Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part3)
[part 3 of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and its
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...?]So if Films Schools should aim to lead the 'industry' (or industr-ies) how exactly do they do that? What are the benefits? What are the downsides? And are there comparative precedents to understand the perspective of Indusrty Leading rather than Industry supporting institutions?
The 'industry', by nature of its commercial framework and economic imperatives, will always hold conservative, traditional, well established and tested ideas and processes at its heart. It is not now, nor has it ever been, in the best interests of the bulk mainstream cinematic media to experiment or explore or challenge established workflows, concepts or even stories.
As with any artform, change always comes from the fringes, from the periphery, never from the centre. Mainstream feature film and TV is always the last to implement new technologies, ideas and processes. Picking up on the 'new' once the fringe has tested and proven viability of the new.
Film Schools, as institutions, are in this context uniquely placed. They are in a privileged position to exploit the 'new', to chalenege and lead with a level of impunity. It is often said that Film School for students is a great opportunity to fail; a rare and fleeting chance to experiment with permission, an opportunity that is rarity afforded in the 'real-world'. And yet whilst this idea is often expressed to students it's very rarely exhibited by the institution itself towards the 'industry'.
Film Schools, with their oftentimes emphasis on serving rather than leading, squander their chance to push the industry, to be the test-bed for industry change. So concerned are they with guessing what the establishment wants and preparing students for the fleeting here and now that they avoid any chance to focus on the future and prepare students for what might be...?
There is in fact nothing new about this idea of an education institution serving as the primary progressive test-bed for new ideas and new processes. It is in fact the premise that Universities are built on. In science, engineering, architecture, medicine and hundreds of other fields it is the University that serves as the driver of industry. The 'new' begins in the University; is tested, challenged, considered, researched and implemented within the privileged environment outside the 'industry'. Then the discoveries, ideas and processes developed, explored and engaged by students are then filtered through to industry to become the common practices of tomorrow.
If this is the standard modus operandi for other formal education institutions - that of leading and driving the industries they represent - why is it that Film Schools are more often than not focused on the subservient inverse?
If this system of Education Institutions being future-focused and educating students in an environment of experimentation, exploration, testing and leadership of industry process and practice, can work for a host of otther technology-based industries then why not cinema?
The argument is often made that Film School students need to be educated to serve current industry practice and needs or else be irrelevant. But the same argument can also equally be made that students educated to serve current industry needs will possess knowledge and a skill set quickly outdated, made irrelevant before theyve had a chance to put it into practice.
The perspective that may tip the balance is to recognize that a Film School focused on leading the industry, focused on what cinema might be rather than what it has been, has a far greater ability to prepare students for longevity and flexibility rather than more dogmatic current pracice that is specific to the now which may be soon obsolete.
It's here that we need to consider what Film Schools Should teach? And indeed what they Can teach
One of the common weapons leveled at the concept of Film School (as with any art education) is the idea that Talent cannot be taught. This statement is often hurled as a Molotov cocktail to immolate the validity of Film School. If talent can't be taught what need is there of Film school?
Whilst this kind of questioning may seem somewhat facile it does serve to prompt more a significant and deeper question about what exactly Film School Can teach if not Talent?
The common and immediate answer would be Skills; the practical and often technology-based, skills by which cinema (as a techno-art) is assembled.
What strikes me is that both these permutations above are flawed. Sure, there is a strong argument to the idea that Talent cannot be taught but it can be fostered, shaped, developed and expanded. To dismiss Film School on the basis that Talent can't be taught demonstrates a gross lack of respect for the art of cinema. The Godfather wasn't made by talent, Talent simply isn't enough to make a film That good. Godfather was made only after many years of developing, fostering and shaping that talent into a refined directorial instinct and consummate artistry.
Similarly, and conversely, to reduce filmmaking to a set of raw skills in operating the mechanical aperati of cinema is absurdly narrow and dysfunctional.
A monkey can be trained to use a camera. A child can be taught to operate an editing system. Yet all the skills in pushing buttons won't make the monkey a Cinematographer or the child an Editor. All the skills in the world won't forge directorial instinct; won't build the ability to make informed and deliberate artistic decisions.
Again we arrive at the ingrained dilemma; if Film School can't teach talent and skills alone simply aren't enough what Can Film School teach that cannot be readily garnered by non formal learning? What is left to teach other than talent and skills...?
Posted at 12:00AM Sep 12, 2008
by Mike Jones in media education |
