Should I bother going to film school?

[Guest]

At the end of the day anyone who can arrange financing for a movie can be the director or take any other position they want. Oren Peli did Paranormal Activity for under 20K. Those situations are statistical anomalies, that's true.

 

Spending money on a film education is always a gamble, always will be. There will always be far more film school graduates than the industry can possibly use. Consider that 9/10 people in film school are there because they want to be directors, not grips or gaffers. And there will never be enough director "positions" for the thousands of graduates produced every year. Plus film school is a stepping stone, there have been a few guys that have made it big right out of film school that's true. But again....statistical anomalies.

 

I don't know what the answer is? I went to film school, so that I can now hire.......myself. Good thing I like my resume.

 

R,

[Keith Walters]

Why are you asking here then?

 

 

The only reason film schools exist in the UK is to make money for the people who own them.

 

As are 99% of other "Industry Related" Institutions

As are companies who charge you $3,000 for a crap photo portfolio so you can "get acting work"

I made about $10,000 as a Featured Extra in a series of local TV commercials; my outlay being emailing some photos to a casting agency. (A REPUTABLE casting agency). Yet I've lost count of the number of people who've told me about their 3 grand portfolios that never got them a single frame of screen time.

Another one of the actors in the same ads answered an ad posted on the wall in the Danish Embassy, when they were looking for "Nordic" types. The idea of actually appearing in a commercial had never occurred to her. (Nor me, despite my many years on the other side of the camera).

I mean, how many successful Rock guitarists actually read magazines like "Guitar Player"? SFA in my experience.

 

A generation ago, acquisition and post production costs were a major impediment to a budding cinematographer, not any more. Why not just get a camera and start shooting? Where do you start? Well, have a look at something someone else has shot, and try to figure out how they did it. All you need for that is a DVD player and a notebook....

[Chris Leutger]

My two cents would be to get your undergraduate degree in something else. Something that might land you a career or might end up being a field of study that will inform your film work. As many have suggested, there is no impediment to getting out there and doing it on your own. The material you study in school and the experiences you have around that might be valuable content you wouldn't engage with if you studied and worked solely in one area. There's always the opportunity to go to graduate school and make contacts in film. But at the undergrad level if film turns out to not be the "thing", then you'll have that science or "whatever" degree.

 

 

 

I mean, how many successful Rock guitarists actually read magazines like "Guitar Player"?

 

That is great. So true.....

[David Landau]

Yes - go to film school! Absolutely. I did and I have worked my entire life in film - as did most of my graduating class. Now I teach and 50% of my students end up working in the industry within a year after graduation. They work as PAs, as grips, as electrics, as production office assistants, as assistant producers, as editors, as camera ops. One works as a director.

 

Why go to film school when you can "learn" all about it on the internet or by going to NY Film Academy for a weekend? because you can't learn without hands on trial and error and from being mentored by someone who has already made mistakes and done things right as well. There's a book that says you should save your $40,000 a year and make a film. If you do, your film will such. You will make so many mistakes it will be unwatchable and you will have learned nothing and wasted your time, money and energy. You will be re-inventing the wheel, and coming up with a box. No great filmmaker has ever been self taught. They have always been mentored by people already successful in the trade. In the days of old, you had to have a relative to get you a job on a set where you could learn from watching and doing. Film school allows those without connections to learn the basics of the filmmaking crafts and arts. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

 

It is true that the majority of film school graduates don't end up working in the film biz. That's actually a good thing - because the majority of film students think they are the world's greatest director without every having had to pay their dues and work their way up. They want instant success and recognition. That's not how the real world works - in any career. many schools, such as NYU tell all their students that they are directors. So they come out with a false sense of entitlement and ego and often won't accept that they still have much to learn and need to start at the bottom - like everyone else did since the film business began. The ones that succeed are the ones hungry and educated and eager enough to take whatever job they can and learn from those that are working.

 

Film school teaches you the wide spectrum of how it all fits together. You'll need to decide where you fit in and pursue that when you get out. Most of today’s top filmmakers - writers, directors, DPs, editors - all went to film school.

Edited September 27, 2014 by David Landau

[Freya Black]

In the days of old, you had to have a relative to get you a job on a set where you could learn from watching and doing. Film school allows those without connections to learn the basics of the filmmaking crafts and arts. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

 

You need to get into Oxford University... or perhaps move to the states and study there as David seems to be suggesting here.

 

My suggestion is get into Oxford and study hard for a good degree and while there try and build up a good portfolio to get into the NFTS in Beaconsfield.

 

Freya

Edited September 27, 2014 by Freya Black

[Stuart Brereton]

My suggestion is get into Oxford and study hard for a good degree and while there try and build up a good portfolio to get into the NFTS in Beaconsfield.

 

Not only is Oxford one of the hardest Universities in the country to get into, it also doesn't appear to offer a film, TV or media based undergraduate course. That makes it a strange choice to recommend.

[Phil Rhodes]

It doesn't really matter, does it?

 

Get into oxbridge, the world is more or less your oyster. You can't really be a TV comedian in the UK unless you were a member of the cambridge footlights, for instance. Studies seem to matter rather less.

 

P

[Andy_Alderslade]

Not only is Oxford one of the hardest Universities in the country to get into, it also doesn't appear to offer a film, TV or media based undergraduate course. That makes it a strange choice to recommend.

 

Very true, a lot of film directors have been to Oxford or Cambridge but that's because they produce students with the self-confidence and intelligence to succeed as film directors, which is one of the hardest careers in the world. Neither have course to provide them with film-making training.

 

Nathan, for undergraduate film-making courses look at Farnham, Westminister and Bournemouth, they are recognised as the best in the country though there are others that produce successful graduates like Cardiff. There is lot of money in Film education so look at courses that are less about profit and providing the best skills and facilities and importantly produce the best and successful students. That's the most important thing about film schools, the people you meet - knowing gifted and successful collaborators will be vital in your success.

 

University is now insanely expensive, so you could try starting as a runner - a drivers license will be pretty vital there. Trying to get a job at a camera-rental company is often considered the first step to becoming a camera trainee, however its often a very difficult first step. Getting training as an electrician could certainly help you get into the film electrical department, which is another possible route to being a cinematographer - you will certainly learn to light in the electrical department.

[Robert Glenn]

At this point consider what you do an EXPENSIVE hobby until it becomes more than a hobby.

I remember graduating with my media degree - I could already see the giant palm of reality coming for my forehead, but that still didn't stop me from blowing lots of money on equipment that either got resold or I rarely bother to use..

 

If you already have a 7D then go out and play - with the blackmagic RAW hack you can shoot video that's equivalent in IQ to just about any digital cinema camera of the 2000s.

[Royce Allen Dudley]

Film school is more about meeting people and getting rudimentary experience... the degree doesn't mean much to people who'd employ a DP. Now that the age of Digital Revolution is in full swing, the things film schools once offered exclusively ( knowledge and equipment ) are accessible anywhere.

 

Save your money and get a job at a camera rental house or a lighting company- learn the gear, meet crew while getting paid, and you will work your way onto sets. It's a time proven route.

 

Or buy a camera and become an overnight self -taught hero; not as smart if you intend to work for other people, but everyone is doing it these days. E V E R Y O N E.

 

A quick googling of " worst college degrees" will get you lists on salary.com, forbes and elsewhere that all put Filmmaking and photography degrees about second from the worst return on investment and employment prospects. See for yourself.

[David Landau]

I need to correct Royce here about these "statistics" and how they are collected. All government and other posted salaries are from FULL TIME EMPLOYEES only. No surveys have ever included freelance workers or self-employed - and they do this on purpose. they treat "media" the same as they treat "computer technology", "Nursing" or "engineering". Thus, Roger Deakins is not included in those figures. Nor is any professional union or non-union cinematographer. In fact the only people used to creat these statistics for salraries of media professionals is entirely based data from TV station full time, yearly salaried employees. So, all the crews on shows like Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, Blacklist, Project Runway, Masters of Sex, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Fargo, Bates Motel, - every reality TV show, every long form drama and every sit-com TV show out of every state on every platform (TV, internet, movie theater) are all not ever considered in these statistics. Even wedding photographers and fashion photographers are not included.

 

Just FYI.

Edited September 30, 2014 by David Landau

[David Landau]

"Or buy a camera and become an overnight self -taught hero; not as smart if you intend to work for other people, but everyone is doing it these days. E V E R Y O N E."

 

And they are all unemployed.

 

Everyone has a pen - so is EVEREYONE a sucessful novelist?

Edited September 30, 2014 by David Landau

[John E Clark]

Even wedding photographers and fashion photographers are not included.

 

Just FYI.

 

I can speak somewhat to 'wedding photographers'... The Wife did quite a bit of 'personal photography' for about 30 years. This included about 20 years of 'wedding/event' photography. She also got on the seminar circuit for a couple of professional organizations Wedding and Portrait Photographers of America, and Professional Photographers of America. We would do these seminars together or at least create the program if the sponsoring entity didn't want to pay for my way.

 

For most of the attendees, few had actual 'art/photo/film' degrees or training. Part of our seminars did in fact address the fact that many of the people offering photo services had no formal 'art' background. There of course were the 'equipment junkies'... but hard core 'talking about art for art sake'... not much.

 

Very often we would have the 'spouse' of the main photographer, and typically that would be the wife, who was taking up photography to assist in the business as the second shooter. That was not the case for the Wife and myself... we had become photographers independently... and perhaps that can explain some of our battles over the years on 'things art'... but I digress...

 

In terms of our respective backgrounds, I entered San Diego State as an art major, with photography as my medium... should have investigated the school better... as in the Art Department 'photography' was not seen as a legitimate 'art medium'... and photography was religated to the 'industrial arts'... that is training future highschool shop teachers...

 

The Wife did a 2 year junior college photography program and the spent time in New York at the "New School" (never did find out what the 'Old School' was...). But didn't get a degree.

 

In any case it was clear to me that if I stayed in 'art', I was destined to follow my peers in to 1) teaching art at some level between Kindergarten and perhaps junior College, 2) finding any form of employment outside of 'art', 3) change to something that looked like it had more income potential than becoming a social welfare worker (several MFA's of my friends went that route...).

 

I took door number 3...

 

In terms of 'education', my take is, if the school does provide 'contacts' in the industry, that is probably the 'best' benefit. In terms of getting work as an independent contractor... I don't think the Wife has ever been asked for a resume and proof of diploma by a prospective client... they see her work... like the work... want that work done for their image(s)...

 

I would also mention there is a growing number of 'photo chain' stores, where they hire local 'talent', again don't know if a 'degree' is required beyond a good portfolio, but that is a trend in still commercial personal photo work.

Edited September 30, 2014 by John E Clark

[Robert Glenn]

"Or buy a camera and become an overnight self -taught hero; not as smart if you intend to work for other people, but everyone is doing it these days. E V E R Y O N E."

 

And they are all unemployed.

 

Everyone has a pen - so is EVEREYONE a sucessful novelist?

Heh, I see that after all these years the DSLR filmmaker hatred still lurks around here

[George Ebersole]

Why are you asking here then?

 

 

There are no "major film studios" in the UK. There are a few rather sad and decaying relics of what once was, and there's Leavesden, which was refurbished at Warner's expense to shoot Warner's movies, and which you will therefore never be getting anywhere near. If it's that easy, just go down and ask for a job - and tell us how long it takes them to stop laughing. Well, if you're really lucky, you might get a gig at the Harry Potter experience, I suppose.

 

But seriously. Those studios generate a few hundred jobs a year, each of which lasts a few weeks, and almost all of which are on the sort of ultra-high-end stuff that you won't be getting involved with for ten or fifteen years - and in ten or fifteen years, it almost certainly won't exist anymore.

 

I'm trying to stop you wasting enormous amounts of time. The answer to your initial question is no. The only reason film schools exist in the UK is to make money for the people who own them. There is no worthwhile industry here anymore.

 

P

 

This cannot be true for the following reason; from the BFI's own report;

 

 

 

A total of 698 films were released at the cinema in 2013, according to the latest BFI Statistical Yearbook

 

That quote comes from here; http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/too-many-films-are-released-each-year-says-british-film-institute-9626850.html

 

When I first joined this board there were all kinds of people from the UK film industry posting here. Now it seems like, on the General discussion anyway, that there's maybe 6 or 8 regulars posting frequently. I read posts from DPs, actors, crew, and huge numbers of people on both sides of the Atlantic and Rockies, and never have I ever heard that the British film industry was so insular that only a few hundred jobs were generated a year.

 

If you attend any industry convention or expo, you'll see hundreds and hundreds of films ready for sale to distributors, all of which were made in the previous year; shot and put through post.

 

Additionally, I'm still trying to understand what the OP means when they say they like "plot driven" films, when none of the films he listed as being his favorite are plot driven.

 

Plot driven films usually focus around criminal schemes or events that drive the story forward. They do not involve deep psychological analysis of the characters in the film.

 

So, in short, I'm curious as to what I'm reading in recent threads over the last year.

 

I trust I'm not being redirected to a mirror site when I click on my bookmarks.

[Guest]

A quick googling of " worst college degrees" will get you lists on salary.com, forbes and elsewhere that all put Filmmaking and photography degrees about second from the worst return on investment and employment prospects. See for yourself.

 

Wow, it's that high?

 

Spielberg was famously turned down by the USC film school.........twice.

 

R,

[Nathan Keir Crofton-Bond]

 

This cannot be true for the following reason; from the BFI's own report;

 

 

That quote comes from here; http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/too-many-films-are-released-each-year-says-british-film-institute-9626850.html

 

When I first joined this board there were all kinds of people from the UK film industry posting here. Now it seems like, on the General discussion anyway, that there's maybe 6 or 8 regulars posting frequently. I read posts from DPs, actors, crew, and huge numbers of people on both sides of the Atlantic and Rockies, and never have I ever heard that the British film industry was so insular that only a few hundred jobs were generated a year.

 

If you attend any industry convention or expo, you'll see hundreds and hundreds of films ready for sale to distributors, all of which were made in the previous year; shot and put through post.

 

Additionally, I'm still trying to understand what the OP means when they say they like "plot driven" films, when none of the films he listed as being his favorite are plot driven.

 

Plot driven films usually focus around criminal schemes or events that drive the story forward. They do not involve deep psychological analysis of the characters in the film.

 

So, in short, I'm curious as to what I'm reading in recent threads over the last year.

 

I trust I'm not being redirected to a mirror site when I click on my bookmarks.

 

Please tell me where I stated the films I gave as examples are plot driven? I listed a couple of films I enjoy then also mentioned that I enjoy plot driven films. If my ambiguity has confused you then I apologise.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Nathan Keir Crofton-Bond

[George Ebersole]

I think it was fairly well implied in your post where you listed your favorite films. Or perhaps there was some clarification that I missed.

[George Ebersole]

Just to add here;

 

 

Money continued to pour into the UK film industry from abroad in 2013 with £860m of the total £1.1bn spending on production coming from abroad, up 28 per cent on a year earlier.

 

The yearbook revealed that he UK film industry turnover was £7.3bn in 2012, with exports of £1.3bn and a film trade surplus of £789m. Amanda Nevill, chief executive of the BFI said the statistics painted a “very vibrant and buoyant picture for UK film”.

 

I'll also add that a few years back I was trying to integrate into the local indy film community here in the Bay Area which is huge, and someone from India told me that there was no independent film community here. I think his post is in the San Francisco Regional section of this BBS.

 

The exact opposite is true. Just go to the Mill Valley film festival, or the one in San Francisco, or Berkeley's various mini-fests, or check meetup.com, then go to the rental houses and ask who's renting what. There is no well established industry other than corporate vid and well financed commercial film makers, but the indy scene, where guys work a job, dump money into hiring talent and renting equpiment, is sizeable.

 

The UK film industry is far more commercial than anything here in the Bay Area, and thrives to this day.

 

Way back in the 90s, for the US alone, there were between 1500 to 2000 films made a year. I remember the trade convention where distributors go to make deals and buy films made by both studios and indies (mostly indies since studios usually pre-make their distribution contracts). It's bigger than E3, and bigger than a lot of autoshows I've been to.

 

You want a real short way into the industry? Grab a camera and start shooting. Show your stuff to local groups, network, make friends, work on their projects, then ask them to work on yours, and if you make something that's good enough, long enough, commercial enough, someone'll take notice of your film and skill, or whoever worked on your project.

 

It's what I've been aiming for the last several years, only unlike you, I've been continually harassed by various parties. The only thing holding me back is a decent camera which I've been trying to scope out to buy (not rent) so I can have it at the ready day or night.

 

It's uphill work. And baring any law enforcment procedures that need my attention to get these people off my back, I should be able to do it (or, to have done it years ago).

 

But you suffer no such barriers.

 

Film school? There are some good basics that a film school can teach, but like many a DP, director and producer I've talked to, you've got to have talent, and it has to have a certain kind of taste, regardless if your shooting a slasher flick, porn, a commercial for fast food, cars or the latest phone / pad / laptop. All the skills that apply to those projects will apply to a major feature film or smaller independent film.

 

What you learn in film school is what you learn in an English course at any university; the lexicon and methods of how to construct a sentence, or in the case of film, a visual sentence. You can have all the raw talent in the world, and that may take you to a certain level, but if at some point your innate talent fails, then you need to fall back on the tools you learned. A film school may be able to teach you those, depending on the school you chose.

 

All the best. But remember, character studies are typically not plot driven :rolleyes:

[Royce Allen Dudley]

I need to correct Royce here about these "statistics" and how they are collected. All government and other posted salaries are from FULL TIME EMPLOYEES only. No surveys have ever included freelance workers or self-employed - and they do this on purpose. they treat "media" the same as they treat "computer technology", "Nursing" or "engineering". Thus, Roger Deakins is not included in those figures. Nor is any professional union or non-union cinematographer. In fact the only people used to creat these statistics for salraries of media professionals is entirely based data from TV station full time, yearly salaried employees. So, all the crews on shows like Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, Blacklist, Project Runway, Masters of Sex, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Fargo, Bates Motel, - every reality TV show, every long form drama and every sit-com TV show out of every state on every platform (TV, internet, movie theater) are all not ever considered in these statistics. Even wedding photographers and fashion photographers are not included.

 

Just FYI.

That's interesting. It would also account for the ridiculously low annual salary ranges listed in the same governmental statistics that are easily googled ( employment by profession and state ). Apparently full time employees make less than the average part timer.

 

Series work IS regular full time employment on payroll, as is feature work; I am not sure how you think otherwise. Multiple employers is still employment. Please clarify your accounting. How can they differentiate between short term full time and long term full time ?

 

And if Roger Deakins is unemployed, it's also like saying George Lucas is an indie filmmaker; which of course he is, but it paints a useless analogy.

 

As for E V E R Y O N E doing this thing now;

 

I did not make Los Angeles the mecca for film, it simply still is ( if in ICU and on a ventilator of state-funded tax bribe initiative ), and if you are here you will find massive unemployment among film crew; that is

 

1) vetted film and video crew who more years than not file tax returns as a film crew person, not a barrista; may be union may not - tons of SAG / non IA work at good livable salaries accross the industry

 

2) "filmmakers" ; self -titled equipment owners who occasionally see income from producing, editing, cinematography, wedding films, etc but are otherwise reliant on a day job, trust fund, girlfriend, etc to survive

 

3) The rest ; wedding cinematographers, web videographers, media blogger/ consultant / whatevers

 

Not just L.A - go to Oakland and hang at my friend's cafe... several filmmakers on the couch all day on the computer sulking. How many coffee shops full of sulking filmmakers ? Boston, Omaha,...

 

I have no "hatred" for DSLRs or their users ( I own / use them ); I have an observation about the watering down of all creative professions since the simultaneous perfect storm of the maturing internet / digitaI can guarantee most of these mass of freelance people were not trying to do the movie thing before 2008. It has affected the way I do business and with whom I do it to be certain. Won't say what I do differently now because it works and what used to be colleagues are in fact mostly competitors now; that's the sad part.

 

In any case- back on topic- unless it is USC or UCLA or NYU and you are a superb writer director producer candidate and a superb player of human politic among peers, film school is largely a waste of money.

[Royce Allen Dudley]

I need to correct Royce here about these "statistics" and how they are collected. All government and other posted salaries are from FULL TIME EMPLOYEES only. No surveys have ever included freelance workers or self-employed - and they do this on purpose. they treat "media" the same as they treat "computer technology", "Nursing" or "engineering". Thus, Roger Deakins is not included in those figures. Nor is any professional union or non-union cinematographer. In fact the only people used to creat these statistics for salraries of media professionals is entirely based data from TV station full time, yearly salaried employees. So, all the crews on shows like Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, Blacklist, Project Runway, Masters of Sex, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Fargo, Bates Motel, - every reality TV show, every long form drama and every sit-com TV show out of every state on every platform (TV, internet, movie theater) are all not ever considered in these statistics. Even wedding photographers and fashion photographers are not included.

 

Just FYI.

 

Why oh why does the edit function not work on this forum ?

 

Alas

 

That's interesting. It would also account for the ridiculously low annual salary ranges listed in the same governmental statistics that are easily googled ( employment by profession and state ). Apparently full time employees make less than the average part timer.

 

Series work IS regular full time employment on payroll, as is feature work; I am not sure how you think otherwise. Multiple employers is still employment. Please clarify your accounting. How can they differentiate between short term full time and long term full time ?

 

And if Roger Deakins is unemployed, it's also like saying George Lucas is an indie filmmaker; which of course he is, but it paints a useless analogy.

 

As for E V E R Y O N E doing this thing now;

 

I did not make Los Angeles the mecca for film, it simply still is ( if in ICU and on a ventilator of state-funded tax bribe initiative ), and if you are here you will find massive unemployment among film crew; that is

 

1) vetted film and video crew who more years than not file tax returns as a film crew person, not a barrista; may be union may not - tons of SAG / non IA work at good livable salaries accross the industry

 

2) "filmmakers" ; self -titled equipment owners who occasionally see income from producing, editing, cinematography, wedding films, etc but are otherwise reliant on a day job, trust fund, girlfriend, etc to survive

 

3) The rest ; wedding cinematographers, web videographers, media blogger/ consultant / whatevers

 

Not just L.A - go to Oakland and hang at my friend's cafe... several filmmakers on the couch all day on the computer sulking. How many coffee shops full of sulking filmmakers ? Boston, Omaha,...

 

I have no "hatred" for DSLRs or their users ( I own / use them ); I have an observation about the watering down of all creative professions since the simultaneous perfect storm of the maturing internet / digitaI technology / global economic change; I can guarantee most of these mass of freelance people were not trying to do the movie thing before 2008. It has all changed forever. Fact. It has affected the way I do business and with whom I do it to be certain. Won't say what I do differently now because it works,and what used to be colleagues are in fact mostly competitors now; that's the sad part.

 

In any case- back on topic- unless it is USC or UCLA or NYU and you are a superb writer director producer candidate and a superb player of human politic among peers, film school is largely overpriced for what you get out of it.

 

And on top of that...to add an about-face ... I myself occasionally shoot thesis films , because it's great for a working pro to get the benefit of positive creative energy and " no limits" thinking from talented young filmmakers, albeit before they as a group mostly give up and become clock punchers outside the business.

 

Yes, the energy of film school has some value, it just may not lead to work.

[George Ebersole]

 

 

Yes, the energy of film school has some value, it just may not lead to work.

 

Which is important depending on the program someone signs onto. When I was at SF State, run by August Coppola, I was working in the local industry learning on the job, so I did NOT try out for the "core" film program where you and the other students were organized into a crew (I can't remember how many crews for were formed at the time; 5? 6?), and had access to 16mm Bolex and Arri cameras.

 

SF State's program was fairly good at the time. It was actual film crew training.

 

I was working for a local indy director a few years back, and he asked me to look up film schools so he could send out a demo reel of his work. When I was coming of age there were the big three, USC, UCLA and NYU, with SF State on the heels of NYU. But when I sat in his office Googleing film schools, suddenly there were over five-hundred film school across the US.

 

Now, if you look into those programs and see what they actually offer, it's usually run by a couple of film majors teaching classes with prosumer video gear. So even though it's labeled a "film program", it's more or less a multimedia program offering film related courses, and not much more. You will not learn anything about dollies, PL mounts for cameras, how to change a magazine (or work a hard drive for the big digital cameras). You'll be taught the basics of shooting style, gels, the difference between key and fill lights, and some basic editing knowledge.

 

In short, it's buyer beware out there.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

Why oh why does the edit function not work on this forum ?

 

 

It does work, but you have to begin editing soon after posting, and the time allowed for the edit is very short. If the basic edit seems non responsive I have gone into the full edit and it worked. Just did that to edit this post.

 

Normally, unless my post is very short, I write it in Notepad and just paste it into the forum.

 

I think sustaining members get less time constraints on editing

Edited October 9, 2014 by Gregg MacPherson

[David Landau]

Many film programs are run by people who have never worked in the industry, this is true. And those programs will not help you gain a career - as the people running them have a career teaching and not working in the business. However, also keep in mind that Hollywood and the indie film arena is very ageist. They regularly eject people who are over 40 as not being "in touch" with the greater movie buying audience - which is supposedly 15-35. So, what you will find is that a number of film programs now have excellent professionals with many years of professional credits teaching in their program. These include Emerson (Boston), Chapman (Orange Country), Columbia (Chicago), USC & UCLA (LA), NYU & SVA (NYC), and a variety of others in some unusual places, such as Florida and New Jersey such as where I teach which is Fairleigh Dickinson University. The Hollywood reported ran an article on the 25 best film schools in the USA and the 12 best international ones - all of which have industry pros teaching at them and all of which have a large number of successful alumni. Where I teach, all five editing majors that graduated last May are supporting themselves and paying rent and paying off student loans employed working freelance at editing houses and corporate video departments. All four of my cinematography majors who graduated last year are also all fully employed - earning a living. However, the students who graduated wanting to be writer/directors are mostly unemployed - as is true worldwide. no one graduates from film school and is hired as a writer/director. You have to pay your dues. Unfortunately many would be directors don't want to "lower themselves" by working as a PA and working their way up - the way almost every sucessful director has done it. So, no, film school will not make you an instant successful director. Buying your own camera and making your own film will definately not either.

 

As far as the statistics are concerned. I attend a lecture given by a person who did research and actually talked with all the major Survey companies and the US government and asked them where they got their numbers from. He discovered that they do not take any information from any of the standard industry payroll companies. If you have ever worked on a union job, you know that your pay check does not come from ABC or Fox or Lifetime; they all come through payroll services. That is how all feature films, TV shows, TV commercials and corporate video departments pay. The people who create the statistics have never approached these companies. They chose to talk to the five major TV networks - NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and Universal - and look at their payroll. The only people on the NBC payroll listed as cameramen are those that receive pay checks directly from NBC and are categorized as cameramen. That is a very small percentage of people on the NBC payroll. NBC only produces new shows itself, many of which have robotic cameras. All the sit-coms, game shows, hour long shows, commercials and most talk shows are all co-productions where the network buys the show from an independent production company who does their payroll through a payroll service. So the only pay checks being counted as being earned by cameramen are the extremely few people who haven't been replaced by robotic cameras yet on news shows. That is hardly an accurate counting of the tens of thousands of crew people (they include grips and electrics as camera crew) that are steadily employed on TV shows and commercials. HBO and Showtime also doesn't pay any cameramen at all. All crews on HBO and Showtime movies and shows are also all paid through payroll services. These are also never included in the national statistics.

 

The researcher pointed out to the people doing the surveys and those working at the US government how overwhelming faulty their numbers were. They didn't care. They said that including all these other sources would be too time consuming and not worth their time.

Edited October 10, 2014 by David Landau

[David Landau]

Also keep in mind that no film company issues any checks to camerman either. So even if they did include Columbia Pictures, Fox, Universal and Warner bros - they would find $0 paid to cameramen or any other crew members. The studios only hire development, accounting, marketing, management postions. Most everyone who works in a stage on the Warner backlot is paid through a payroll service as well.

Edited October 10, 2014 by David Landau