Mike Jones Digital Basin
screen media rinse cycle

Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part1)

[what follows is the first of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and it’s relationship to ‘industry’ learning and art. Its not intended as a set of fully formed or precisely structured arguments but rather a set of musings on what the ideals and implications of Film School should could and might be...?]

There are many debates that surround the idea of Film School. The internet abounds with them. Largely these centre around why go? what are the benefits? and is it better than just teaching yourself by picking up a camera and going for it...?

10 reasons you should go to film school
10 reasons you shouldnt go to film school
Is film school right for you?
Getting the most out of film school

The very premise of many these debates over the value of Film School as an education bother me. They bother me across a number of levels.

   

On the macro-level I feel a deep seeded need to deplore anyone or anything that devalues Education as a concept and a process. To build any argument on the premise of an education ‘not being necessary’ is a tragic indictment of contemporary culture. Instead of celebrating and treasuring eduction we seek to circumvent or dispense with it. We seem so often to deliberately seek out reasons to disparage and diminish it, make excuses to do without it. This is a mindset I find utterly depressing, a track that leads social and cultural disaster.

On on a more specific level those who would declare film school unnecessary or irrelevant, attest that there’s nothing in the concept of a film school that cant be garnered by simply ‘doing it yourself’, quite evidently don't like cinema; quite evidently have no respect for cinema.

Would anyone consider that you can become a competent and effective Doctor just by picking up a stethoscope and ‘going for it’..? Would it be considered viable to become a effective Lawyer by simply showing up at court and making a case? Could you function as a capable Mechanic by grabbing just popping the car hood and poking around...?

Of course not. It’s absurd, an argument no one could defend. And yet, do those who declare Film School a waste of time, a useless expense, think so little of cinema, consider cinema so simplistic, directorial skills so lowest-common-denominator, that it and they cannot be compared to a Mechanic, Doctor or Lawyer..?

If so then these are exactly the sort of people that Shouldn’t be making films. Filmmakers who think so little of cinema are exactly the sort of filmmakers the world doesn't need! There’s enough 2-bit hacks in Hollywood already. If you don't believe cinema is the most powerful, engaging, dynamic, exciting, inspiring and complex artistic medium the world has ever seen then why the hell would you want to be a filmmaker? Because I can think of a hundred other careers that are easier, less stress and pay better...!

Ok, so now that ive got that off my chest there are, of course, some caveats to this point of view. The first is that obviously and inevitably not all film schools are good. In fact I’d have to tragically confess that a great many of them are not good; run by ill-informed, uninspired people who actually have no real interest in teaching. It’s one of the great tragic ironies that 90 out of 100 teachers at film school around the world would rather Not be teaching. But this does not, and should not, undermine the concept of a comprehensive filmmaking and artistic education. Just as a collection of bad high schools doesn't lead society to believe that high-school’s are a waste.

The second is that there needs to be (and always should be) a broad cross section of means to a filmmaking, creative arts education. For some its university, for others it’s a dedicated film school college, for others still it’s a short course or an apprenticeship or internship. All are varied and valid, many roads lead to Rome, but all are a focused dedicated education, the conceptual value of which should never be undermined. We should question constantly how to make education ‘better’ but we should never question the penultimate and intrinsic value of education itself. That road leads to the dark-ages. All the great societies and cultures of the world have held education as the single most important human endeavor above all else - the ancient Greeks, Romans, Israelites and Arabs - the 4 most influential cultures in human history - all held Knowledge and Education as the fundamental heart of their societies.

No doubt there will be those that, gnashing their teeth whilst reading, scream names like Tarantino at the screen as a defiant counter to the power and importance of Film School and formal Filmmaking Education. Tarantino is a successful Director who had neither film school nor a formal film education. Yes, indeed there are exceptions. There are exceptions to every paradigm. But these filmmakers are decidedly few and far between by comparison. For every filmmaker without a formal education in cinema there are fifty others who do. Exceptions do not undermine the core value; that education has intrinsic value and any good (or even half decent) education in cinema will invariably make you a better filmmaker than you might have otherwise been. Not to mention that any formalized tertiary education will also make you a more informed, engaged and articulate member of society regardless of whether you work directly as a filmmaker. As statistics and sociological analysis has proved many times, a society of a high level of tertiary education is, across the board, a more peaceful, productive, content and engaged one - regardless of whether individuals are proactively engaged in professions related to their education.

But there is another larger debate that seems to go unheard, and infrequently spoken, in most circles; What exactly should Film Schools teach...?

Something we’ll get into in part 2...

Posted at 11:00PM Sep 07, 2008 by Mike Jones in media education  |  Comments[1]