I'll take Gaza's silly bait and offer my own views of this topic.
Post by Al SmithPost by Al SmithYou know what no school can teach? What a director chooses to say.
They were never meant to. Learning by doing is what film schools have
done best. The former would be like some aspiring writer expecting the
University of Iowa Writing Workshop to tell them what to say. You can't
teach a point of view, and if one expects it they have no business
going to school to begin with, let alone trying to become an artist.
Post by Al SmithPost by Al SmithThat is infinitely more important than technique, which is just a
way to get the information he wants to convey across to the
audience.
Once one understands technique then it becomes easier for the filmmaker
to find their own voice and express themselves in ways that make them
stand out from the others.
Post by Al SmithThat's what separates an Orson Welles from a Steven
Post by Al SmithSpielberg. Spielberg has got the technique, but he has nothing to say.
Firstly, Spielberg did not go to film school, secondly I really
struggle to realise how so much of what a film 'has to say' relies on
the Director, surely the essential message lies in the script and the
director just amplifies it?
Six of one, half a dozen of the others. It really depends upon if the
director has worked closely with the writer(s). A lot of directors know
what they want to say, but often don't have the skills to dramatize
them in the form of a script, usually comprising dialogue and fleshing
out characters, especially where subtext is concerned. This can vary
from filmmaker to filmmaker. What the director brings is the ability to
forge all of these elements of story, acting (casting also reflects the
director's vision), photography (knowing the camera and how it is used
isn't just for the DP), sound and editing together and make something
that is worth the time for an audience to watch.
Spielberg had been making his own films in 8mm long before he went to
college. He was at Cal State Long Beach (hardly a bastion of higher
education, mind you) for maybe a year or so, then dropped out when he
realized there was nothing useful he could learn from the place.
Post by Al SmithAs for whoever said anything about "Film-Beethovens" being missed as a
result of film school, it is very hard to run a parallel between music
composition and film making, but if you see it fit to make one then I
think it well to point out that Beethoven did have Music lessons and
did study music with certain important musical figures at the time, and
in any case, musical composition is not nearly as technical as film
making.
No school is created to turn out geniuses. But the "genius" can take
advantage of what they learn in school; refining their talent, honing
their skills, and doing exercises that help see where their strengths
are as well as their weaknesses. A film school that does nothing but
offer lectures and films to screen isn't worth attending.
Post by Al SmithThe same can be said for Da Vinci and Michaelangelo -- both were
apprentices of fine artists in their early years, and Mozart as well
was taught inteively in the art of music.
Schools can be someplace other than the classroom.
Post by Al SmithSo if all of these great artists had training in their specific art,
surely that suggests that film school ain't that bad.
Exactly. (By the way, I am in agreement with you all the way, Nick.)
Post by Al SmithYes you say that the director's of yester-year Orson Wells, Kubrick et
al. did not go to film school, but that is, as is the common standard
when a new art form is invented, there were indeed no schools available
to be taught!
Kubrick was self-taught, yes, but he'd already had experience "in the
field" as a still photographer for Look. If anyone has seen his various
photo essays they will see that Kubrick was already using the camera to
tell stories. It is why his shorts and industrials were successful
enough. By the time he went to feature filmmaking with "Fear and
Desire," Kubrick quickly learned the big difference in trying to tell a
story and convey serious themes on a bigger canvas. He has since
dismissed F&D as a "student film done in 35mm." He himself knew it was
an expensive learning experience. And what was spent was as much as
tuition today in some schools.
As for Welles, he'd had extensive experience in theater, going back to
his prep school days. His days of doing radio was helpful in directing
live performances and using sound and music effects to tell the story.
All that was needed once he got to Hollywood was an understanding of
camera and editing. Greg Toland was Welles' "instructor" in that area,
and Welles' films have always had a similar look to them since.
Post by Al SmithModern film directors such as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola,
Woody Allen (to some extent) and David Lynch all went to film school,
and may I just point out that the Godather is arguably one of the
greatest films ever made (as said by Kubrick himself) and that Scorsese
in recent polls by UK's Empire magazine, 3rd best Director of all time,
No. 2 going to Hitchcock and No. 1 to Spielberg (accompanied by a
lengthy article defending this choice).
Scorsese not only learned about film at NYU, he also taught there while
as a graduate student. He was able to use school equipment to make his
early works, which was a money saver. Many people attend film schools,
or will take film classes, just to use the "free" equipment and get
student rates with the labs. (I'm talking about shooting real film,
mind you, not shooting video.) Using classmates to help work as a crew
not only saves money, it also forges professional relationships down
the line.
Coppola had a degree in Theater from Hofstra. He attended UCLA to get
his Masters in Cinema. He apprenticed with Roger Corman, which was a
great experience for him -- hands-on training. He'd directed "Dementia
13," which Corman allowed him to do when the only way to liquidate some
funds in Ireland was to simply make a film -- a horror film, of course.
When Coppola did get his Masters it was from making a for-real feature
film, "You're a Big Boy Now." He was able to get the school to allow
him to use this feature as his Masters Thesis project, even though it
was done on the outside, but before Coppola had finished his graduate
program.
David Lynch was a painter who had attended art school in Pennsylvania.
He made experimental short films as well, and upon making one short,
"The Grandmother," with AFI grant money, he was admitted into AFI's
Center For Advanced Film Studies, when it was still a fairly early
program. (Terrence Malick was among the first class of the school in
1969. Lynch entered the program in 1972.) "Eraserhead" was Lynch's
Masters Thesis film. It took him five years to complete it. When Mel
Brooks saw the finished film he signed Lynch to direct "The Elephant
Man."
As for the early directors, such as Ford, Hawks, Walsh, et. al., the
industry was so new that it was still being developed, and Ford and the
others were learning from the ground up. Ford's older brother, Francis,
was already a successful stage actor, and was making his own silent
films, and that's how young John Ford entered the business (and
changing his name from Sean Feeney to the more American sounding Jack
Ford in the process, since the Irish were still looked down upon as
scum, even in the burgeoning movie business). Ford, Walsh and von
Stroheim got to work for D. W. Griffth, when he was making "Birth of a
Nation." They all had bit parts (Walsh played John Wilkes Booth), and
all were among Griffith's "assistants." Later on, Ford worked as an
assistant director at Universal, working on B-westerns. Carl Lammele,
the owner of Universal, was impressed at the way Ford yelled and swore
at the cowboy extras (they were real cowboys, old ranch hands looking
for steady work) to get them properly motivated for a scene, and he
promoted Ford to full fledged director. Ford's "film school" was making
two-reeler westerns, mostly with Harry Carey. They were one-week shoots
where Ford and Carey often improvised on the location, taking what was
there (or wasn't there) in the script and trying for something better.
Ford had some theater experience in his home state of Maine, enough to
know he hated acting; and he also was a talented art student. His
natural eye for composition and lighting (honed by those B-westerns
with Carey) helped make him the artist we know today.
Also, film schools are no guarenteed entrees into the industry. One can
spend a lot of time and money, having a number of impressive and
creative reels, but may still end up working on a very low budget film
in a low level crew position. For every Lynch, Coppola and Scorsese,
there are tens of thousands of people with diplomas, "calling card"
reels (and a huge student loan debt), no less talented, trying to eke
out a living.
Post by Al SmithSo is film school ruining modern cinema? No. As said already in this
thread, the thing that is ruining modern cinema is the business, which
I would like to add is one the decline with the box office failures of
King-Kong, The Island and other blockbusters, as well as the results of
this years Oscars (Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Capote) coming out top,
Geroge Lucas himself has said that in a decade or two he thinks there
will be little space for the typical blockbuster anymore.
Many people who bypass film school and try to make their first feature
will often fail because they are following the pattern of other
successful filmmakers, turning what was considered "unique" among the
"independents," into a cliche. What is the difference between a
done-to-death low budget movie (maybe shot on video) about yet more
quirky and dysfunctional people, or yet the latest in the Tarantino
wannabe competition, and a studio financed film that might deal with
the same subject? If the wannabe is simply imitating what was at one
time "original" in the same way that a studio is doing it then there
really isn't much difference, except how much money gets to be spent,
and therefore how much added "production value" is allowed. And the
filmmaker isn't much different than the student in film school doing
the same thing.
Boaz
("I like to viddy the old films now and then.")