Should I bother going to film school?

[George Ebersole]

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.

 

That's not been my experience. I've always been paid by a cheque from the studio or production company. Sometimes even a personal cheque from the director, or even cash (usually if it's a one-day gig).

 

*EDIT* But all of my jobs have been from local independent industry, mostly corporate video and commercials, occasionally an indy feature.

 

Are you talking strictly major studios and network productions?

[George Ebersole]

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.

 

Based on the number of anecdotes posted here about steadicam "operators" and newly dubbed "DPs", buying a camera package actually is a way into the industry. The ethics of such a route I think are questionable, but there seems to be a "wild west" out there where young grads spend their trust funds on something, and market themselves as DPs. I think Freya Black posted about one such individual, and a link to his website.

 

It's NOT something I'd ever do. I bought a couple of Arri 2Cs way back when so my business partner and I could have a camera at the ready to shoot when the opportunityh arose (I tried buying a BLIII from the local rental house, but in my judgment the man wanted someone to invest in his rental house and not sell any of his equipment, and even referred to me and my friend as "investors"...it really rubbed me raw, because I was looking for a then up to date camera package that was used but in good shape, and this guy was acting and selling me on his company, instead of wanting to sell anything in his facility). And, even though I've manned SONYs, Ikegamis, Arris and 16mm Bolex stuff, I would NEVER call myself a DP because I lack the total skill set.

 

And yet apparently this is being done.

 

I spoke with another local director over coffee last year about a skill set for camera ops. In case you're wondering, I was a screenwriting major at SF State's Film program, and was working at four different studios in various capacities; PA, grip, and SFX assistant. Ergo I never got the opportunity to sit down with a Panaflex, Moviecam, or an Arri III, to learn the ins and outs of a camera, much less fiddle with lens and filter selection. But yes, I have done camera ops. I've sat on a velvet black circular cushion on a polished steel bracket of many a Chapman dolly, and pulled the trigger on a camera. I've even pushed those said same dollies. But it's been years.

 

The point here being that, in my mind at least, part of "the problem" with employment figures and getting employed in the industry, is that for new grads are competing with what I would term as mercenary or unethical business practices by moderately wealthy kids looking to magically become DPs.

 

As far as statistics go, well, BFD. I think if you look at GDP figures, and reverse engineer the data relating to rental houses and production companies, you might be able to get a good figure of how much cash was spent, and from there generate a working figure of how much money got tossed to carious freelance and union crew members.

 

Just my two bits.

 

Hell, my career and dreams are long over with...I'm not sure why I still come here, but I feel this need to impart my personal experience when I find that it doesn't sync up with someones attestation.

[David Landau]

Hi George,

 

Yes, I was talking about the majors - not the smaller industrial and commercial filmmakers who have small companies. This may be different in places outside of the US, but in LA and NYC, Entertainment Partners is the largest of the payroll companies for features and TV shows. They make the accounting and budgeting software as well that everyone uses. All the gov would need to do is contact them to get figures and they would have something at least a little closer, however the payroll companies may not break down their payments into job categories. The people who do the survey work have lots of other surveys to do and want to do things fast and simple and from as few sources as possible. Besides Entertainment Partners, there is Payreel, ADP and Adecco. The reason companies use these is because they do all the tax deductions and government filings. And since crews change often from week to week - some days extra grips or a third camera is hired for a few days, etc. - the production company doesn't have to worry about filing new paperwork with the gov - the payroll company does it all.

 

I just was second cam op on a childrens workout video and the company paid me direct. It was a one day gig. I was the LD for another company doing an internet commerical and I was a camera op on a informercial which were all one day gigs and they also all paid me direct. But image how much time it would take for a survey company to search out all the small production companies nationwide and ask them how much money they paid out per year into which categories? Not gonna happen.

Edited October 10, 2014 by David Landau

[David Landau]

Royce,

 

Feature and series work is not "full time" in the eyes of the government as it is short term. It ends when the project ends which is often less than a year. If a series comes back for a new season, it’s a new "company" - every year I have to resubmit new employee start work for "Project Runway Season ___", etc. When they look at employment figures, they look at long term - multi-year - employment with benefits and retirement plans. They are used to looking at big corporations such as Ford, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Chubb Insurance, Proctor & Gamble, etc. To the government, all film crews qualify as temporary employees and they do not include temporary employees in salary statistics. That's not my way of thinking, but it is theirs.

Edited October 10, 2014 by David Landau

[Phil Rhodes]

To expand on the numbers debate, earlier in the thread someone (George, I think) mentioned the statistic that there were 698 films released in the UK in a given year, with the idea that this indicated some degree of health in the UK industry.

 

Better than 90% - almost certainly better than 95%, probably better than 98%, of those films will have been US-produced, and I'm not kidding or exaggerating. Americans who see a constant diet of home-grown tend to assume that everywhere else is like that too. It isn't. The degree to which UK production is just steamrollered by imports is palpably embarrassing. Weeks, months, possibly most of a year will go by without anything but American content in a UK cinema.

 

I don't particularly object to American cinema - the French have a system where a certain proportion of the material exhibited must be local, and the result is simply a lot of uninteresting local content being released. I'm sure, in the UK, the result would be that the pseudo-charitable government-run film organisations would drive their customary gravy train to exactly the same people, and we'd get even more Ken Loach movies (aaargh, the horror!). I don't blame the US film industry for doing what it's doing, although some sort of legislative intervention is probably in order at this point (though we certainly won't get it).

 

But ultimately, the idea that 698 releases equals 698 properly-made, watchable, commercial features produced in the UK in a given year is not accurate. It isn't 698. It might be 6.

 

And £1.1 billion spent on film production in 2013? That's less than just the state of New York for the same period.

 

We suck.

 

P

[David Landau]

Real time example of the value of film school.

 

The producer/director of the low budget feature I just shot this summer just fired her editor. He was a nice young guy, easy to work with, but uncreative. He was self taught and was proud of it. But he was unable to do some very basic things the director wanted - because no one had taught him how to get around certain continuity problems. They weren't easy things to do, and he said it couldn't be done. She showed the footage to an experienced feature editor who said of course it can be done - and easily. If this young editor had gone to film school and learned from experienced editors like him, he would have that job still today. Now he's looking for work and the producer is paying more to the experienced editor.

Edited October 10, 2014 by David Landau

[George Ebersole]

Hi George,

 

Yes, I was talking about the majors - not the smaller industrial and commercial filmmakers who have small companies. This may be different in places outside of the US, but in LA and NYC, Entertainment Partners is the largest of the payroll companies for features and TV shows. They make the accounting and budgeting software as well that everyone uses. All the gov would need to do is contact them to get figures and they would have something at least a little closer, however the payroll companies may not break down their payments into job categories. The people who do the survey work have lots of other surveys to do and want to do things fast and simple and from as few sources as possible. Besides Entertainment Partners, there is Payreel, ADP and Adecco. The reason companies use these is because they do all the tax deductions and government filings. And since crews change often from week to week - some days extra grips or a third camera is hired for a few days, etc. - the production company doesn't have to worry about filing new paperwork with the gov - the payroll company does it all.

 

I just was second cam op on a childrens workout video and the company paid me direct. It was a one day gig. I was the LD for another company doing an internet commerical and I was a camera op on a informercial which were all one day gigs and they also all paid me direct. But image how much time it would take for a survey company to search out all the small production companies nationwide and ask them how much money they paid out per year into which categories? Not gonna happen.

 

That's interesting. Adecco sounds very familiar, but I could be confusing that company with someone I worked for.

 

Yeah, the only time I've ever gotten a payroll cheque is when I worked retail, never for a film/video job, no matter what I was doing.

[George Ebersole]

To expand on the numbers debate, earlier in the thread someone (George, I think) mentioned the statistic that there were 698 films released in the UK in a given year, with the idea that this indicated some degree of health in the UK industry.

 

Better than 90% - almost certainly better than 95%, probably better than 98%, of those films will have been US-produced, and I'm not kidding or exaggerating. Americans who see a constant diet of home-grown tend to assume that everywhere else is like that too. It isn't. The degree to which UK production is just steamrollered by imports is palpably embarrassing. Weeks, months, possibly most of a year will go by without anything but American content in a UK cinema.

 

I don't particularly object to American cinema - the French have a system where a certain proportion of the material exhibited must be local, and the result is simply a lot of uninteresting local content being released. I'm sure, in the UK, the result would be that the pseudo-charitable government-run film organisations would drive their customary gravy train to exactly the same people, and we'd get even more Ken Loach movies (aaargh, the horror!). I don't blame the US film industry for doing what it's doing, although some sort of legislative intervention is probably in order at this point (though we certainly won't get it).

 

But ultimately, the idea that 698 releases equals 698 properly-made, watchable, commercial features produced in the UK in a given year is not accurate. It isn't 698. It might be 6.

 

And £1.1 billion spent on film production in 2013? That's less than just the state of New York for the same period.

 

We suck.

 

P

 

American studios from the early 90s up to today, have made a deliberate effort to bust open the foreign film markets. I think the French at one time had some kind of media tariff and actual laws on their books to stop American-English influence on their language, which I seem to recall also applied to American feature films, even though statistics showed that there was a massive market for American films in France.

 

I think Sweden had almost a similar setup, but largely because their film industry was subsidized (if not run by) the Government. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head.

 

But, the article's last paragraph has following;

 

 

 

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.

 

That article stipulates that foreign investment is up 28% from the previous year for a total of 7.1bn pounds. That's a lot of money for just 200 grip/camera/prop-dept./sound jobs.

 

Also, the BFI website publishes its own figures, so I did a quick check just to cross reference and double check the article's facts (I'd never heard of "The Progressive" before in my life). The BFI yearbook is found online here;

 

For 2014; http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-statistical-yearbook-2014.pdf

 

For 2013; http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-statistical-yearbook-2013.pdf

 

Page 231 plainly states that for 2011-2012 there were 46,246 jobs generated by production. Exhibition and promotion generated an additional 30,000

 

That's far more than 200.

 

Phil; with all due respect, and as I stated elsewhere on this BBS (perhaps on this thread, but certainly on other threads), when I first signed up there were a plethora of UK film professionals posting here. I remember exchanging thoughts with a guy who'd worked on one of my favorite TV-film series, "Sharpe's Rifles". For some reason all those guys have vanished, and now it seems like it's just you representing the UK film industry on this site. I wish I could hear from those other people again.

 

I really do feel like my net activity is being toyed with.

[John E Clark]

To expand on the numbers debate, earlier in the thread someone (George, I think) mentioned the statistic that there were 698 films released in the UK in a given year, with the idea that this indicated some degree of health in the UK industry.

 

Better than 90% - almost certainly better than 95%, probably better than 98%, of those films will have been US-produced, and I'm not kidding or exaggerating. Americans who see a constant diet of home-grown tend to assume that everywhere else is like that too. It isn't. The degree to which UK production is just steamrollered by imports is palpably embarrassing. Weeks, months, possibly most of a year will go by without anything but American content in a UK cinema.

 

I don't particularly object to American cinema - the French have a system where a certain proportion of the material exhibited must be local, and the result is simply a lot of uninteresting local content being released. I'm sure, in the UK, the result would be that the pseudo-charitable government-run film organisations would drive their customary gravy train to exactly the same people, and we'd get even more Ken Loach movies (aaargh, the horror!). I don't blame the US film industry for doing what it's doing, although some sort of legislative intervention is probably in order at this point (though we certainly won't get it).

 

But ultimately, the idea that 698 releases equals 698 properly-made, watchable, commercial features produced in the UK in a given year is not accurate. It isn't 698. It might be 6.

 

And £1.1 billion spent on film production in 2013? That's less than just the state of New York for the same period.

 

We suck.

 

P

 

In some sort of irony... BBC productions have a popularity in the US as being 'better' than whatever ABCCBSNBCFOX can produce... and in some cases better than HBO and other 'cable' content providers. There are other cable content producers that are moving up on the 'watchable' totempole, such as content from AMC... and then there's SyFy... but I digress...

 

As for UK studios being used predominantly by US productions... the same is said by zee Chermans about Babelsberg Studios... directed mostly to 'international big budget productions'... aka US Studios... After the Wiedervereinigung there was a 'wild west' sort of freeforall where international companies with cash bought up a number of formerly East German 'state' assets, Babelsberg being one such. Eventually a german group did buy it 'back'...

 

For 'german films' most likely Hamburg or München are the go to places... when I visit Germany I have to ask several times for 'german DVD/BD'... not 'dubbed' US films... when I visit a bookstore/videoshop...

Edited October 10, 2014 by John E Clark

[George Ebersole]

Historically much of the UK productions imported to the US market have been those productions based off classic literary works, or works deemed "artistic". Therefore you get a lot of productions drawing on source material from Emily Bronte, Jane Austin, or Shakespeare and the like. There're exceptions; "Doctor Who" having a long history as a sci-fi import (in reality a lot of the episodes are police-drama dressed up to be sci-fi; heck, the Doctor even travels in a now old Police Box).

 

If you look at the total body of UK TV imports, there's a few stinkers, or shows that because they're billed as being produced in the UK, meet some kind of criteria as important or of quality.

 

The UK media industry still largely has government oversight, particularly for the larger or more expensive shows that reach out to important audiences. The BBC as a private extension of the UK media government agency has to meet certain criteria (sort of like the standards and practices for US networks and production companies) for a good number of their shows for various reasons.

 

Now, having said all that, there is a huge film market and industry in the UK. It's not as large as the US simply by size, but it produces more than just James Bond and Harry Potter films. See my previous post.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

Now, having said all that, there is a huge film market and industry in the UK.

 

 

I supose the words huger and hugest are held in reserve to make this meaningful, but it doesn't sound meaningful.

How many features were made in the UK with UK crew in the last year? Divide that by the UK population.

Ditto for the USA.

Ditto for India.

Or some similar, simple way to make meaningful comparisons.

[George Ebersole]

It'd probably help you to browse a few posts back and look at the BFI links I posted.

[John E Clark]

 

I supose the words huger and hugest are held in reserve to make this meaningful, but it doesn't sound meaningful.

How many features were made in the UK with UK crew in the last year? Divide that by the UK population.

Ditto for the USA.

Ditto for India.

Or some similar, simple way to make meaningful comparisons.

 

By those standards and places... the New Zealand film industry is gargantuan... except... it seems mostly for export... like who's ever heard of "Once Were Warriors"(1994), outside of arthouse theater addicts, and obviously, because of that gargantuan industry, Tamahori was able to make his next umpty ump films in Hollywood itself...

 

Peter Jackson... The Jackson Five's 'other brother'???

 

Again, once that Hollywood lighting struck... say sayanara to 'local' films...

 

On the other hand Niki Caro seems to have stayed in NZ despite an international success...

Edited October 10, 2014 by John E Clark

[George Ebersole]

 

By those standards and places... the New Zealand film industry is gargantuan... except... it seems mostly for export... like who's ever heard of "Once Were Warriors"(1994), outside of arthouse theater addicts, and obviously, because of that gargantuan industry, Tamahori was able to make his next umpty ump films in Hollywood itself...

 

Peter Jackson... The Jackson Five's 'other brother'???

 

Again, once that Hollywood lighting struck... say sayanara to 'local' films...

 

On the other hand Niki Caro seems to have stayed in NZ despite an international success...

 

I don't know what the statistics are for New Zealand, and right now I'm just not in the mood to go look them up for the sake of a debate, but again, for the UK, there is lots of data, and the figure of "200 jobs a year" I think is just plain wrong and highily misleading,

 

Check the British Film Institute's own statistics;

For 2014; http://www.bfi.org.u...arbook-2014.pdf

For 2013; http://www.bfi.org.u...arbook-2013.pdf

The UK industry is different in that there's a lot of government oversight because media is seen as an extension of "social health" for the UK. As recently as 2005, even though there were many so-called independent companies producing content, it again was government controlled and highly regulated.

As for foreign investment; the US corporations now invest heavily to open up media markets. As per my previous post, another example is Disney's foray into India's film market, by making films for an Indian audience, and not designated for domestic exhibition nor even DVD or streaming (though I'm sure if you hunted around, you could find those films offered by Disney). There's nothing particularly special about US companies seeking new markets. US firms have done it with cars, food, textiles, services, and pretty much every product or service. Films are no different.

But foreign investment by US firms into foreign media markets has not fundamentally altered any countries domestic film industries. If you check the figures from BFI you'll note that the UK film market was already on the upswing well before any of the major US studios dumped dollars into them. The workforce was still in the 10s of thousands. I think the lowest it's ever been in the last 20 years was in 1996, where the production workforce was at 17,000.

As for US statistics, something tells me that production companies and contract labor are probably classified under service industries.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

By those standards and places... the New Zealand film industry is gargantuan...."Once Were Warriors"(1994.......

Peter Jackson... ....Hollywood.....Niki Caro

 

 

I determinedly ignored almost all NZ films from about 1994 to 2012, so there may be some gaps for me. The NZ film makers that I rate highly are those that manage to remain artists. Not that I don't recognize great achievement asside from that.

 

Peter Jackson is our great achiever, but, having watched LOTR many times with my young son, I see some exquisite, poetic moments in there. I just enjoy that.

 

There is one great Kiwi film maker who clearly deserves to be called an artist, and I think his work has traversed the huge gap between art and the accessible mainstream. Vincent Ward. See if you can get a look at Vigil and Navigator. Caro came later, and is a small orbiting moon in comparison.

 

PS. Using the word "huge" in a common sense way.