From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: Ideal Film Schools
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


>It seems to me that the ideal film school would be one in which,
>first of all, the student was presented with all the possibilities
>for filming a scene.  The student would build up a dictionary of
>possible methods to film a scene, to capture an emotion, by analyzing
>great films - the same way that a writer reads great authors to see
>how they have tackled complex problems. The student would learn
>everything there is to know about the technical side of things -
>types of film, cameras, focal length, tracking, panning, pulling,
>pushing, etc. and would go out and experiment on their own - to learn
>by making their own mistakes. The student would learn the processes
>by which others have taken concepts and transformed them into a
>concrete plan of action to make a film.  Students would be encouraged
>to be creative but would also have special exercises in which they
>imitate great scenes for the purpose of learning how they were done.
>Learning by imitating the masters is a valuable apprenticeship, and
>if the students do not yet have their own developed artistic sense,
>at least they will be good craftsmen. The purpose of film school is
>to provide the students with the tools - by providing them with the
>whole spectrum of possibilities available - to fulfill their own
>artistic vision. These concepts apply equally to any type of art -
>from painting to sculpture, and brings up my main point: film is a
>form of art and should be taught that way.
>
>Once they have graduated, then they can make the decision whether to
>go to Hollywood, or to be artists. But while in school they will
>stick to the highest standards and be encouraged not to imitate the
>latest blockbuster, unless it is great on its own merits, and not
>because of the income it has generated.
>
>dekel-elan@CS.YALE.EDU (Elan Dekel)


In some etheral plane there exists the "Ideal Film School" that Elan
attempts to describe to us mortals.  A quick reality check adds
serious gravity issues to his lofty rumblings.

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.

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.

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.

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.


chris newsom, using murphy's account with permission
-- 
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"