From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Ideal Film Schools
Keywords: utopia
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:04:45 GMT
Reply-To: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


Not to counter the opinions previously mentioned on the subject of
film schools, but as a recent film school graduate, I have some things
to add:

chris newsom writes:

>1. Films cost money, and lots of it.  You have to get people into the
>   theatres and renting those cassettes.  This means you have to make
>   things they want to see.  But unfortunately, today's audience is
>   pretty film illiterate.  TV has greatly lowered the mean Cinema
>   IQ.  They like the glitz, high concept, stuff of Hollywood.  And
>   so the cycle repeats itself.

This is true.  However, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and
saying, "MAKE THIS TYPE OF FILM."  The hard evidence suggests that a
good filmmaker, who can make even what is typically called an "art"
film (European style, though I disagree that it is "European style."),
can get funding for a good script.  One thing I learned in film school
is that it does NOT have to cost a lot of money to make a film.
Generally, the better the script, the LESS it ends up costing in
Hollywood, due to the lack of movie-saving special effects necessary
to spice up boring or poorly written scripts.  It's not easy to be a
"good" filmmaker...especially a successful good filmmaker..but
someone's got to do it.  In my case, I decided to go into audio post
production...so it's not within my desires to take the wheel.

>2. Thousands of people want to work in film.  The education Elan
>   speaks of (apprenticeship) would require an incredibly low
>   faculty:student ratio.  And the exercises regarding studying,
>   imitating, and experimenting the masters would involve great
>   personal cost.  So, now only the rich can be filmmakers.  It would
>   be hard for me to believe that Grants and Endowments would be
>   established for the less-wealthy considering the problems with
>   even high school education in America.

I disagree...at my school (Boston University) we had much of what Elan
spoke of, and a very high faculty/student ratio.  The key word is
variety...  that is, the variety of classes offered by the school.
The more professors classes available, the better.  Also, imitating
the "masters" does NOT require great personal cost.  That is simply
not true.  Some of the best films in history were made with incredibly
low budgets...examples include Bergman, De Sica, Fellini, Welles,
among others.  Filmmakers don't have to be rich.  Greg Araki, a
filmmaker who is gaining popularity in the west coast area, has been
making full-length feature films (3 already), none for over $7000
total budget.  They're excellent...and not "artsy" by any means.  As
for the Grants issue...I just got finished doing sound work for a
friend who was completing his senior thesis project at BU.  It is a
half hour film, in wide-screen format (though 16mm) and in color.  The
crew consisted of approximately 50 people, most of them professionals.
None of them expect to be paid.  As for overhead and price of
supplies, the equipment use is free (the school owns it) and all film,
prossessing, catering, and other expenses were covered by a GRANT that
he received locally.  There are thousands of grants available for
filmmakers.

>3. Film Art is not the individual experience the Sculpture or
>   Painting is.  Film is a collaborative effort which involves
>   numerous craftsmen.  These craftsmen, although deeply concerned
>   about the quality of their work, still have to work steadily like
>   anybody else.  This means taking the work that comes, not always
>   artistic in nature, thus perpetuating the volume of junk that the
>   Ideal Film School is meant to eliminate.

The ideal film school is not "meant" to eliminate anything, though the
rest of what you say is true...we do have to work, and so we do have
to take what we're given.  Film school gave us the skills necessary.
It's up to us to find work...and as for changing the quality of film
that is produced, you must remember that film hasn't been around long
enough for "film school grads" to make it to director's chairs very
often...film schools started popping into existance in the 40's and
50's, and even then they weren't taken seriously.  So, now with a new
generation of film grads, you may very well see a change in the
schlock Hollywood produces, assuming that the film grads aren't so
conceited that they think they are above Hollywood.  It will be a
while.  I think John Singleton is an example of change for the better,
film school style.

>Elan's ideas would fly best in the European film community.
>America's greatest export is its entertainment.  And they intend to
>keep it that way, art or not.

When a good American film comes out, and it's big in terms of
popularity, it will go to Europe.  Granted, it it true that MOST of
America's export is entertainment films...but that's because we LIKE
entertainment films.  What you might call "art" film, when it is
produced in America, often gets circulated in the "art" communities in
Europe.  It's a volume issue.  Personally, I think (and many film
professors disagree with this) that anything you throw on that movie
screen can be defined as art.  I don't care if it's Universal Soldier
or Trust or Sex, Lies, and Videotape...no matter what you see, it's
someone's idea of art...so I resent the term "art film."  Films that I
have made, I hope, are considered artistic, even though they might be
a dumb comedy, horror, or documentary.

Keep shooting.

>chris newsom, using murphy's account with permission

-Jay Adelson, ghost@csa.bu.edu

(jay mailed this message to me, then asked me to post it for him.  murphy.)
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"