Will I benefit from filmschool?

[Jardoss]

Hey fellow filmfriends!
Recently, i've been thinking a lot about whether I need filmschool, or not. As you all know, the fee for a 3 year education as a director is skyhigh.

As a 16 year old, I feel I master the basics of storytelling and film to be at my age. (writing a 90 minute feature to be shot with RED ONE at the moment. Managed to get my hands on 7-10 000$).

However, the reason I would go to filmschool would be networking, and of course, learn how the pros do it. I read A LOT of books, and learn a huuuge amount. I also have a few connections with some directors, and have some connections within the film industry. I want to know more about filmmaking, but feel I am able to simply read my way to the same knowledge, or analyze enough?

My biggest problem is this: How am I supposed to make film, which requires a tremendous amount of time, without starving in the process?

Will I benefit from filmschool? Or is there a way to succeed without doing so?
And say I go to filmschool, what happens next?

This is my plan, if I decide to go to filmschool:
I want to learn the mainstream american blockbuster way of directing a movie. This way I'll know exactly how to tell a story, and what needs to be done to present an idea for an audience.
When ive mastered this, i wanna break it apart, and make my own style. Which school would grant me this wish?

I know these are questions that'll probably sound stupid to some of you. But I really really wanna spend the rest of my life making movies, and telling stories

(UPDATE: the feature I'm working on just released a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dv-iayj0zU&feature=plcp )

Looking forward to hear from you,
Jarand B. Herdal

 

[brianluce]

I don't know any film schools that cost that much. Even 4 years of NYU is $200,000, 50k less than the figure you stated, and there are many film schools that cost considerably less.

Ah, so only 200k then. Never mind, that's a good deal.

Btw, keep in mind, tuition goes up every year. Student housing goes up every year. Gas goes up every year. Food is up 10% just this year.

USC could easily cost an incoming freshman 250 to 300k by the time they graduate.

So not worth it.

Get a nursing degree, a GH2, and join a film co op and have life instead.

 

[jmm124567]

jax rox: I think were mixed up! You seem to be talking about Graduate Film School in your argument. I'm talking about Undergraduate Film School were you receive a Bachelors degree.

 

[jmm124567]

I don't know any film schools that cost that much. Even 4 years of NYU is $200,000, 50k less than the figure you stated, and there are many film schools that cost considerably less.

The total cost of attendance for this school year (2012-2013) for undergraduates is:

NYU: $61,907
USC: $59,883

These figures are taken from the universities web page. Also remember that for film production programs there are a lot of fee's. The fee's are not included in these costs. And the total cost per year at universities has been rising every year. Do some research and you'll see that the total cost per year at these schools has risen around $2,000 each year.

So using these figures (which do not include film production fee's and are most likely going to rise each year) times four years of school the cost is around $240,000

 

[Steve_in_MD]

My mistake about the prices, although I would imagine most people would get some financial aid. It's pretty rare to pay the "sticker price" at a private school, although I have no idea how NYU and USC are about financial aid. I agree they're both very expensive, but my point was that you're only going to pay anything close to 250k if you choose to go to one of the most expensive schools for 4 years. It's entirely possible to get all your gen ed credits out of the way at community college, then transfer for your film classes, saving you a ton of money. It's what I'm doing (but my school I'm transferring to only is about 30k per year, and they give good financial aid).

 

[jmm124567]

My mistake about the prices, although I would imagine most people would get some financial aid. It's pretty rare to pay the "sticker price" at a private school, although I have no idea how NYU and USC are about financial aid. I agree they're both very expensive, but my point was that you're only going to pay anything close to 250k if you choose to go to one of the most expensive schools for 4 years.

The thing is all the top film schools in America are EXPENSIVE!

Also in regards to financial aid, NYU does not meet a students full financial need! A persons financial need is the total cost of attendance for a school year minus the amount of money the student has to pay for the school year. So say it's $60,000 for the year and you have $5,000 to put towards that. Your financial need would be $55,000. So NYU would not be able to get you all $55,000 you need so you can attend the year of school.

The type of financial aid that lowers the cost of school are grants and scholarships since this money does not need to be paid back its basically free money.

It's entirely possible to get all your gen ed credits out of the way at community college, then transfer for your film classes, saving you a ton of money. It's what I'm doing (but my school I'm transferring to only is about 30k per year, and they give good financial aid).

I agree with going to a community college first for your gen ed. courses then transferring so you save a lot of money BUT here's the thing: most of the top film schools in America have very limited enrollment for transfer students! Some don't even accept transfer students like Wesleyan Univ. There are not many spots open each year for transfer students at schools like NYU and USC and so on.

 

[jax_rox]

jax rox: I think were mixed up! You seem to be talking about Graduate Film School in your argument. I'm talking about Undergraduate Film School were you receive a Bachelors degree.

I'm talking about film school in general, be it undergrad, graduate or whatever. You need to have a Bachelor Degree to undertake a Graduate program anyway (though not necessarily in film).

 

[DesperadoMan17]

This is still going on? lol

 

[jmm124567]

James Cameron never went to film school he taught himself and he's pretty awesome. He has a lot of technical skills for someone who did not go to film school!

Never said you must go to film school, in fact I said there are many who do and many who don't. One shouldn't discount it just because others don't like it.

Ummm ok? I know you never said you must go to film school. I'm simply using James Cameron as an example. James Cameron did not attend film school he taught himself and he has a lot of technical skills for someone who did not go to film school.

I've seen a lot of short films made by USC film students and also NYU and UCLA film students and to tell you the truth I've seen tons of short films made for really cheap by people who did not go to film school that looked as good as these film school shorts some even better! I've seen low budget indie features made for less than the cost of a semester of film school that look as good as a film school short!

And I've seen indie features made more more than the cost of an entire film school education that look like sh*t, and heard reports from the set that it was a nightmare to work on because the Director had no concept on how a real film shoot should run. I've seen student films that look amazing and student films that look terrible. I've seen low budgets that look amazing and I've seen the crap that goes on YouTube. So what? I never said you have to go to film school to do anything. For some people it's great.

You say "so what? I never said you have to go to film school to do anything."

Once again I know you never said you have to go to film school to do anything! Geez!

BUT DUDE.....ARE YOU SERIOUS? Before you said:

"Or you could make a whole lot of short films at film school with real cameras, real lighting, real sound equipment, real editing equipment, and real crew, and end up with a finished product that's better than anything you could produce as a 'low budget feature' from a bunch of kids."

So you said going to film school you could make films that are better than anything you could produce as a low budget feature so that's why I was saying I've seen films made for really cheap by people who did not go to film school that have looked better than film student films!

I graduated high school last June and decided to... [snip] I spent around $10,000 for the basic equipment I need and this equipment I'll have will be the same quality of equipment being used at these top film schools!

Here's one thing that you don't seem to understand: film school is not just about making a film. You do make a lot of films and you crew on a lot of films. But it's about the contacts you make, the people you meet, the attitude it breeds in you, the way of working, and everything else.

Actually I clearly understand that film school is not just about making a film. I just don't think it's worth it to pay $60,000 a year to meet people and make contacts when I could go to a major film festival and meet filmmakers and make contacts possibly very very good contacts. Better yet I'll make some short films and submit them to film festivals and if one get's selected who knows maybe someone will notice my work. There's also other ways to make contacts without going to film school.

The smart thing people should be doing is getting a Bachelors degree in a real major and do filmmaking on the side and then if they don't get a good job in the film industry then they have a good backup they at least will have a degree in something that can actually take them some place!

IMO, having a backup is pointless. Why waste your time on a three year degree doing something you don't really like that much just as a 'backup'? To succeed at film, it has to be the only thing you could possibly be doing with your life. You need to have that burning passion, and often you need to have the availability to take that amazing chance job, otherwise you'll do something as a 'backup' and end up just having film as your personal hobby because you become too comfortable with the money.
I'm not saying everyone is like this but I've seen it happen a lot.

Wow after reading this you are now officially branded an IDIOT in my book! Having a backup is pointless? Really? WORST ADVICE EVER! Most smart people would say that since there's a good chance you won't make it once the film industry is very tough to break into it's best to get a Bachelors degree in a liberal art which would give you a well rounded education, good critical thinking, and can actually also help you as a filmmaker!

AND JUST FOCUSING YOUR LIFE ALL ON FILM IS ACTUALLY NOT A GOOD THING FOR A YOUNG PERSON TO DO. WHY? BECAUSE TO BE A GOOD FILMMAKER REQUIRES LIFE EXPERIENCE! YOU NEED TO GO OUT AND DO A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NON-FILM RELATED!

Your missing the point! Would you rather be an unemployed filmmaker with $100,000 or more in student loan debt or be an unemployed filmmaker with no student loan debt? I don't know about you but I rather be an unemployed filmmaker with no student loan debt!

I'd rather be an employed filmmaker
I'd also rather be a crew member/filmmaker who works for low pay, than someone who works full time and does film on the side, but that's just me I'd rather live hand to mouth and work on film sets, than live comfortably and never set foot on a real set again.

You did not answer the question. I said before that there's film school grads that end up unemployed for years and you said so do high school grads and then I said but would you rather be an unemployed filmmaker with $100,000 or more in student loan debt or be an unemployed filmmaker with no student loan debt?

And are you referring to me when you say "I'd also rather be a crew member/filmmaker who works for low pay, than someone who works full time and does film on the side" because if you are then that's pretty stupid to compare yourself to me considering I'm only 19. And I'm not going to continue working full time. I was just working full time so that I could save up as much money as I could for equipment. I'm actually going to go from working 40 hours down to part time 20 hours a week and look for a film related job. There's tons of ads looking for film crew members.

Well the BEST directors of all time did not attend film school like Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford! Out of the top 10 directors of all time less than half went to film school.

Apart from the fact that your idea of best, whilst admirable and they are great Directors, is very very personal, you're talking generally about a time when film school either wasn't around/didn't exist, or wasn't in the proliferation it is now.

Your missing the whole point. These are great filmmakers who did not go to film school so the whole point is that you do not need to go to film school to succeed!!


Also I'm not totally against going to film school. I agree with going to a cheap 6 month film production program. I'm against going to a lot of these university film programs.

 

[brianluce]

The total cost of attendance for this school year (2012-2013) for undergraduates is:

NYU: $61,907
USC: $59,883

$240,000

I'm revising my original statement then, film school is likely going to cost you upwards of $300,000. If SC is saying it's $59,883 then it's going to be more than that, I went to SC, I oughtta know. SC, like most schools, is pathological lowballer. And financial aid these days basically means student loans, not free money. Factor in interest, inflation, and by the time you zero out your balance, you could easily be looking at a $500,000 degree. And if that degree is from anywhere other than USC, UCLA, NYU, AFi and a few other elite programs, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on.

Please don't do it unless you're rich or willing to go to City College for two years and transfer to some public University.

 

[jmm124567]

I'm revising my original statement then, film school is likely going to cost you upwards of $300,000. If SC is saying it's $59,883 then it's going to be more than that, I went to SC, I oughtta know. SC, like most schools, is pathological lowballer. And financial aid these days basically means student loans, not free money. Factor in interest, inflation, and by the time you zero out your balance, you could easily be looking at a $500,000 degree. And if that degree is from anywhere other than USC, UCLA, NYU, AFi and a few other elite programs, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on.

Please don't do it unless you're rich or willing to go to City College for two years and transfer to some public University.

Yeah and also remember all the fees related to film production programs. There's lab fees, equipment fees, insurance fees and so on. At USC there's a production class that's mandatory and has a total of $2,000 in fees!

I've read from a few people that USC will give you pretty large grants and/or scholarships, which is basically free money, during your first year so the school looks more appealing then your next year they won't give you nearly as much.

And I don't even think a film production degree is worth that much if it's from USC, NYU, UCLA, AFI and the other elite programs!

 

[Blade_Jones]

By going to film school, are you more likely to achieve this than someone who hasnt? If not, then whats the point

That is debatable. Anyone who is thinking about whether to go to film school or any college for that matter should watch this video to hear the opposing viewpoint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A75KERKwEQM

 

[jax_rox]

James Cameron did not attend film school he taught himself and he has a lot of technical skills for someone who did not go to film school.

So what? I have friends who work in theatre who dropped out of high school and have a lot of technical knowledge.
The accumulation of on set technical skills, or lack thereof is not exclusive to those who don't go to film school, neither is it to those who do. That argument is like saying 'I have a friend who is a top lawyer and he didn't even go to law school!' So what? That doesn't mean that no-one should ever go to law school.

Actually I clearly understand that film school is not just about making a film. I just don't think it's worth it to pay $60,000 a year to meet people and make contacts when I could go to a major film festival and meet filmmakers and make contacts possibly very very good contacts. Better yet I'll make some short films and submit them to film festivals and if one get's selected who knows maybe someone will notice my work. There's also other ways to make contacts without going to film school.

But it's different. It's not just networking contacts, but it's people who are your close friends, who you might work on 7, 9, 15 different sets with. The people who end up employing you employ you because you were good friends in film school and because they know your work is solid, rather than just being the guy who introduced himself at that film festival once..
That's not to say you can't make good friends at a film festival, but attempting to network at a festival is much different to film school, especially at the top schools who can present some pretty amazing networking opportunities.

Wow after reading this you are now officially branded an IDIOT in my book! Having a backup is pointless? Really? WORST ADVICE EVER! Most smart people would say that since there's a good chance you won't make it once the film industry is very tough to break into it's best to get a Bachelors degree in a liberal art which would give you a well rounded education, good critical thinking, and can actually also help you as a filmmaker!

Why? So you spend 3 years on a degree that gives you essentially nothing. You end up out of school with a different focus, no more knowledge of film or filmmaking than you went in with, a student loan debt, the necessity to go into full time work because of it but because you've spent three years working on something else, you can't start at that entry level of film because you need the money...
And even if you decide 'screw film, I need an income' you're going to have to do a graduate program and specialise in something...
Honestly, I'm not really sure why anyone would advise someone with a passion in film, who only ever wants to work on films and can't imagine themselves doing anything else in their lives to spend 3 years actively doing things that aren't anything to do with film, when they could be spending 3-4 years studying how to make and work on films

AND JUST FOCUSING YOUR LIFE ALL ON FILM IS ACTUALLY NOT A GOOD THING FOR A YOUNG PERSON TO DO. WHY? BECAUSE TO BE A GOOD FILMMAKER REQUIRES LIFE EXPERIENCE! YOU NEED TO GO OUT AND DO A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NON-FILM RELATED!

Since when? Perhaps to write more realistic scripts... but honestly, I'm not sure how for example a DP is going to benefit at all from actively finding things to stop them from practising their craft. I'm not really sure how anyone can get better at anything if their main focus is to do things not at all related to what they're trying to get better at...
That's just simple logic - let's say you've never played piano in your life, but you really want to. Instead of going and taking lessons, you decide you'll go and study law and work sales at a music shop in your spare time. You see a lot of people at the shop playing piano, and every now and then you press a key or two. In three years time, you are going to be no better at playing piano than you were when you first attempted. You might understand music a little more, but unless you practice the hell out of that piano, you're not really going to be able to play it too well. And then you think about how you could've spent those years taking piano lessons and now, even though you'd have paid quite a bit of money in lesson fees, you'd be quite a competent piano player.

Your missing the whole point. These are great filmmakers who did not go to film school so the whole point is that you do not need to go to film school to succeed!!

How is that the point? Richard Branson dropped out of high school. Does that mean no-one should ever finish high school ever again? Your point is ridiculous - 'some people who were really good at what they did didn't go to college, so therefore no-one should go to college'

 

[jmm124567]

Wow after reading this you are now officially branded an IDIOT in my book! Having a backup is pointless? Really? WORST ADVICE EVER! Most smart people would say that since there's a good chance you won't make it once the film industry is very tough to break into it's best to get a Bachelors degree in a liberal art which would give you a well rounded education, good critical thinking, and can actually also help you as a filmmaker!

Why? So you spend 3 years on a degree that gives you essentially nothing. You end up out of school with a different focus, no more knowledge of film or filmmaking than you went in with, a student loan debt, the necessity to go into full time work because of it but because you've spent three years working on something else, you can't start at that entry level of film because you need the money...
And even if you decide 'screw film, I need an income' you're going to have to do a graduate program and specialise in something...
Honestly, I'm not really sure why anyone would advise someone with a passion in film, who only ever wants to work on films and can't imagine themselves doing anything else in their lives to spend 3 years actively doing things that aren't anything to do with film, when they could be spending 3-4 years studying how to make and work on films

You seem to think that if a person does not put 100% of there time into filmmaking then they will not be successful in filmmaking. I disagree! There are a bunch of filmmakers who went to college and studied something that was not at all related to film and on the side they made films and they became successful filmmakers. There's also filmmakers who did not go to college and worked a full time odd job not related to film while making films on the side before they became successful.

"A degree that gives you essentially nothing." Getting a bachelors degree in a valuable major gives you something not nothing. If a person does decide to major in a fine art then they need to be careful about what major they pick because a decent amount of fine arts majors are invaluable. But picking a valuable major gives you a bachelors degree that's valuable. A person could go to college and pick a valuable major while on the side they do filmmaking and if they don't end up successful in the film industry, which there is a decent chance they won't since the industry is very competitive, then that bachelors degree they have will be able to get them a good job somewhere else. Also in America a lot of jobs do not require a graduate degree.

AND JUST FOCUSING YOUR LIFE ALL ON FILM IS ACTUALLY NOT A GOOD THING FOR A YOUNG PERSON TO DO. WHY? BECAUSE TO BE A GOOD FILMMAKER REQUIRES LIFE EXPERIENCE! YOU NEED TO GO OUT AND DO A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NON-FILM RELATED!

Since when? Perhaps to write more realistic scripts... but honestly, I'm not sure how for example a DP is going to benefit at all from actively finding things to stop them from practising their craft. I'm not really sure how anyone can get better at anything if their main focus is to do things not at all related to what they're trying to get better at...
That's just simple logic - let's say you've never played piano in your life, but you really want to. Instead of going and taking lessons, you decide you'll go and study law and work sales at a music shop in your spare time. You see a lot of people at the shop playing piano, and every now and then you press a key or two. In three years time, you are going to be no better at playing piano than you were when you first attempted. You might understand music a little more, but unless you practice the hell out of that piano, you're not really going to be able to play it too well. And then you think about how you could've spent those years taking piano lessons and now, even though you'd have paid quite a bit of money in lesson fees, you'd be quite a competent piano player.

I'm not talking about a DP needing life experience. I'm talking about directors and screenwriters! Actually one thing film schools are looking at during admissions is your life experience. As part of your application they usually have you write an essay telling them about you and one thing they look at is your life experience. Usually directors will explore some themes in there films that they have experienced. For example Martin Scorsese explores themes like Italian-American identity, catholic guilt and redemption, crime and violence. These are all things Scorsese has experienced personally in his life. Another director Paul Thomas Anderson has had a troubled relationship with his mother who is estranged and in his movies he explores themes like alienation and dysfunctional family relationships.

There's directors who have said "Put life experience before filmmaking, because without life experience, you cannot make a fabulous film"

And I never said a person should MAINLY FOCUS on things not related to films! I'm not saying a person should spend a majority of there time on something other than film. What I'm saying is they should go out and do things that are not related to film instead of spending 100% of there time on films. They could spend 70% of there time on films and 30% on things not related to films.

Your missing the whole point. These are great filmmakers who did not go to film school so the whole point is that you do not need to go to film school to succeed!!

How is that the point? Richard Branson dropped out of high school. Does that mean no-one should ever finish high school ever again? Your point is ridiculous - 'some people who were really good at what they did didn't go to college, so therefore no-one should go to college'

No the point is that it is very possible to become a successful excellent filmmaker without attending film school. A majority of the top 10 directors of all time did not go to film school and that lends evidence to the issue that it is highly possible to become a successful excellent filmmaker without attending film school.

 

[jax_rox]

"A degree that gives you essentially nothing." Getting a bachelors degree in a valuable major gives you something not nothing. If a person does decide to major in a fine art then they need to be careful about what major they pick because a decent amount of fine arts majors are invaluable. But picking a valuable major gives you a bachelors degree that's valuable. A person could go to college and pick a valuable major while on the side they do filmmaking and if they don't end up successful in the film industry, which there is a decent chance they won't since the industry is very competitive, then that bachelors degree they have will be able to get them a good job somewhere else. Also in America a lot of jobs do not require a graduate degree.

You're missing my point. Why spend the same amount of money on a degree you may not ever use if you end up pursuing filmmaking, when you could just spend it on a degree in filmmaking, learn more about filmmaking, make better film contacts than you would doing a business degree.. etc. etc. etc.
I can tell you I'd be much more annoyed about spending $xxx,000 on a degree that I never even use than spending $xxx,000 on a degree that helps me attain my dream career.

I'm not talking about a DP needing life experience. I'm talking about directors and screenwriters!

Writers and Directors are but a small portion of the wider film industry. Film school doesn't only cater to them. Also, as a writer/director, going to film school allows you to easily make good contacts with people who can shoot your film(s), produce your film(s) etc etc. Let's say you want to be a DP. You don't want to go to film school. So you get a job as a camera intern, eventually learn how to load and get a few gigs as a loader, work up to 2nd AC, then to 1st, and eventually you become a DP. It might take you 10 years, but you've learned a lot and you've been paid well during your time.
Let's say you want to be a Director. You don't go to film school. You take an unpaid internship on a production, or you PA for free or low pay on a production and then....
You PA again. And you make your own films on the side out of your own pocket. And you work a full time job that has nothing to do with filmmaking because you need the money. And you try and make your own films. And then.. what? You hope that one day Sundance will pick up your short you made with your friends?

That's not to say you can't be a Director without going to film school. Some people completely commit themselves and won't stop until they make it. Does that mean you should never go to film school? Of course not. It depends on you. Film school can make it a lot easier, and gives you contacts you may otherwise never have had. But just like there are those that will give up on film when working full time, there are those in film school that will coast along and get nothing out of it. That doesn't mean that nobody will get anything out of film school, just like it doesn't mean that nobody will ever make it in film if they don't go.

There's directors who have said "Put life experience before filmmaking, because without life experience, you cannot make a fabulous film"

You're again forgetting that there's more to filmmaking and the film industry than just a Director or Writer. Experiencing a family breakup probably doesn't make you a better DP, anymore than getting in a fistfight makes you a better Sound Recordist.

No the point is that it is very possible to become a successful excellent filmmaker without attending film school. A majority of the top 10 directors of all time did not go to film school and that lends evidence to the issue that it is highly possible to become a successful excellent filmmaker without attending film school.

I never said it wasn't possible to become a successful filmmaker without going to film school. I think very few people say that. And the fact that some of your top 10 Directors didn't go to film school means nothing. Firstly, a lot of the older Directors were around before film school, or before the proliferation of film school, and secondly, of course it's possible to be succesful without going to film school. Half the top billionaires of the world dropped out of high school or didn't go to college. Does that mean you can't be successful if you finish high school or go to college? Does that mean that everyone in the world who is currently doing a university or college degree is wasting their time because a lot of the current really successful people didn't go? Of course not. For some people college is the right choice and the best way for them to learn and create contacts. For others not. For some people, film school is the right choice for them, and the best way to learn and create contacts. For others not. Neither is exclusive of success. You should choose the path that's right for you, but you should not advise others not to go down certain paths simply because you didn't feel it was the right path for you.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Those are some good points Jax for sure.

I'm a working pro now, not necessarily directing full time (yet), but working in the production industry. I didn't go to film school, rather I didn't finish. As a freshman, the people I talked to who finished film school all worked at department stores or pizza delivery. That's not to say it's the school's fault, but the people's mentality. It's a field where you have to have a lot of drive and make opportunity happen, nothing is going to fall in your lap. So if you're a driven person who has any type of chance at success in filmmaking, attending film school isn't going to help much because the drive you already posess is what gets films made.

Education is vitally important, sure. I started young, I volunteered like crazy on productions as a kid and volunteered at churches working in their video areas. Churches are unique in that they do production weekly but rely on volunteers to pull it off. I made home movies with friends, I hardly ever said no when someone needed a favor and after 10-12 years of doing that, I had my first steady gig editing a small TV show at 18 years old because I knew and had worked with a guy who knew the people hiring.

I think that's a way better route than traditional film school, trick is it's hard to do if you're already in your twenties or older living on your own and lating bills. The kids on the forum still have a shot at pursuing that though if so inclined.

Another important thing you need if you want to direct is leadership skills, and no film school teaches that. In fact, good leadership skills are more important than good technical skills as a director.

Just a side note, I've only worked with a few people who had traditional film degrees. I think only three, but may be forgetting. Out of those three, only one had any idea about what he was doing, and even then he wasn't very good at. The other two not so much, but they all feel crazy entitled and act as if they deserve leadership spots because of their degree. I spent way more time than I should of teaching one of them about cameras, lenses, equipment, workflow, audio, etc and he had a $200k degree. I have worked with a few people that have graduated from tech/trade school too in a film area. They know a lot more than the first three mentioned. Still, the most valuable group of people on set, the guys that are crazy talented, dedicated, pull their own weight and then some... Those are all guys that did something similar to what I did, guys I met in the sound booth of s big kids event or who volunteered to run camera at church at 13.

Long post, sorry.

tl;dr: Drive and Passion is more important than a degree, but education is still absolutely important. If you don't get a degree, volunteer every spare hour and let experience teach you.

 

[jax_rox]

Also good points, Paul. Drive and passion is necessary whether taking the film school route or not.

It's interesting, and perhaps it's simply just a different industry, but very few of the people I've ever worked on set with in technical roles hadn't gone to film school, especially the younger ones and those volunteering.

I've learned to pick what schools people come from based on their overall knowledge and technical skills.

 

[glowfilm]

My Take (I went to film school)

I attended the University of Texas undergrad film program.

In my opinion, if you want to go to a four year university and want to be a filmmaker, you can major in film. However, unless you go to like an NYU or USC, don't expect access to great equipment or facilities or even amazing teachers for that matter. I'm not saying you will get no practice and terrible teaching, but there's nothing that an undergrad film program will teach you that you can't learn on your own fairly easily. So why pay 40 to 100 grand for it?

If you get into USC or NYU and can afford it, God bless you. Go.

For the average Joe that thinks they want to be a filmmaker though and is dead set on going to some sort of academic program during his or her college years, I recommend going to more of a trade school like Chapman, somewhere where film is all you worry about. There, you won't be paying for stuff you don't care about/won't need. You'll most likely save money because many of these programs don't last 4 years, and if you play your cards right, you can go to one nearby another university. So if you are romantic about going to football games or fraternities or anything stereotypical of college, you can still get it.

http://glowfilm.blogspot.com/

 

[Jardoss]

I want to thank you all for great answers, they're a lot of help for both me and (hopefully) a lot of other people who's stumbled upon this thread.

However, I'd like some of you have a look at what I've made recently, and give me some answers based on that:
http://www.youtube.com/user/JARANDandJENS

The drive and ambition is no problem. I've got an agent, maybe a producer (going to meet one interested this week), here in Norway- and I'm already working in a production company that makes highly respected material within the borders. So question is, based on what I've made, and where I am at the moment, (and say money is no problem) what should be my number one goal in order to get into film school? Keep making short films? Make another feature film? Different kinds of films... etc?

My goal is USC, and NYU

 

[Jardoss]

Judging by the trailer to your film, you'll find film school quite frustrating, given that most of your classmates will be fairly rich kids who've enjoyed watching a few films but have no practical experience (massive generalisation, I know).

This forum tends to sway towards the 'no film school' line of advice and I think that's probably right. But because you're in Europe, university is a hell of a lot cheaper and you really ought to do it. It doesn't matter whether you're studying film or anything else, you'll have a great time and you'll be employable afterwards. Win win!

Thank you so much for kind words, they mean a lot- and this is also something I've been thinking about. I know now, after reading all your posts and talking to a bunch of people; that film school will probably be frustrating. I know the basics, and what's needed in order to make a good film- and I just need to do it more in order to het there- but being from Europe, my reason to going to film school is now contacts. I need a ticket in; which is what I'm going to use film school for.

 

[Jardoss]

I stoped reading this debate after the first page. But dude I am in the same situation. I dont have a amazing movie like that but I dont know if I should go to film school or not. But seriously that trailer is AMAZING!!!

Thank you! And boy do i know how it feels haha, just read this thread- It'll get your answers