logo

27 Responses to “Film Schools : Collective opinions”

1. Raj on November 12th, 2007 5:43 pm

   One of the best articles out here for the sheer value of all this info … great job, Vaas and Oz!

   And for those who want to be stuck in this country, is FTII the best option or are there more? My level of knowledge is rather low in this, so someone please help

2. dabba on November 12th, 2007 6:53 pm

   Depends on whether you want to do it full time or have a day job and do it part time.

   In NYC, NYFA and New School have good part time programs for people with no prior knowledge of the technical side. You will load film into a 16mm camera (or u can work on mini-DV) on your first day in class. I will recommend doing a lot of work on your own before you join this by reading the books of other full time program curricula such as Directing shot by shot, painting with light etc etc. Also, read story by Mckee and you can focus your 12-week course (part time - 3 days a week - 6-9 pm, and shoot on weekends) on lighting, camera angles and how to work with actors. Or you can do the full time 4 or 8 week programs. This course will cost you about $2500 and you will have 3 short films at the end of it that you can perhaps use to get into UCLA, USC or any other full time program.

   Heard very good things about AFI.

3. Evelyn Tu on November 12th, 2007 9:14 pm

   I love my graduate program at New School, so I second Dabba’s comment. If you don’t want to go for a full degree, they now have shorter certificate programs in film production, screenwriting, and documentary media studies. Many of the students are mid-career professionals, and the professors are our fans.

   Tuition includes access to some very nice equipment, but there’s a lot of competition to reserve it as everyone’s projects are due at the end of each semester.

   Question about AFI: If you’ve picked up some technical expertise elsewhere, would attending AFI be redundant, or is it the next level up?

4. ram on November 12th, 2007 10:01 pm

   one of the best posts..thank you PFC for this….please ask the other director’s opinion also about film schools? how important are they for making movies? as one of the person above said watching movies is the best school… please ask anurag kashyap, onir, sudhir mishra and others too….
   and please ask santosh sivan sir… about the best cinematography school… and his opinion about film schools

5. Nikhil Singh on November 12th, 2007 10:22 pm

   Thanks man
   wat a gr8 piece of info

6. george on November 12th, 2007 10:23 pm

   well i found this link … list of almost all the films schools … there are sooo many in india but not many are worth a mention.

   neway i was kinda surprised to see a film and video communication programme in NID, NID is probably the best design institute so i wonder how good this program wud be.

   neone got ne idea …. and guys do u have ne official link to that “estonia film school”

   http://www.filmmaking.net/directory/filmschools/film_schools_browse.asp?country=india

7. Gajendra S Shrotriya on November 12th, 2007 11:08 pm

   More than a school, one needs passion for making films. I am already forty plus and busy with my business but still make films on weekend on my DV and try to learn making films by watching them. I have 4-5 one min submissions in PFCOne too which everybody wud get to see when they are on air. I am still learning and improving on myself. Secondly, no school can teach creativity. Technique cud be understood by watching great films, reading on online film schools etc though working with some experienced director wud be a great learning experience. Personally, I read Syd Field’s books for script writing, Wikipedia is also a good source, Editing I learnt myself and use Sony Vegas for my films. Computer friendliness is all what ou need for learning editing. Creativity has to be your own. No one can teach you that though watching films, reading stories and just being observant would help immensely.
   Lastly, probably just being in touch with PFC and reading about film makers could help and might provide some opportunity to work with one of them. PFCOne is one such opportunity to show case yourself.
   So believe in yourself and just make films. Nothing can teach more than your own passion for it.
   Besides my submissions for PFCOne, some of my films can be viewed at;
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBePBmMXE1I
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNwUgmn1QtM
   One “Yeh Becharey” my first experience with film making is running on Mirch Masala channel at http://www.nautanki.tv
   Those interested may watch my work to know how good one could be without any formal training. I don’t claim that one could be great, but learning is an iterative and gradual process and one can only improve by making films, making films and making films yourself.

8. Sourav on November 13th, 2007 2:02 am

   Good piece of info..will keep in mind.It reminds me of US Univ applications:d

9. Sourav on November 13th, 2007 2:05 am

   @Oz..one question…Do such universites give options of taking up film studies or film appreciation as minors along with engineering courses..for that matter any course. Just a query.

10. vivek on November 13th, 2007 3:00 am

    Hi all. i just finished my one year prog on filmmaking from New York Film Academy, NYC. it was amazing exp for me. if you guys have any question or need my help please feel free to contact me at vivektewari [dot] tewari[at] gmail [dot] com

11. Mohit on November 13th, 2007 4:49 am

    now thats what i call real PFC thing.

12. rick on November 13th, 2007 11:24 am

    can someone suggest an average cost of going to a film school in US in ruppees.
    and is FTII worth attending? i mean is there a future after i come out?

13. Rohan Venkat on November 13th, 2007 10:46 pm

    USC all the way! Networking is brilliant, and the study itself offers loads of opportunities.

    Besides, if you decide not to major in film, (say you’re studying journalism like me) you can still make use of the great facility through minors/electives and end up doing something you enjoy (film criticism maybe?)

14. nitin on November 14th, 2007 10:40 pm

    how good or bad is whistling woods international????

15. Neeraj on November 19th, 2007 5:46 am

    Hii Mainak…. i checked out the Estonia ..Baltic school…. seems good to be.. ! Is your friend currently studying over there ??? Hows the college and its courses… they various specializations !!!!

16. ZACK on November 22nd, 2007 7:35 pm

    I attended 3 of the top 5 film schools in the US and can give a few personal opinions.

    Generally speaking, the top 5 film schools in the US are (not in any order):

    - NYU — New York University (in New York City)
    - Columbia Univ (in New York City)
    - USC — University of Southern California (L.A.)
    - UCLA — Univ of California, at Los Angeles (L.A.)
    - AFI — American Film Institute (L.A.)

    Cal Arts (in L.A.), Univ of Texas at Austin (Austin), San Francisco State Univ (San Francisco), Emerson College (Boston), and some others are very strong in certain subjects. There are others, I’m sure, I’ve missed — forgive me.

    (OH, important, there are also a number of non-university programs, like trade schools. NY Film Academy, LA Film School, and others. These are very different from the university-based programs. They tend to be cheaper, which is good, but they can be a bit “bare bones.” I can jot down some things about them later if people want. But, it’s important NOT to just assume all schools in the US are good, just because they’re in the US. Often times, the fancier the name, the more you should examine them.)

    One caveat: I happenned to have taken screenwriting classes at Columbia; did an intense Summer production workshop at NYU; and got my Masters (what Indians call “post-graduate degree” — but what Americans call “graduate degree”) in Producing/Directing from USC. So, I may be a bit partial to those schools, but I’ll try to give my thoughts fairly.

    I’m of the opinion that you go to a school, particularly a professional training school, for one of three reasons:

    - (a) the teachers,
    - (b) the other students,
    - (c) the alumni (meaning, its teachers and students over time; or, in other words, its reputation)

    One of the reasons for the top 5 schools being the top 5, is simply location — and this goes to teachers, specifically. At all of the 5 schools listed, the teaching staff often includes working professionals from the industry. It’s simply more difficult to get an Oscar-winning art director to come give a lecture to your class, if you’re in, say, Chicago. So, this point goes to the kind of teachers you’ll have.

    In other words, look carefully at the instructors listed on the school’s websites before you apply.

    As far as students, I’m really of the opinion that you know a school by its alumni. This may be unfair, but it’s still I believe largely the case that someone applies to USC thinking — hoping — they will be the next Lucas (Star Wars), Zemeckis (Beowulf) or whoever.

    So, the image of the alumni feeds into who applies — and who your fellow students will be. And that’s important, because you end up learning a LOT from your fellow students. So, who are these people, really?

    (Not just learn from your fellow students, you may end up working together for the rest of your lives!)

    And this brings me to the alumni. All of the schools I’ve listed below are excellent, in their own way. But the CULTURE at each of the schools is different.

    Here is my non-scientific impressions:

    - NYU — is the school of Martin Scorcese and Oliver Stone and Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee. It’ll ALWAYS be about making movies with a New York-style INDEPENDENT EDGE. You probably won’t be happy at NYU if your favorite film is, say, American Pie. NYU has the best production facilities in New York, also benefits from its locality — in the heart of Greenwich Village — by having good access to actors and performers.

    - COLUMBIA — has an incredibly strong writing program, and a historically exceptional critical program. Alumni films tends to be more intellectual (witty comedy over slapstick; philosophical themes over action-adventures). That’s a generalization, I’m sorry, and there are notable exceptions (Mr and Mrs Smith), but I think it’s been true. (Btw, Sabrina Dhawan met instructor Mira Nair there, and wrote Monsoon Wedding as a result.) Also, it needs to be said, Columbia UNIVERSITY is a very mixed international campus — it’s practically a training ground for the United Nations (seriously) — and it’s also the only one of the “Ivy League” universities here, and that helps only insofar as the fact that students at Columbia’s School of the Arts interact a lot with students at Columbia College, Columbia Law School and Columbia Business School — and those folks go to Hollywood, too (they even sometimes end up running it!).

    - USC — is the oldest, largest and richest of the film schools in the US, and perhaps the world. Oldest: It was actually started in 1929 by the Oscar people at the Academy back (Douglas Fairbanks, D.W. Griffith, William C. DeMille, Ernst Lubitsch, Irving Thalberg, and Darryl Zanuck were the founding faculty(!)) Largest: it turns out several hundred film school alumni every year. Richest: George Lucas alone recently GIFTED the school $175M (that’s 175 MILLION US DOLLARS, or something like 700 CRORE(!)). USC is, in short, an INDUSTRY SCHOOL. Incredibly, an alumnus of USC has been nominated or won an Oscar every single year for the past forty years. If you want to make big, glossy Hollywood films, USC historically is the place. (That’s also a generalization, but I’ll let it slide…again.) I should also point out that USC has a rare PhD program in critical studies, and has probably the best music scoring program in the US (if not the world). It has, in short, a lot of infrastructure.

    - UCLA — is the NYU of the West, in that it historically has tended to be a haven for the independent-minded filmmakers. If USC is Zemeckis (Back to the Future), UCLA is Francis Ford Coppolla (Apocalypse Now). And that, I think, is a very telling difference. UCLA also benefits from being on the Westside of L.A. — so it’s closer to the action. And, it’s signficanly cheaper than USC and AFI, so it tends to attract people based on pure talent, from more ethnically and economically diverse areas. (I don’t want to slam USC on this, but it does have a bit of the reputation of being the “Univ of Spoiled Children” — meaning, many of Hollywood’s power parents get their kids admitted to USC. Oh, yes, sorry, another generalization…) UCLA, finally, also has a strong theatre program — so there are more opportunities for actor-filmmaker relationships to develop.

    - AFI — is just very different from the all the rest. First, it’s not a university or college; it’s a conservatory. (AFI doesn’t give you a university degree; it gives a diploma.) I’ve known people who get their MFA at USC — and then go to AFI for more studies. AFI considers itself an advanced professional training ground. Say you’re an actor who wants to become a director. You’re 35 years old and you’ve been in some primetime TV. Would you apply to UCLA and attend two years of classes with students in the 20’s? AFI would be the way to go. You’re a 1st Assistant Cameraman and you want to make the jump to Cinematagrapher — AFI is a nice credential. AFI also happens to have one of the few programs designed for Art Directors/Production Designers. AFI is, in short, very good technically. It tends to be a slightly older student, and they tend to have more emotional maturity and focus. They know what they want. And at AFI, there’s no hopping around. You enter as an Editing student, and in the second year, that’s all you do. (At most other film schools, you may indicate a preference, but there’s more scope for taking classes from every discipline — editing, sound, critical studies, etc.). So, AFI is a good option if you’re already past the beginner stage of experience and know exactly what you want to do. It helps you hone your craft. Finally, the class size is MUCH smaller — I think it’s 12-20 students only in each track — so there’s more of a focus on “students working together” to produce a final thesis film.

    TO SUMMARIZE with keywords –

    - NYU: New York edgy independent
    - Columbia: Independent, intellectual, international
    - USC: “Industry school”
    - UCLA: Hollywood maverick
    - AFI: Conservatory, professional tracks

    Oh, by the way, I’ve visited both FTII and Whistling Woods a few times, and I think anyone intent on film school should consider these schools seriously. (When I was a student at USC, btw, we knew about FTII — because while we were shooting Super 8mm films to start with (and had to pay for it), FTII gave its students 35mm! We at USC were very jealous…)

    I hope this helps. If you have questions, post them here and I’ll try to reply.

    Regards to all,

    Zack

17. Sourav on November 22nd, 2007 8:33 pm

    Good piece of info Zack!

18. Sourav on November 22nd, 2007 8:35 pm

    @zack..comment 9..could you answer tha query..Oz has overlooked it probably..:P

19. ZACK on November 22nd, 2007 10:00 pm

    If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes, you can take (some) courses, even if you are not a film major. But you are limited in choices, and also, you’ll be perceived as a “wannabe” (as in, “want to be”) film major. At USC, believe it or not, there were USC students majoring in some other subject but who hanged around the film school, trying to break in. Some students applied every semester for a transfer from XYZ major into film. Some eventually got in, some never did.

    Just so we’re clear, there’s basically six different kind of film programs:

    1. Bachelors Degree — B.A. (College/Undergraduate degree), majoring in Film. This is not really “film school.” It’s getting your B.A. degree, with your elective classes being focused on film. In most universities, the film courses available would be film appreciation, critical studies or creative writing. A few of the hard-core places offer production (directing) courses to B.A. students. USC, UCLA and NYU do. I don’t know about any others.

    2. Bachelors Degree — B.A. (College/Undergraduate degree), MINORING in Film. Same as #1, except you are taking even fewer film classes.

    3. Masters Degree — M.A./M.F.A./Ph.D. (Graduate degree) in some film discipline. At USC, for example, this could be: Film Production (Directing, editing, sound, etc.), Film Writing, Animation, Producing (business), Critical Studies, Interactive Media, etc. This is classically what is meant by “film school” — just as going to “Harvard Business School” means getting an MBA there.

    4. Professionally Certified Programs. Mainly, AFI’s Conservatory. Some students enter with only a B.A., others already have a Masters. AFI gives you an MFA or a Certificate, depending on your situation (check their website for the details). I suppose you might also consider in this category the DGA (Directors Guild of America) Assistant Director training program. Or even the Sundance Directors Labs. Or Disney’s Writing Fellows. Or a bunch of other programs. All of these are very different — some give degrees, some don’t — but the key is that they are sponsored and administered by an authoritative industry organization (AFI, DGA, etc.) and recognized as credible.

    5. Diploma Courses. The trade schools that are not with a college or university, but give you hands-on training. NYFA, LA Film School, etc. These are only about film, and tend to focus on you “getting your money’s worth.” They can range from a few days to a few weeks to a year. They run the gamut. Each is different.

    FINALLY, I must say at this point that I’m giving this info not as an endorsement of film schools. It really isn’t for everyone. DW Griffith didn’t go to film school — and Bill Gates didn’t go to business school. The point is, understand the value of what it is and is not.

    Jean Renoir, Steven Spielberg and Satyajit Ray all said they learned filmmaking the same way — by watching films. But also keep in mind that many people watch films — and never make them.
    If you want to make films, start making one.

    Regards to all,

    Zack

20. Sourav on November 22nd, 2007 10:20 pm

    @Zack..thanks..yeah..one can surely learn to make movies but watching em..like you said.But again dont you think there is a difference between understanding films(including the technical aspect) and making one in real.
    I personally feel that even if a person has a brilliant idea,but to put in a celluloid form is a different story altogether. The idea is lost in transit sometimes. Hope you get my point.

    P.S. just wondering which movies did satyajit ray watch before himself getting into it. Same goes for the rest.Thanks again!

21. Sourav on November 22nd, 2007 10:31 pm

    Why termed “wannabes”? What if a person cannot commit to full-time courses? Film appreciation and workshops can help in Minors.But yes technically one could be inferior..but the tricks of trade can surely be picked up.

22. ZACK on November 23rd, 2007 6:28 am

    @20 It was De Sica’s “Bicycle Thief” that was the tipping point for Satyajit Ray. He writes in his autobiography that he had a trip to London, and watched over 100 films in three months, and Bicycle Thief left a deep impression on him — such that when he returned to Calcutta, he vowed to make his first film.

    Re the rest of your question, I think watching films like a craftsman is what counts. There’s a famous story about how Orson Welles learned filmmaking before making Citizen Kane, by watching John Ford’s Stagecoach 47 times. Yes, 47 times! Each time he watched it, he had the rare benefit of having one of the crew come in and watch the film with him, and that crew member (DP, art director, costume, sound, etc.) would explain things from their perspective. So Welles literally was getting a lesson on how each person contributed to the film, to make the film what it was. THAT’S watching a film.

    Regards to all,

    Zack

23. Devils Advocate on November 23rd, 2007 7:50 am

    Someone asked about whistling woods, and so far I read its a good place to learn, although expensive for indian standards. Does anyone have more intimate knowledge of pros and cons of going there, specially if you are already living in a foreign country(canada) and have access to film institutes

24. kumar on May 6th, 2008 10:59 am

    to cut the chase about finding the best film schools around the world,here the the best information one can get.
    google this word CILECT
    voila

25. ansh on July 31st, 2008 4:32 am

    good piece of info.from every one.
    but i am slightly confused over her.,as i have no, hands on exper. on film making which school will be best for me?
    does it worth going to NEWYORK FILM ACADEMY OR WHISTLING WOODS? THER IS ALSO ONE SCHOOL I HEARD ABOUT NFTS(U.K)?

26. pack em in on September 5th, 2008 5:16 pm

    Forget New York Film Academy, I heard off a friend that goes there that they dont anymore teach in small classes, it is the whole year in one big lecture hall… that is about 80-100 people!!! Yes in one hall!!!

27. de on October 18th, 2008 5:29 am

    Attending Film school - UCLA , USC

    I am in the midst of applying to UClA and USC for an MA in film studies.
    I have a couple of questions-
    - are there enough funds available for international students
    - and further what are the career options with a film studies degree?

Leave a Reply

Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.