easier.)

The other class that allowed a lot of writing was screenwriting. (No real theory there either, even the concept of negotiating an option fee would have been considered too theoretical. We didn't even dissect a script, which I think was a shame. No difference of opinion was allowed either, at least that's how it felt.)

As far as being academic, I had classmates who could hardly read and write (not in the screenwriting class, but other classes.) Nothing against dyslexics, I grew up with reading difficulties, I just wish they called it an NVQ at some point to show that the course was geared toward practical skills.

The variable pace of learning in an NVQ would suit many skills, especially crewing. If they had film NVQs around here, I'd be the first to sign up (and I was also looking for NVQs for my crew last year, but couldn't find any in the area.)

There was not a single book on the reading list that we were required to read, but the classroom setting helped students because if you couldn't read a manual you could always ask a classmate.

Apparently, someone in the eighties thought things would look better if vocational schools became universities. Sadly, what you end up with is hybrids that sometimes don't know what they're supposed to teach.

Anyway, I'd love to discuss theory with the likes of Walter Murch. I wish they taught more real theory (and proper theory, not BS about neo-Freudian proto-Marxists, but the kind of theory useful to filmmakers: like how fast your eye blinks in different emotional situations and how cuts can simulate or even stimulate these responses.)

Not trying to sell you on it, just saying that it was a Skillset recognized class and more practical than theory based. And yes, people came out knowing more than they did when they came in.

Response from 10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa SHOW

10 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

"Anyway, next time you get an open heart surgery, don't hire a med student. No, hire someone who has experience giving back street abortions to stray dogs. Then tell me how experience beats education." <-- Not the greatest straw man argument, to be honest!

Med Students certainly don't have heart surgery experience - after 6 years of general med school you *start* specialising. You don't have open heart surgery classroom sessions, you have a few people who do an awful lot more hands-on cardio work for a long time, then a few of those will specialise in surgery and begin to learn under close supervision, almost as an apprentice. Sure, the med degree is an essential underpinning, but that wasn't your argument as far as I can see?

Now, veterinarians, they have a longer formal training than med students, and get hands-on surgically earlier. They need to understand general physiology, and also be able to calculate general dosages, suture blood vessels, etc. That by no means makes them best suited to doing a heart transplant or similar, but if they have the experience, confidence and track record they're certainly not ruled out of the equation if the option is a fresh med grad (with a hangover).

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

Okay Flavio.
So, you don't see film school at that beneficial. At 40k, you see it as overpriced. And, at 40, you feel out of place. So, for now, you prefer short courses. You feel there are more opportunities on short courses (or perhaps elsewhere) to be mentored by professionals.

Understood. 40k is pretty expensive, especially considering that about 17/18 years ago university was free in this country. It also looks too much if you don't think film jobs pay very well, or if you don't think it actually teaches anything that will improve your career prospects or the quality of your work. The return on investment might not seem worth it to you, Paddy, Wozy, or whoever. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

And, I really don't care if you don't go. I know some students in their fifties who went and benefited, but then I can't say any paid near that much money for it. It's not for you, got it.

So, let's stick to short courses and mentoring.

If you have anything to add, things that might be overlooked or not taught early enough, then that could add to the discussion.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

That's a great business thing, cost of sale. I think that could be taught in secondary schools to all students, because it applies to every industry. Yes, perhaps film students could be reminded of it.

Another thing to factor is in time related cost of sale. Each hour spent at Cannes market is an hour not spent doing work that could at least bring in an hourly wage. Many film unions require their employees to be paid for travel time as well as time at an event.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

It's not as simple as money to spare. Most students take out loans that they pay back later. So, students that come from council estates or other disadvantaged backgrounds see that University might offer a way out, and sign the papers.

There are also scholarships, and it used to be free. I remember being shocked when African students started paying 10k a year for an MBA course in Wales (non-EU students pay way more than locals, who paid 1-2k a year back then, there were scholarships though), but prices are shooting upward. Still, it's a pay-later deal, even if you don't get a scholarship.

So, it's not like students can just spend the money any way they like. In my experience, film students tend to be among the poorest and most likely to have to drop out for money reasons.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

Try getting a credit card to pay for university. They want their interest back in the next payment.

As for just being able to study in America, sounds like Tea Party tripe to me. Yup, why bother with student loans, foreigners are getting a free ride anyway and you can pay for college on credit cards.

Hey, if you can get into USC, go. Sell your left kidney if you have to.

Anyway, next time you get an open heart surgery, don't hire a med student. No, hire someone who has experience giving back street abortions to stray dogs. Then tell me how experience beats education.

Experience has taught me to appreciate education, because in my experience, the more years of film school someone has, the better the work ethic. And, editing films that non-film school crew has shot compared to film school crew has shown me that.

So, in the future, unless I can get someone who has proved themselves to the level of a Michael J Fox or a Quentin Tarantino, or someone who has a showreel or audition that brings the house down, it's all film grads (or at least film students) from now on.

But, they don't teach as much here as they teach in France and America. I've studied in all three countries, and not at bad schools here in the UK either (at least they weren't terrible when I went there, but one of their best instructors is now dead, others have retired.)

I think things can be improved because I think there are students with a work ethic and teachers who have a desire to be useful. That's why I think there's a point to saying "I wish they taught this in film school." Sometimes good people just lack direction.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

@Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Okay, point taken. Film school alone isn't enough, but I'd say that experience alone isn't enough. Ancient medicine lacked the education we now have.

I wasn't saying veternarian anyway, I was saying someone with no formal training whatsoever who just cut into animals for fun.

But, yeah, the insurance people told me they would accept a judo instructor if I couldn't get an experienced and qualified stunt operator.

This argument is pointless. Results are all that matter.

http://cinema.usc.edu/alumni/notable.cfm

A lot of these people were making films soon after graduation.

I don't think film grads need to take the kind of verbal abuse that insinuates that they are lazy, fame seeking, time-wasting, talentless wannabes who deserve less than the minimum wage for the first twenty years of their career.

I'm not saying you're guilty of that, but that's the way some of this film student trashing comes across as.

No, they have shown me that they have the stamina to stick with something for three years. If they have high school film qualifications too, they have long term ambition and are worth taking a risk on.

That's why I'm interested in what's taught there, because these are the people who have shown a higher level of committment than others who had the opportunity to go but didn't. It's only fair that other (read British) film schools at least attempt to compete with USC, or take a look at its curriculum.

So, what I want to know is, what should we be teaching these dedicated, ambitious, hard working, potential filmmakers of the future that we aren't teaching them now.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

@Flavio Filho
Yes, that's a complaint I had about many film schools. Some in the UK don't even have changeable lenses on their cameras, or if the lenses can come off the students are never notified of that fact (nor encouraged to try it.)

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

That's too bad that you had to drop how to use Scheduling/budgeting software. At Pima Community College (Tucson, USA), we had to put together some kind of prep before we were approved to borrow a camera.

As for the maths of lensing, that's actually in GCSE physics classes.

I understand the concept of depth of field, and have an old ASC manual to get the numbers, but I really wish I understood the science of it better. Thank you for letting me know that the Arri replicates an old 65mm, the old manual will be more useful to me now.

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

You're putting words in my mouth.

Wozy, from your (and a couple of other people's) responses here and elsewhere I think we are speaking different languages. Either that, or you're a ukip supporter offended by last little short film. :)

A lot of producers take writing courses and go to film school, then ask for a free script here on SP. They have no concept of "option agreements" nor do some writers (or wannabe writers) in my network. And, while I've been on writing courses, I don't think any mentioned the business side of things (the building course I was on mentioned the business side of things on the first day.)

At film school, my discussions with other students proved they were ignorant of the subject (and even my conversations with instructors.) So, I'm speaking from experience here.

As for my Executive Producer post, yes, well, normally it's the EP who pays the writer. It's also a title sometimes given to a producer. I don't think the person with money always has to be initiating every relationship. I'm looking for an executive producer doesn't mean I'm looking for a salaried employee. Next, you'll be saying that an agent is paid on salary by the writer. (It is kind of cheeky for me to put a job post up for an "employer", but then, who cares. At least I didn't promise anything unrealistic, like free exposure.)

So, Wozy, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but you've got me all wrong.

But, thank you for pointing out your perception, perhaps something in my personal communication style could be improved, or maybe I should just get more sleep before posting. I thought I was being perfectly clear, but I too sometimes read between the lines and assume things for various reasons.

Happy Shooting and Peace to you,
Vasco

10 years, 7 months ago - Flavio Filho

There's so many options and reasons NOT to go to film school. From my point of view.
But hey, that doesn't apply to everyone. For some I think it might be essential.
If I was in my early 20's, surely would be great to for to school. But more and more, I see School is worthless, even for the not so young. The problem is as always, contacts. There's a lot of people being mentored by professionals that have way more chances to perform better than the recent grads.
it;s an endless topic in a sense. But for me is end of story. Short courses, technical courses, yes. 40K for a film school? Never.

10 years, 7 months ago - Marlom Tander

Do they teach much about the basic finance issues, e.g. Cost of Sale.

Cost of Sale of your completed film is some K - booth at Cannes / AFM / Berlin.

But the real starter cost, at least for those who want to Direct / Produce is the cost of establishing their network. Say you take three people a day out*, probably in London, coffee, lunch, tea - say 150 if you need to travel. 100 such days gets you your contacts, so that 15K, plus your living costs, and that's just to set up allow you to pitch to people who both like you already, and are powerful enough to help if they then like your project.

So 30K ish, and probably realistically, 40K+

And then there's the work for each project on top, plus a basic on cost of 2-3Kpm

* You need them 1-2-1 so they can be focused and be impressed by you. Networking events are great for swapping bus cards, but such fleetings need follow up.

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

If I had £40k spare I wouldn't have gone to film school - I'd have made 8 5k shorts to get the same experience or even a feature...

Response from 10 years, 7 months ago - Flavio Filho SHOW

10 years, 7 months ago - Flavio Filho

Loved that. It's through the lenses where all the production work goes through. It's basic knowledge to understand the process at least.

10 years, 7 months ago - Marlom Tander

Make it compulsory then - New pitch "Some schools teach you what you want to know. We teach you what you NEED to know. Go them if you want a fun course, come to us if you want a career" :-)

10 years, 7 months ago - Flavio Filho

I agree with Paddy.
I came to London 7 years ago and my dream at the time was to study at the LFS.
I've applied only 4 years later as I was suppose to be at least 3 years in Europe as a Italian Citizen that just recognised the italian citizenship to be eligible for a scholarship. The single one they offer btw.
Needless to say I was accepted *yay!* but didn't enrol because I don't happen to have £40k to spend for 2 years in a MA. Unfortunately... Well, actually not nowadays I think. I'm 40 now, and I don't think the school would do much for me at this point. Not really, especially after speaking with so many people about it.
I would add that the schools are way too expensive. Apart from NTFS that seems to charge a fair price for a year of tuition, around 10k (I wish I was aware of such school when I just arrived).
Now what is working for me is wok experience. and actually the few I've had were OK, but none was paid. And the first short I did, I've paid the minimum to everybody, even the extras. Everybody.
My experience even on short courses at a highly regarded film school, I could see how see for myself that the quality of the course that I've paid, erm, £1K, it was very weak. Not only my feedback, but also from half of the people who attended the course. I have a book that taught me way more than a weeks course in there.
I would add that schools should stop offering dreams (glamour) even on short courses, and start to advise tutors to give real feedback on how the industry works. It's okay to say it's the best job in the world, you can do it, etc, but please equally season the expectations of people that the "dream job" you might get has as many lows as highs.

10 years, 7 months ago - Flavio Filho

I didn't say I feel "out of place" at 40. That was you. I said school is not for me especially now.

School DOES teach many things that would improve everyone at least a little. But NO, you don't need school to make (good) films. You have to STUDY. Start with THEORY. And PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.

My experience on short courses: I'd say the tutors could be more well selected by the schools. Get the PROACTIVE ones. Because I believe the ones that are really really (did I say really?) good on the CRAFT are more busy actually on the making, not teaching.

I've attended mostly AVERAGE short courses, with some being really good. Some...

This is mainly because the TUTORS don't have TIMING, SCHEDULE, or a concrete PROGRAM to follow, and are not worried much about PUT PEOPLE ON THE MAKE OF FILMS. It's just too much TALK. Fine if the course is based on theory, but please state that it's THEORY and WHAT IN DEPTH THE THEORY IS ABOUT. If it's hands on, STATE THAT REALLY IS and please don't make us believe that is and in the end it's only 2 hours of a weeks course against 34 hours of theory and show off with lots of not-so-great films that that director did. Please find the balance.

Hope I have added something, but if I didn't, check below the list of a friend that have attended a prestigious paid film school sent to me a while ago. Maybe you might find lots of useful information.

Best of luck.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/the-big-question-for-all-aspiring-filmmakers-should-i-go-to-film-school.html

http://filmmakermagazine.com/36400-the-terry-gilliam-school-of-film-10-lessons-for-directors-today/#.VA-SLsJdWSo

http://www.indiewire.com/article/proving-you-dont-need-to-go-to-film-school-to-make-it-a-list-of-film-schools-2013-sundance-directors-attended

http://garyfleder.com/for-aspiring-filmmakers/

http://www.mania.com/6-directors-should-failed-but-didnt_article_118231.html

http://www.ranker.com/list/greatest-directors-that-didn-and-_39_t-go-to-film-school/darrenmartinturner

http://www.filmconnection.com/reference-library/film-education/do-i-need-to-go-to-film-directing-school-jan2012/

http://community.musicbed.com/articles/film-school-film-school-8-filmmakers-perspectives

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I wrote a short article outlining what an option is. Let me know if it's useful. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/film-development-101-option-vasco-p.

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

Paying for the education, like going to film school, is only the start of a long, and in some cases, never ending process of spending money to becoming a filmmaker. I must have spent 20 years of laying out money every week, every month, every year, to cover myself when work has been thin on the ground. And there has been a lot of it. And only in the last few years have I been able to recoup it all when 'success' (whatever that is and its different for everyone) arrived. Most won't stay the course though, through one reason or another, so won't ever get to recoup.

So even paying for the education, whether its hard cash or a scholarship or a loan, that's just the tip of the iceberg for most people who want a career in film. Sorry if this is a news flash for anyone!

But just on Vasco's note about "not being as simple as..." My reference was really to those who do take out a 'loan' or use a credit card. Of which I have known a few people do that. They came out the other end of the film school wishing they hadn't bothered and spent the money on getting real world experience. Now I know that isn't the case for everyone, but it is for some. It's a good point he makes also, but not quite what I meant ;)

On another point about film schools. I know a lot of people who attended film schools in the US and none have a bad word about them!!! And they are EXPENSIVE....

10 years, 7 months ago - Franz von Habsburg FBKS MSc

As founder of the Brighton Film School here's my input. I made sure everything was taught and as I had started in the industry as a production accountant it fell to me to teach film finance and distribution etc, starting with FD Tagger then MM for Scheduling and Budgeting then onwards to deals, tax breaks and all the usual stuff. Their eyes would glaze over as they just wanted to get out there with a camera. Only one or two were interested so after a couple of terms it had to be dropped. The other problem today at many film schools is that they don't "bother" to teach the maths of lensing so most now come out knowing nothing about CoC, DoF, perspective or shutter angle etc. One London film school actually advertises "We won't bore you with the maths of cinematography"!!! Lensing is the same regardless of whether there is cellulose or sensor behind, and the new Arri replicates the 65mm 5 perf pull down but if they haven't been taught what 65/70mm 5 perf is, they have no roots.

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

I've got to say that if you think the biggest problem that writers have is no knowledge, or lack or knowledge, of options, then you haven't read enough screenplays lately.

And whilst we on the subject of "jobs posted" and "excuses given", were we? we are now, I noticed your own post for an EP...

ASK & DISCUSS

What do you wish they taught in film school?

ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

What do you wish they taught in film school?

ASK & DISCUSS