cinema studies v. film production

[Lazlo]

Mr. Mullen,

I have a question regarding education in film. I have only fairly recently realized how much I love film, though I have been reading AC magazine for about 3 years, have read several textbooks on cinematography, and have been making films for quite a few years now. The college I'm going to next year has very little in terms of film production courses, but it has one of the best cinema studies programs. I know, as you have mentioned that you never went to film school, but I was curious as to your thoughts on entering as a cinema studies major? Is it better to go to a school with a good film production program, or is the difference negligible? I realize this is sort of subjective, but I respect your opinion greatly, and would appreciate any insight you could offer. Thank you.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Cinema Studies courses are a good idea of course for building your awareness and knowledge of the artform, but I can't say it would make a lot of difference one way or the other in terms of a career. The benefits of a film school are access to equipment and meeting fellow students who may help you after graduation in the business.

 

[Dan Selakovich]

David, didn't you go to CalArts?

One thing I notice about young filmmakers is that they don't know movies or the history that brought us here. The good thing about cinema studies is that you can learn quite a lot about the masters, film grammar, and such, which can make you a better filmmaker in the end. I think if there's a lousy selection of film equipment at your school, it might be better to get your own camera and equipment, take the cinema studies and make your own movies in the mean time. I'd also take a close look at the faculty. At the time I attended calarts we had Alexander Mackendrick teaching directing, Kris Malkiewicz teaching cinematography, and Gil Dennis teaching screen writing among other greats. Have the production faculty at your school ever worked professionally in narrative film? Something to think about.

dan

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I was there from 1988 to 1991, when Mackendrick was still teaching, but Gil Dennis had just left (I think Lou Floremonte took his position.) Kris Malkiewicz was my mentor; recently I got to collaborate with him on the Third Edition of "Cinematography."

Truth is, though, because I was 27 when I went to film school and had spent a decade teaching myself by reading everything I could in the UCLA film library and shooting short films, I showed up at CalArts already with a strong knowledge base on technical issues. What I learned there was staging and directing actors from Mackendrick, plus how to work with students as crew people, and then how to work with directors -- up til then, I had shot and directed by own stuff.

 

[Bob Kessler]

Book larnin' is all well and good, but like DM I had a very strong base of real world experience before I went back to school. Go do some freebee work on student shorts, find an internship, pick up a $200.00 camcorder and FCP Lite for $300.00 and get started. The best learning is hands-on, no matter how good the school.

When you do go to school the person teaching the course is always the key. When I went to Pro Tools school, alternate weekends for about five months, the teacher had a wide experience with both music and audio post. His "name dropping" had nothing to do with trying to impress those of us in the class, he was providing touchstones to which we could relate. For example: "When I worked on 'Sports' with Huey Lewis and the News we had a problem with XXXX and we solved it by...." relating something with which we were all familiar to the lesson at hand. In fact, it was this same teacher who steered me into audio post.

So go get started on your own and carefully research who will be teaching the courses. Good Luck!!!

 

[Lazlo]

[quoteBook larnin' is all well and good, but like DM I had a very strong base of real world experience before I went back to school. Go do some freebee work on student shorts, find an internship, pick up a $200.00 camcorder and FCP Lite for $300.00 and get started. The best learning is hands-on, no matter how good the school. [/quote]

I do a lot of hands on work, and do own a camera and editing software and do make my own shorts. I already am "started" at the level you are describing. I was more curious as to what I could get from a film production department, and then what I could get also from a cinema studies department, not how to get started... Thanks though.

 

[DBXMe2]

I do a lot of hands on work, and do own a camera and editing software and do make my own shorts. I already am "started" at the level you are describing. I was more curious as to what I could get from a film production department, and then what I could get also from a cinema studies department, not how to get started... Thanks though.

I dont think he ment in those terms exacly. His base of knownledge back in 1990 was most probably not Digital, maybe analogue, but the safest bet would be film bassed.

There is a grave difference between digital and analogue. If you are shooting your shots with a handheld cam that has no real control over exposue speed, f.stop, lens control, etc, then you might want to find a school whom can give a better knowledge and experiance with film as a medium and not only as a theory.

BUT there is a rumor that I've heard for a long time and still want to know if it rings true. Are Theorists better filmmakers then practitioners. I've wondered. Since they've been starved of the equipment and access to make film, would their films be better due to that?

I dont know. Well GL, hopefully you'll choose whats best for you, or else you can allways switch program in the middle of the year.
everyone does that lol

GL!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think there is any rule regarding that. Obviously a theorist has to become a practitioner by default if they manage to make a movie. But you meet some people in the film industry who could stand to learn a little about the history of their chosen art form, and you meet theorists who could stand to actually have to make a movie and see how some decisions get made in the real world.

A skill is useless without IDEAS to execute using that skill -- but ideas are useless if you don't have skills to execute them!

 

[Lazlo]

[quoteThere is a grave difference between digital and analogue. If you are shooting your shots with a handheld cam that has no real control over exposue speed, f.stop, lens control, etc, then you might want to find a school whom can give a better knowledge and experiance with film as a medium and not only as a theory. [/quote]

I shoot on an ag-dvc30, so I do have control over exposure and f-stop, and lens, and even filters.

 

[Eric]

A skill is useless without IDEAS to execute using that skill -- but ideas are useless if you don't have skills to execute them!

That's great! I'm borrowing this quote!

 

[BigBeaner]

From my own personal experience, one should learn the history of film as you can learn a lot, from their mistakes or what makes movies good. My school, Emerson, required all VMA students to take two semesters of History of Media Arts. The only problem is almost everyone else in these classes don't care and only complained about wanting a production class. And yet, even though they had no appreciation for the past they can still make some good media. So basically if you think that is what you want then go for it and oyu might enjoy the classes.

 

[Dan Selakovich]

Mr. Mullen is right of course. But I also think the skills can be easily acquired, creativity and film grammar is a bit more slippery. I started out as a gaffer and eventually moved to camera operator on commercials before attending Calarts live action film program. Most of what I learned professionally wasn't strictly taught in school for the most part (the nuts and bolts of it all: the proper way to use a C-stand, rig a light, how to move a Fisher dolly onto tracks, load a panavision magazine, wrap an exposed film can, etc). But what I did get out of my film school experience is that my focus completely changed to editing and eventually, directing, because of the amazing instruction I got there opened my eyes to the editing room. The most important part of my education was beyond the basics of the line, staging, etc, -- what most film schools teach--but how the Masters of the art worked. It's not enough to know the rule of 3rds for a pretty shot, but why a character might be framed to the right 3rd as opposed to the middle or left, that moves a story and character interaction forward. For me, watching the great films in conjunction with film grammar lessons is what let the curtain behind a director's thoughts fall, and open a whole new world. Most of my career has been working uncredited, re-editing and sometimes directing additional scenes for films in trouble. I've done this all over the world, and without fail all of these poor films had one thing in common: directors that hadn't taken the time to learn film grammar, the importance of props and art direction, and in this age of Digital Editing; the importance of objectivity (since the Avid came along, the newbie director is ALWAYS in the editing room. A real disservice to his/her own film). To convey real emotion and connect to an audience, you have to get beyond Master, 2 shot, close-up. Learning how to analyze a film can be a much more important a step in film education than learning how to load a magazine. I'll stop rambling now.

Dan

 

[Kim Welch]

Your Imdb

Your Imdb

Dan this is your IMDB, right?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0782936/

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I didn't realize we both worked on "Tomorrow Man" for Doug Campbell -- I photographed it (as well as two other movies for Doug.) You two must have been at CalArts at the same time.

 

[DBXMe2]

It all depends on the curriculum the school sets for you. At the Mel Hoppenheim, where I currently study, Film Production has half of its core classes in the Film Studies department.

They're trying to make ballanced filmmakers at our school lol. But it works, I've written alot of essays about film and film form. We have Film Aesthetics and Film History. there are more specific classes for these two. Like looking at certain directors, or time periods etc, but there's a good base.


No matter what, I can tell you this, even if you do both, its almost imposible to develope your ideas even if you have the means to produce them.. you always need help, unless your big on working on your own. That takes time though, but works too.... might make your production suffer.....

ANYWAY, if you've got the cash, I'd highly recommend the school I attend. I feel that it is a very well rounded school who deliver alot for their students.

The link is in my signature.

CIAO!

 

[Dan Selakovich]

I didn't realize we both worked on "Tomorrow Man" for Doug Campbell -- I photographed it (as well as two other movies for Doug.) You two must have been at CalArts at the same time.

Kim, yes, that's my imdb, incomplete as it is. When you re-do other people's hard work, you don't see a credit for that. And there's a whole slew of Canon films I assisted on that are not there. Anyway, my first feature film editing job was on a bad horror flick, and once the director's contract was over, the producer asked if I could fix it. I re-edited and directed 30 additional minutes of material and it sold for a boat load of cash. Word got out, and that's what my career consisted of: re-working films in trouble. At first it's quite an ego boost, but there are 2 problems: you are always working on trash, and you never get credit. By the way, this is a good lesson for all of you directors: When you make your first feature, and a distributor comes up to you at Sundance and says: "We love your film! We'd like to make you an offer" Your first response should be "Thank you very much". The 2nd thing out of your mouth should be: "What do you want to change?" When they say "Not a frame!" GET IT IN WRITING, because they WILL change it. I'd like to think that I made those films that I had re-edited and directed additional scenes for much better, as I had a pretty free hand, but this isn't always the case. Most of the time you'll have a lot of suits with a lot of opinions "molding" the thing. I should say I turned down work on films that I think were just fine and shouldn't be touched. That never influenced the distributor though. They just hired someone else to ruin it.

David, Yep, I edited "Season of Fear" (mgm/ua) for Doug (imdb calls that a TV movie for some reason. It did get a theatrical release), and when he did his credit card movie "Tomorrow Man" I owed him many favors by then and handled assistant editing and a few other post production duties. Hey, I think I do remember you David. I went to the set to yell at the sound man, and I think we met then.

Poor Doug. MGM ruined "Season of Fear" (aka An American Murder, which is such a great title. Why oh why did they change it!). We delivered such a great movie I thought. GET IT IN WRITING! Anyway, I was at Calarts with Doug from '83-'86.

Dan

 

[Kim Welch]

California Institute of the Arts

California Institute of the Arts

Your old school calArts just made a bulk order for the magazine.
That makes about 40 or more Universities and film schools across the USA so far plus another 4500 plus individual subscribers! :shock:

 

[Dan Selakovich]

sounds like it's time to hit up schools in Canada! Calarts has really changed since I went. I was up there to visit with Kris Malkiewicz a while back, and I couldn't believe the mass of students! I think the year I was accepted, there were only 35 slots open for the film school. It's great that they've expanded so much.

Dan

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think my incoming Live Action class of 1988 was the largest ever, 40 new students in one year. I started the same year as the new president of the school, Steven Levine, who basically had to figure out how to repay the school's endowment that the previous president had depleted by dipping into it to cover school costs. So the financial solution was to simultaneously increase enrollment and tuition fees.

When I went in 1988, tuition was increased to $9000 a year, then went up by $1000 a year, each year, so it was $11,000 a year by the time I graduated. Luckily I received a half-tuition scholarship for my second and third years so I didn't end up borrowing as much. But I can't imagine paying the current tuition costs of most private universities like CalArts -- I think it's well-over $20,000 a year now.

The Northridge earthquake may have been the best thing to happen to the school -- grants and donations paid for the repairs but also many improvements.

 

[Dan Selakovich]

Hey, it was the depleted endowment and the Chandler's that paid my way through! ;=)

Holy Moly! $20,000 a year WITHOUT Mackendrick! Everyday better be like Christmas in the equipment department.

Dan