Declaration of Principles
Film Festivals: Playing the odds
DIY Film Projects
Cinema vs. Home Theatre
For Those With Writer's Block
So You Wanna Go to Film School: 1
So You Wanna Go to Film School:2
I recently got a request from a filmmaker for advice on whether or not he should go back to school to get a master’s degree. As someone who did get an MFA and has both teaching and non-teaching work experience (that is, life making a living as a full-time maker) under my belt, I thought I’d reply to the blog-o-sphere for others who are pondering the same decision:
I think the first question to ask yourself is this: why do you want a degree? If you just want to learn more about filmmaking or film studies, you could do yourself much better with a library card, a Netflix subscription, some free classes on iTunesU, and slaving away as a PA on a few productions. Better yet, take the amount you’d spend on tuition and spend that time in NYC and LA working–as a PA or in an agency mailroom–cultivating your network…or buy your own DSLR and make mistakes for free in your own proverbial backyard.
To my mind, there are two strong justifications to pursue a higher degree in Film:
1) It’s already paid for (i.e. you’ve gotten a fellowship or assistantship) and you can learn with the wonderful safety net that graduate school provides. (I do *not* recommend anyone go into debt more than the cost of an old, used car–no matter what the reputation of the school–for a film degree.)
2) It allows you to teach, which is a respectable way to support yourself as an artist, especially as someone who wants to make independent films, experimental work, or films with less-than-great commercial prospects.
If it’s the latter, then you must also consider that there are beaucoups of people out there who are unemployed holders of MFAs in film. Film teaching jobs are few and far between–just take a look at the listings on the Chronicle of Higher Education or the University Film and Video Association website to get sense of the scarcity. But, if you’re willing to live somewhere fairly off the grid (i.e. not in a big or even medium size city, relatively isolated from the industry and other filmmakers), then there are more positions that may have less competition. This can be a workable situation for the self-reliant or DIY type, especially if you make sure to travel several times a year to keep your inspiration levels up and industry ties strong. But, it can also be, well, depressing and frustrating. My requirements are that a job is too far off the grid if there’s not a post-production or equipment rental house within a 3-hour radius. For each person, that threshold is different.
More importantly, I think the best teachers are those who also make–people who are really doing it and have a lot to offer their students in terms of work experience, connections to your industry/field, and a real-world perspective. Anything less poses an ethical dilemma for me: if you can’t provide the above, why should students pay tuition to learn from you?
Another consideration for any would-be teacher is that teaching is more than a clock-in/clock-out commitment. While teaching, I more often than not put in above and beyond the 40 hours/week in terms of committee meetings, university and community service, advising, endless emails, etc., on top of my course teaching load. It’s work that follows you home, unlike, say, a kind of survival job where you can punch your time card. On the other hand, summers are free for making your own work and the flexible schedule is tough to beat!
Teaching at a research-oriented institution is the ideal job, as it carries the smallest teaching load and encourages (expects, actually!) a high degree of research productivity, which for you translates into filmmaking. And some of your best students may actually be people you want to have collaborate with you on your work. These full-time positions, however, are also the rarest and most competitive. It will be expected that you have made one or more films with a certain level of success (e.g. strong festival run, distribution, critical praise, etc.), have a positive reputation in the industry (e.g. demonstrated by awards, grants, professional organizations, or other acknowledgement), and previous teaching experience. Of course, there are all kinds of schools: liberal arts colleges, typically with a strong emphasis on teaching and student relationships; community colleges, who usually emphasis both teaching and community service; for-profit schools and film programs (which I don’t have any first-hand experience with); and part-time teaching positions.
Adjuncting is fairly common for new MFAs, but the pay is rarely great and usually does not carry any fringe benefits, such as health care. That said, I know many a freelance film producer and writer/director who use adjunct classes and part-time lecturing as a way to have some sort of stable income while spending the bulk of their time as makers.
It’s also worth saying that there are folks who do teach without an MFA. Guest lectureships, artist visits, workshops both at universities and community organizations often pay successful filmmakers to share their knowledge in short or long-term capacities. I’ve had a few of these gigs and they are usually a lot of fun but were never enough to sustain me in and of themselves. After a certain level of success, though, it’s not unheard of for a filmmaker to become a professor without an MFA at all…but we all can imagine those odds.
So, to sum up:
Why Getting an MFA/Teaching is a Good Idea:
Why Getting an MFA/Teaching is a Not-So-Good Idea:
If after all this, you want to take the back-to-school plunge, then I recommend you check out these previous posts from the blog. They will give you a good start on the advice we’d give about looking for a film program:
So You Wanna Go to Film School Part I
So You Wanna Go to Film School Part II
Posted in DIY Filmmaking, Film School, For Students, Movie Making, Principles & Productivity | Comments Off
Filmmakers love to talk about tools. The blog-o-sphere is rampant with posts about cameras, lights, and cinematography accessories, but despite all the attention on achieving great looking films from an equipment/technology standpoint, there is far less discussion about low-fi ways to make your film look like a million bucks via attention to wardrobe, hair, and make-up.
I’ve recently jumped on the Mad Men bandwagon, catching up on the last four seasons. Whether you love or hate this show (a quick look at the Mad Men Wikipedia page will give a sense of the heated debates this show has provoked among critics), it’s hard not to be in awe of its production values, in general, and art direction, in particular. While probably no one reading this post has the budget that Mad Men does, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attend to art direction with the same care.
Both as a film festival programmer and as a university instructor, I have seen how, all too often, art direction (much like sound design!) is neglected in first films and student films. It’s easy to spot an amateur effort when gangsters are wearing Converse One-Stars (yep, I’ve actually seen this) or an MRI machine is made out of cardboard (After Last Season, anyone?).
A single post can’t address the complex and time-consuming process of art direction–how to do it, how to do it well, and how to do it on a budget–but assuming art direction is receiving at least some of the attention it needs in your production, here are fifteen of my favorite inexpensive tools–none of them should run you more than $25–to help get you through the inevitable wardrobe, hair, and make-up emergencies:
If you’ve got other art tools you can’t live without, please let me know in the comments!
Attending to wardrobe, hair, and make-up comes with less glory (and, perhaps, on the positive side, ego) than that of Cinematographer or Director, but it’s no less responsible for making the difference between a successful film and an unsuccessful one. It can make the story world credible or incredible, real or surreal. What’s more essential than that?
Posted in Basics, DIY Filmmaking, For Students, Movie Making, Production, Tools/Equipment | 3 Comments »
I’m moderating a panel today at the University Film & Video Conference in Boston. The panel’s called, “DIY: Distribute It Yourself.” My other esteemed panelists are Bart Weiss, Caitlin Horsmon, and Ashley Maynor.
As part of the panel, I’m giving a talk on social networking and film distribution. Among other things, my talk suggests that there are (at least) ten questions you should ask of yourself as you start to think about social media with regards to any film project. Instead of asking my audience to remember (or write down) those ten questions, I’m posting them here:
Am I trying to connect with my audience for one film (or issue) or for a body of work?
Who are these audiences?
What makes me/my work distinctive, especially to my audience?
How might I use social media to manage expectations of my work?
Where do my audiences congregate online?
What style/forms of communication does my audience trust?
What modes of communication would be most useful between me and my audience?
What do I want people to do after seeing my work? (e.g., take political action, buy my DVD, change a behavior, etc.)
What and how much do I want to share — of my project, and of myself?
How much time can I commit to working on promotion and distribution via social media ?
Also, at the end of my talk I’m sharing a few excellent resources with regards to social media and/or film. Here they are:
Think Outside the Box Office — both the book and the website
Friends, Fans, and Followers by Scott Kirsner
Tribeca Film Social Media Toolkit
Workbook Project
Social Networking Sites and Our Lives – The Pew Internet & American Life Project
Big Boards
Mashable
UPDATE (from Ashley):
The blog post I mentioned in my presentation, by Ted Hope, which is still relevant for those with films without distribution, can be found here. If you want to follow his blog, it’s now hosted at Indiewire here.
Posted in Basics, Distribution & Screenings, DIY, DIY Filmmaking, Technology | Comments Off
If you currently use Final Cut Studio you’re going to have to switch to something different at some point. That might mean “upgrading” to FCP X, or moving to a competitor’s product, like Adobe Premiere Pro or Avid Media Composer.
To aid this, I’ve included links to demo versions and free/paid tutorials.
Adobe Creative Suite 5.5: Production Premium Demo download link:Adobe CS 5.5 Production Premium 30-day Trial Version Includes Premiere Pro, Photoshop, After Effects, Encore, Audition, Illustrator, On Location and more. Cost of full application: 50% off ($849.50) thanks to a limited time “switch” promotion! Regularly $1650 for the suite of applications; $440 for the same suite in its “student/teacher” edition. (PremierePro can also be bought separately, but this is not nearly the same value as the bundle, which includes After Effects, Audition, Encore, etc.)
Avid Media Composer Demo download link:Avid Media Composer 5 Free 30-day Trial Cost of full application: $995 thanks to a limited time “switch” promotion. Regularly $2295; $295 for educational edition.
Lightworks Finally, it should be noted that Lightworks — a professional editing application used to cut such films as Pulp Fiction, The Departed, and The King’s Speech — has gone open source for Windows and is slated for a late-2011 release on the Mac. If you currently have a dual-boot Mac, this is definitely a no-risk option to consider.
IzzyVideo: Final Cut Pro X Tutorial Cost: Free! Notes: Over 2.5 hours of training videos, plus project files. I don’t expect this to go into a ton of detail, but what I’ve watched so far seems pretty good, and you can’t beat the price.
Ripple Training: FCP X Cost: $40 Notes: I’ve used Ripple Training tutorials for earlier editions of Final Cut Pro, and I find them very efficient ways of getting up to speed on the application. These download to your iPad or computer through the iTunes store.
Larry Jordan: FCP X Cost: $99 for the entire set of tutorials. Or chapters for $15 each. Notes: Larry Jordan’s previous FCP tutorials have been very good, but I can’t say whether these are worth the extra cost over the Ripple tutorials. Jordan’s tutorials have a little more personality than Ripple’s, which is a pro or con depending on your taste.
Adobe: Editing With Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 If You’re an Final Cut Pro user Cost: Free! Notes: A PDF that lays it all out — straight from Adobe. Clearly they are in it to win it.
Adobe: Switching to Adobe Premiere Pro 5 Cost: Free! Notes: Covers same info as above, but in video form. About 80 minutes of tutorials to help you make the switch from FCP to Premiere Pro. Probably not enough to train you completely, but enough to let you reassure you that switching to Adobe would be a simple transition.
Adobe: Adobe TV – Learn Premiere Pro CS5 Cost: Free! Notes: Excerpts from the Lynda.com training listed below. Probably not a solution for advanced training.
Adobe: Learn Premiere Pro CS5 and CS 5.5 Cost: Free! Notes: Mostly text-based tutorials.
Lynda.com: Premiere Pro CS5 Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 5 hours of training videos on Premiere Pro.
Lynda.com: Premiere Pro CS 5.5 New Features Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 27min of tutorials about new features in PP 5.5. You would want to watch this after the tutorials listed above.
Lynda.com: Encore CS 5 – Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 4hrs of tutorials on Adobe’s DVD authoring application.
Lynda.com: Audition 3 Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 6.5 hrs on Adobe’s audio editing application. Doesn’t appear to be fully up-to-date for CS5.5 version of the application.
Lynda.com: After Effects (various) Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: Hours upon hours of tutorials for Adobe’s acclaimed effects and post-production application. Newcomers should start with After Effects Apprentice, which is 14 hours over 7 lessons.
Avid: Avid Media Composer 5: Getting Started Cost: Free! Notes: 3 hours of tutorials from Avid to get you started on Media Composer.
Lynda.com: Avid Media Composer 5 – Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: Nearly 6 hours of tutorials on Avid. This appears to replicate some of the free training Avid provides, but at twice the length, one assumes it also goes into more depth.
Avid: Avid for FCP Users Cost: $50 Notes: DVD-based tutorial. Does not appear to be available online.
Posted in DIY Filmmaking, For Students, Movie Making, Online Video, Post-Production, Productivity, Technology, Tools/Equipment | 1 Comment »
Apple today posted a FCP X Answers To Common Questions page in attempts to address some pro editors concerns (read: “do damage control”) about the new application. While it brings some much-needed clarity to some questions (about sharing projects, etc.) many of the answers (to their own carefully phrased) questions talk around the issues.
Below I’ve offered my highly-subjective and quite likely wrong translations of some of the more curious Q+A sections of Apple’s FAQ. I’m no fortune teller, and if I’m wrong I will be happy to be wrong. But this is a very carefully worded document and, as is often the case with PR statements, what’s not said is as important as what is.
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X? Their answer: Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X. My translation: “No. And do not get your hopes up about this ever working. But it might — we said might — be something that works in limited fashion via XML, possibly through a 3rd party plugin, in the future.
Can Final Cut Pro X export XML? Apple’s answer: Not yet, but we know how important XML export is to our developers and our users, and we expect to add this functionality to Final Cut Pro X. We will release a set of APIs in the next few weeks so that third-party developers can access the next-generation XML in Final Cut Pro X. My translation: “We’re going to enable XML export. And, who knows, maybe XML import… Wait and see.” Hey, your guess is as good as mine (probably even better), but it sounds as if they will add the ability to export XML, though the wording is vague enough that one could interpret it to mean that they’re going to rely on third parties to develop an XML export plugin. Also, curious is the fact that they say nothing of XML import, particularly since some detective work by others has shown that Apple appears to have been developing XML import capabilities in the program’s code. Maybe I’ll give Apple the benefit of the doubt. (That’s something I’ve not said many times in the last few days.)
Does Final Cut Pro X support OMF, AAF, and EDLs? Apple’s answer: Not yet. When the APIs for XML export are available, third-party developers will be able to create tools to support OMF, AAF, EDL, and other exchange formats. We have already worked with Automatic Duck to allow you to export OMF and AAF from Final Cut Pro X using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/. My translation: “We’re outsourcing some of the pro features you used to find in Final Cut Studio. This is one reason we’ve lowered FCP X’s price tag to $299. So we don’t have to develop this stuff. So get out your checkbook, but remember that FCP X, Compressor and Motion are under $400. You can spend the money you used to spend on Final Cut Studio to add back the functionality to which you’re accustomed. This a la carte approach is a way for us to get advanced hobbyists on board and to try to keep pros.”
Can I send my project to a sound editing application such as Pro Tools? Apple’s Answer: Yes; you can export your project in OMF or AAF format using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp My translation: “Um, yeah, if it wasn’t clear from above, we’re outsourcing those pro features.”
As I said, I’m quite possibly wrong about these things — and maybe way off the mark. I’m speculating, but that’s because Apple is — even after releasing a FAQ — still asking us to speculate.
If I am right, and the new approach is a la carte features, well, I’m not sure that’s actually a bad move. Other vendors developing these tools means that things might be better and more quickly developed than they would if Apple was doing them. They are, after all, a consumer electronics company now. Again, assuming this is the case, the big questions are:
What will be the final cost of adding in these various plug-ins, etc.?
Will Final Cut Pro X remain the bargain that Apple’s touting it to be?
And, perhaps most importantly, if FCP X lacks professional features without the use of plug-ins, does using plug-ins on a somewhat less-than-fully-pro application trump using something like Avid, Premiere Pro, or Lightworks?
We shall see. Later this week I’ll be posting some switching resources… because if you use FCP 7 you’re switching, one way or another, to an entirely new edit suite.
EDIT (6.29.11 12:14pm): Made some changes to the XML-related Q+A — one typo had changed the entire meaning, so I revised my interpretive paragraph.
Posted in DIY Filmmaking, For Students, Movie Making, Post-Production, Productivity, Technology, Tools/Equipment | 2 Comments »