I want to study film, am I insane? (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Wishton]

Edit... Wrong forum...

 

[Edwin-S]

I read the article in question. Frankly, what he is describing in the article is what amounts to a political theory class with a patina of "film theory" overlaid on it.

I think it is funny how university types like to seperate themselves from "trade schools" by using the tired old saw of "developing minds." As if people who attend trade schools are mentally deficient mongoloids at the lower end of the intellectual development scale: incapable of arriving at the esoteric levels of intellectual awareness inhabited by their university trained betters.

I have attended two university level English courses on research and business writing. Both courses stressed clarity of language and structure in preparing papers and reports. While I was reading the quotations from the essay I could not do so without smiling at the irony of it all.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

This is why I stay on the science side of arts and sciences.

You liberal arts folks are a bunch of weirdos. :p)

 

[Seth--L]

Ricardo_C,

I find it a bit arrogant that you're not interested in learning the history and theory of the craft - learning about what people have done before you and why. It's like wanting to be an actor and refusing to read Stanislavski. You'll be a much better film maker if you know more than just how to operate the equipment.

Using the article I posted to gauge what the film major can be like is probably a bad idea. Being a film major and having taken hardcore theory classes like the one described, it sounds like the writer is in denial about just how good of a student his daughter is. And like every college student, not surprisingly she immediately blames the professor for her C instead of herself. Like most people, she probably didn't do the reading. Tests test you on class lectures and readings. The writer of the article never took the class -- that's why he is unable to answer the questions on the test.

 

[Edwin-S]

I think the writer's article went beyond his astonishment at his daughter's average grade. His article seemed to be saying that the "film theory" course really wasn't about film at all. That its real purpose was advancing the political theory and beliefs of a pro-Marxist teaching faculty. He did sit in on one lecture and his impression was that the "professor" was not engaging his audience and as a result many of the students were falling asleep. If students are dozing off during the professor's lecture, it stands to reason that they are not learning much and as a result aren't going to do to well on a subsequent examination.

I have had experience with teachers like that. I had a physics teacher who was an astronomy buff. He was relatively interesting as long as he was using astronomy to demonstrate physics concepts. When he would stop using astronomy for his examples he would get extremely boring to listen to. A person couldn't help nodding off.

 

[Ricardo C]

Seth, I think you misunderstood me. I don't intend to grab a copy of "Rebel Without a Crew", buy a Mini-DV camera and go pick up my Oscar

Film history? Of course I would expect to learn it. Film theory? By all means, yes! But the picture painted by the Times article is that of film theory as a body of thought conceived not by actual filmmakers, but by intellectuals not directly related to the field (and who in fact don't actually make films themselves), and who seem to have simply appropriated film as a conduit for their own political ideas.

Sorry if it sounds arrogant, but I'm not exactly eager to put myself through that. I would do it, if only to study a new perspective, but not because I feel a particular admiration for the discipline.

 

[Francois Caron]

Edwin, I love your comment because I can relate to it. Some academic members do see me as a mongoloid of the computer industry because I went to Herzing Institute in Montreal instead of attending a university course. The fact that my programming abilities have helped my employer establish a strong foothold in a niche market doesn't seem important to them.

I've been in the computer industry for almost twenty years now. Today, the industry has become highly repetitive lately, offering me nothing truly exciting and new. That's why I've been studying the possibility of jumping into the movie industry one of these days.

But before I take the plunge, I need to learn the nuts and bolts just like Ricardo although my orientation may be more on the business end of things instead of the actual filming. I still want to get my hands dirty in making a movie just so I know how everything works. What I need is an environment similar to Herzing where you get to work with the actual equipment in a high pressure environment for a few months, preferably at night so that I can keep earning a living during the daytime.

What I DO NOT want is a bunch of classes on film theory, film history or political aspirations. I'm not looking for any particular scholastics degree; what I need is hard-core knowledge and hands-on experience. If I want a movie history lesson, I'll just listen to the special features on my Criterion discs.

When I hear about these courses where the professors apply such a strict work methodology on their students, they're not "developing minds", they're destroying them! How can these professors claim they're promoting creativity if they stifle it in their classrooms? This has never made any sense to me. In fact, this is why I've never attended university full-time on any of the subjects that interested me. Too often, the curriculum requires you to take courses that have very little or no bearing on what you're actually trying to LEARN.

 

[Ricardo C]

That's part of the reason why the VFS film program appealed to me. It's a one-year, very intensive course, culminating in the student's involvement in the production of not only a film of his own, but also participating in others' projects in various capacities.

I do have an interest in studying film history and the like, but actual filmmaking somehow seems more important to me

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Of course, somethig like 1% of the WGA do 90-95% of the writing produced in Hollywood, so in many ways the idea of writing for film/tv is somewhat similar to buying a lottery ticket. Going into the writing game with an attitude so anti-theory and, dare I say, hostile to the academic--- it's almost a sure sign you will be ignored.

Just my two cents as someone who has tons of friends who are failed directors/producers/writer/actors.

-V

-V

 

[Ricardo C]

Vince, I re-read my posts, trying to find the parts where I stated I had no interest in learning film history and even film theory. Nope, can't find them I am interested in the VFS program because it (apparently, based on their literature) emphasizes, you know, filmmaking. But I do want to study all aspects of the art.

However, I do object to my degree depending on my ability to satisfy the requirements of a teaching body that are not filmmakers themselves and who've developed a field of study in which film is just an accesory through which to channel their particular form of philosophy.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

1) Truth is real filmmakers are usually making films, not teaching classes (you'll find the same with screenwriting books- as most good writers are too busy to write a how-to book).

2) I find this statement ironic, as most filmmakers are simply using film as an accessory through which they channel their particular form of philosophy. I think without an education based in this, you kind of miss the point entirely.

If you're looking to be "in charge" and be a director type- these elements are key... if you wanna be a technical position, i think the school thing is kinda silly, as most peole I know in technical positions have degrees in other things, and learned the trade by being an assistant.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

This is one of the strange, but true realities of academia. You'll often find professors and "experts" that don't do anything with their field at all, at least in a practical sense of application. This is why I have so much respect in the world for research scientists in chemistry, biology, physics, etc. They at least do something with what they're teaching and learning.

From the article I've read and the various posts here, I find that film theory in and of itself isn't bad. It's an interesting level of study. But as a science person, I find it strange to call it theory. It's clear what the hypothesis is, but what are the experimental means? Personally, they should drop the theory label. There's nothing scientific about it.

The problem with film theory may have to do with the professors. It really borders on the hypocritical really when you think about it. Free thought is only allowed if it's their brand of free thought and on their terms. Of course, that kind of problem exists everywhere.

Okay, I'll stop my tanget. Why am I here again? Oh yeah, taking a pee break from football.

 

[Ricardo C]

I agree, Dome

Vince:


Didn't most of the greatest directors of our time actually emerge before the "film theory" revolution? I wonder how they managed without a Constance Penley...

 

[Seth--L]

All the early Russian films, most notably by Eisenstein and Vertov, were constructed from theory. These guys enjoyed writing about film as much as making them. Often the made films to test or prove points from their writings on theory. I doubt anyone is going to dispute Eisenstein's influence on world cinema.

Italian neorealism was also strongly driven by theory.

Then of course there is the French New Wave where Truffaut, Godard and others all started as theoreticians before becoming filmmakers.

 

[Seth--L]

Anyway, I hope that people take note of the fact that this article on film theory would have never been written if the writer's daughter had not received a C. He is just one of many many parents that overact when their children receive a poor grade and immediately assume that the professor is at fault. Heaven forbid a college course be difficult.

 

[MartinTeller]

Because if they're dead, they can't possibly be important!


Anyway... Ricardo, I think you need to examine why you want to be a filmmaker. Do you have something to say that can only be expressed through the medium of film? Or do you just think it would be a neat-o job? If the latter, then by all means take the quickie technical course and learn how to slap together screenplays like A Guy Thing for a quick buck. If the former, you owe it to yourself to learn history and theory and go the academic route. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure and frustration.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I thought about commenting on the many points in this thread, but since so many deal with one student’s experience, taking one course at one university, I’m not sure that anything more that can be said would be valuable.

However, I think it important not to generalize too much from a single incident. On the other hand, it is also important to understand that it is unlikely that you (or anyone) will find an academic program that is without flaw and meets your needs completely.

There are many, many approaches towards studying film, even at the graduate level. Things are even more diversified at the undergraduate level.

Most undergraduate courses of study will require an overall ‘liberal arts’ approach. If this does not appeal, then you should choose an institution that is oriented towards the more practical and specific, technical approach. Be sure that any place you choose to study matches your educational goals.

For example, USC and UCLA are well known for courses of study (at the M.F.A level) that emphasize the ‘Hollywood’ film. NYU is more oriented towards independent type films. AFI takes quite a practical approach. At Columbia, you need to specialize early (at the graduate level). At Northwestern you are expected to touch all facts of filmmaking (again, at the graduate level). And so on.

Don’t get overly concerned about one class.

Also don’t ignore the approach taken at each school.

Good luck.

 

[Seth--L]

I've cited from my experience as a film studies major at a different university and no one seems to care.

One thing which hasn't been mentioned but should be said is that there are also B.F.A. film programs. With this, the major is not inside the college of Arts and Sciences, so there is not a core of liberal arts classes and related classes, and you end up doing quite a bit of actual production work. In order to earn the "F" in B.F.A, you have to put in a minimum number of studio hours. What I don't like about the B.F.A. program is that all your classes are predetermined - it's difficult to pursue any course of study outside of the major, and if you go to grad school for film you're going to end up taking all the same classes over again.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I did not think that I’d post additional agreements. You may take it that I have read your experiences with interest.

I am an advocate of a classic liberal arts education, but those who wish to concentrate on purely technical matters are no doubt taking an option equally valid, even if less well-rounded. François, for example would be well served by a strictly technical approach. But I would suggest that one year is a pretty limited time to go from zero to making a film.

 

[Seth--L]

Lew,

Don't worry, I saw your original comments agreeing with me. But as you noted, almost everyone else keeps referring to the article as if it is the definitive account of the film major.