Advice for me for when I finish my degree

bowsandarrows

Hi, I'm sorry if most of this has been covered on here. I'm looking to get into film production.

I'm going into my final year in a non-film related course that I do enjoy, but don't love. I wanted to do the BA in film production in IADT three years ago but talked myself out of it. And now I wouldn't be able to afford doing another BA.

I've done a mediay FETAC course and got some experience in film production through that and through a film soc, but not much.

I've read a good few books on film and took a documentary studies and film studies module through the course I'm in now.

Can anyone give me advice on these options I was thinking of:

1) Do a MA in film production

2) Do a one/two year course from a list here
http://filmireland.net/2011/01/11/get-into-film-listings-of-film-courses/

3) Do some filmbase courses, meet some people, hopefully get some work helping out on films

FishBowel

If you want to make films, make films. No-one needs to do a course, not anymore. Might be handy for meeting people but you won't get a big job in the Irish film Industry with an MA or Diploma.

ScumLord

FishBowel wrote: »

If you want to make films, make films. No-one needs to do a course, not anymore. Might be handy for meeting people but you won't get a big job in the Irish film Industry with an MA or Diploma.

While I'd agree with you that a course isn't necessary and that you can learn everything you need to know off your own bat, there are numerous advantages to doing it through a recognised education system.

The main thing amateurs (like myself) lack is the knowledge of the organisation structures processionals use so their work is compatible with every one else's work. Learning best practice, procedures and techniques in a class setting from someone that really knows what their talking about will knock months/years off your learning cycle. If you can learn through collage you probably should, lone film makers aren't the norm and are rarely successful.

indough

film makers in general are rarely successful :P

FishBowel

Depends on what success is. Lots of Irish film school directors have done well but it's usually short lived and they quietly move into television where they get well-paid work making dross. In this age there really is no excuse for needing to get a film qualification unless you want to teach. Lots of Irish film courses are just expensive scams taught by failed filmmakers. It's been going on for years and the lack of success of Irish film is because of this. If you want to learn the 'knowledge of the organisation structures professionals use' then join the union. But this is more for the international productions coming here.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

Depends on what success is. Lots of Irish film school directors have done well but it's usually short lived and they quietly move into television where they get well-paid work making dross.

That's a massive generalisation. In reality if anyone wants to make a living in Film/TV these days unless they're very very successful they have to work in both Film & TV.

Lots of Irish film courses are just expensive scams taught by failed filmmakers. It's been going on for years and the lack of success of Irish film is because of this.

How do you equate somebody running a subpar film course with the lack of success of Irish film?

If you want to learn the 'knowledge of the organisation structures professionals use' then join the union. But this is more for the international productions coming here.

Why is it only for international productions coming? Why should the Irish industry not use proper professional organisation structures and techniques for its own productions? I'd put it to you that the 'oh that sort of professional practice is only for the big internationals' attitude would be much more harmful to the Irish film industry than someone running a course that you deem to be a scam.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

How do you equate somebody running a subpar film course with the lack of success of Irish film?

Because they haven't made anything up to much and most Irish film lecturers are complete nobodies.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

That's a massive generalisation. In reality if anyone wants to make a living in Film/TV these days unless they're very very successful they have to work in both Film & TV.

No they don't. The best directors work in cinema. The rest are just hacks earning good money in television.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Why is it only for international productions coming? Why should the Irish industry not use proper professional organisation structures and techniques for its own productions? I'd put it to you that the 'oh that sort of professional practice is only for the big internationals' attitude would be much more harmful to the Irish film industry than someone running a course that you deem to be a scam.

Because we're too small a country to regularly make these large productions internally. Most Irish movies require smaller crews with people doing more than one role. There's nothing sadder then seeing Irish movies made on small budgets imitating the larger production models. A lot of these titles are dreadful and our film schools are to blame.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

Because they haven't made anything up to much and most Irish film lecturers are complete nobodies.

That's why the courses aren't good in your opinion. It's still not a reason why the Irish film industry as a whole. Did you mean the lecturer's lack of success?

No they don't. The best directors work in cinema. The rest are just hacks earning good money in television.

Complete rubbish. Loads of quality directors work in television too. Scorsese and Tarantino have both directed television for example.

If you want to work as a director in Ireland you will end up directing either ads or television to keep going. And your assertion that everyone who works in television is a hack is just blind ignorance really. David Caffrey director of Love/Hate is a mile from being a hack.

Name an Irish director that works solely in film. There's not too many out there I'd wager.

Because we're too small a country to regularly make these large productions internally. Most Irish movies require smaller crews with people doing more than one role. There's nothing sadder then seeing Irish movies made on small budgets imitating the larger production models. A lot of these titles are dreadful and our film schools are to blame.

Just because someone doubles up on a role doesn't mean that they should be striving for professionalism. The 'ah sure I'll be the AD, the producer and I'll do the wardrobe' attitude is not a professional attitude and I would be wary of working with anyone who thinks that that's a good way to work.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Complete rubbish. Loads of quality directors work in television too. Scorsese and Tarantino have both directed television for example.

Yes, but they're mainly based in cinema. Most Irish directors work in television or shorts while a few have made one or two features. This is different to what the best directors do: making dozens of feature films.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

That's why the courses aren't good in your opinion. It's still not a reason why the Irish film industry as a whole. Did you mean the lecturer's lack of success?

I mean they're either academics with no practical experience or have tried to make films and failed. Why would someone interested in making films want to learn from these people?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you want to work as a director in Ireland you will end up directing either ads or television to keep going. And your assertion that everyone who works in television is a hack is just blind ignorance really. David Caffrey director of Love/Hate is a mile from being a hack.

Name an Irish director that works solely in film. There's not too many out there I'd wager.

That's my point! There are very few Irish directors working mainly in film SO WHAT'S THE SENSE IN GOING TO FILM SCHOOL? People who switch from ads/Fair City/shorts are not cut out to make good feature films anyway. The best directors work in feature films most of the time.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just because someone doubles up on a role doesn't mean that they should be striving for professionalism. The 'ah sure I'll be the AD, the producer and I'll do the wardrobe' attitude is not a professional attitude and I would be wary of working with anyone who thinks that that's a good way to work.

That's different to having a large crew with everyone doing different roles on a low-budget Irish movie. The best Irish films are made with smaller crews. The rest are just used to give lots of people jobs.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

Yes, but they're mainly based in cinema. Most Irish directors work in television or shorts while a few have made one or two features. This is different to what the best directors do: making dozens of feature films.

Because there's so little money in Ireland for features is the main reason that Irish directors don't get to make dozens of films in this country.

I mean they're either academics with no practical experience or have tried to make films and failed. Why would someone interested in making films want to learn from these people?

I understand what you mean but I still don't think you can blame the lack of success of Irish film just on this one thing.

That's my point! There are very few Irish directors working mainly in film SO WHAT'S THE SENSE IN GOING TO FILM SCHOOL?

To learn. You get to shoot, edit and work with equipment in film school that you might not have the chance to just doing it yourself. You get to learn the craft of editing, you get to study screenwriting. Film school isn't just for directors.

People who switch from ads/Fair City/shorts are not cut out to make good feature films anyway.

Says you. Again I think you're generalising. I know lots of directors that direct ads and fine feature films (not so much Fair City!).

The best directors work in feature films most of the time.[

If they can. But as I said there's so few feature film opportunities in Ireland it's tough to work mainly with features.

I agree with some of what you're saying but I don't buy the whole 'film schools are the reason Irish cinema isn't successful' line. There's lots of great directors out there who have been to film schools in Ireland.

phelanco

I've just finished the BA in Media Studies in NUI Maynooth, and to be honest what I've learned here is mostly because of what I have done outside of the course. You didn't miss much, a lot of it is concerned with film theory and audience theory, which is somewhat useful, but not as useful as actually making a film. What I would suggest is looking in to one-year practical courses in places like Ballyfermot. A showreel is what's most important and these practical courses can get you started on that.
Other than that, you have to do unpaid internships. I've done one in radio, one in tv and I'm about to start one in print. I'm doing editing freelance on the side to make some money, but it sucks for ages. Best of luck with it!

One more thing: Buy the Adobe creative suite! It's €350 for students and includes Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Flash, Illustrator and a few other great programs. You'll pay thousands for this bundle once you're not a student!

AnonoBoy

phelanco wrote: »

I've just finished the BA in Media Studies in NUI Maynooth, and to be honest what I've learned here is mostly because of what I have done outside of the course.

That's not a film course though. Somewhere like IADT is a practical course where people make quite a few films during it.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Because there's so little money in Ireland for features is the main reason that Irish directors don't get to make dozens of films in this country.

This illustrates the problem with filmmaking in Ireland. There are dozens of successful international movies made over the last decade on very low budgets. But thanks to the films schools here no-one can do anything unless they get lots of money first!

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I understand what you mean but I still don't think you can blame the lack of success of Irish film just on this one thing.

I'm not but it's one of the reasons.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

To learn. You get to shoot, edit and work with equipment in film school that you might not have the chance to just doing it yourself. You get to learn the craft of editing, you get to study screenwriting. Film school isn't just for directors.

They don't use FILM anymore in the film schools or very little. They use digital video. You don't need to go to college to get to use this stuff.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Says you. Again I think you're generalising. I know lots of directors that direct ads and fine feature films (not so much Fair City!).

?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If they can. But as I said there's so few feature film opportunities in Ireland it's tough to work mainly with features.

Maybe making the big budget stuff there are few chances but with today's digital cameras anyone can make a low-budget feature and you certainly don't need to waste money going to film school to do this.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I agree with some of what you're saying but I don't buy the whole 'film schools are the reason Irish cinema isn't successful' line. There's lots of great directors out there who have been to film schools in Ireland.

It's one of the reasons. Anyway, why aren't these 'great directors' making 'great films'?

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

But thanks to the films schools here no-one can do anything unless they get lots of money first!

I don't see how the film schools can be blamed for film being something that costs money. It's a business and people work at it. It's all very well making low budget films but if you want to be a professional sooner or later you have to make a living wage from it. And when you're making a big film it costs money.

They don't use FILM anymore in the film schools or very little. They use digital video. You don't need to go to college to get to use this stuff.

Everyone focuses on the cameras and the rise of digital video in these dicussions. But it's not just the cameras, it's lights, the gear, the editing equipment and the chance to work with similarly talented and like-minded people that I see as a benefit of film school.

I would say if you compare a graduate short from the national film school you will see the standard is much higher than most low budget shorts that are being made. For instance something like Small Change which was a graduate film from there last year and went to Sundance. Or 'Undressing My Mother' - a student film that was wildly successful - it won best European short some years back.

?

Lenny Abrahamson is a prime example. Works in television, features and ads. His stuff in all three is of a very high quality.

Maybe making the big budget stuff there are few chances but with today's digital cameras anyone can make a low-budget feature and you certainly don't need to waste money going to film school to do this.

Yeah but as I pointed out you can't make much of a living from working solely on low budget features.

Out of interest I'd like to hear some of the low budget Irish features which you think are good.

It's one of the reasons. Anyway, why aren't these 'great directors' making 'great films'?

Some are.

Conor McMahon has a new feature Stitches due out this year which has already secured North American distribution at Cannes and is getting great reviews. He works in television too.

Gary Shore has been snatched up by Hollywood and is attached to three feature projects at the moment. He also makes ads.

Kirsten Sheridan's Disco Pigs is excellent. Her new film Dollhouse has been well received at Berlin and SXSW.

Ciarán Foy just won the audience award at SXSW for his film Citadel.

Ken Wardrop's His & Hers is a fantastic film. He also directs ads.

All of these directors "wasted their money" at film school.


I'm not saying you have to go to film school to make films. I just think you can't dismiss all film schools out of hand as being totally a waste of money.

johnny_ultimate

I'm just finishing my masters in film production, and while I have several issues with 'film education' as a concept, the benefits ultimately outweigh the negatives.

On the negative side, there's only so much classes about three act structures will teach you, and will only provide you with a limited knowledge of what great cinema is: most of that you have to decipher for yourself.

On the plus side, the practical training I've gotten has been excellent, getting to use everything from RED to EX1. The amount of genuinely valuable contacts I've met has been fantastic, and will certainly be beneficial as soon as I graduate. The insights to the (often horrific) world of the Irish industry have been equally valuable, and the lessons on how to work and utilise the system may be cynical but ultimately the only way one is going to get anywhere in an industry that is very often worryingly closed. Also have gotten to work on several shorts and a whole feature, which were amazing and extremely positive experiences.

Make sure you do a practical course: film studies aren't going to get you anywhere fast. And one day courses aren't particularly helpful either. At the end of a day you can't train someone to be talented, or have good ideas, but coming out with a strong qualification is in no way any harm to anyone's career development.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I don't see how the film schools can be blamed for film being something that costs money. It's a business and people work at it. It's all very well making low budget films but if you want to be a professional sooner or later you have to make a living wage from it. And when you're making a big film it costs money.

That's the point. We SHOULD be these making low-budget feature films most of the time. We should be producing directors who make one feature after another using low budgets. But thanks to the film schools this hasn't happened much. That's why Irish cinema is so bad and that's why Irish directors have performed so badly.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Everyone focuses on the cameras and the rise of digital video in these dicussions. But it's not just the cameras, it's lights, the gear, the editing equipment and the chance to work with similarly talented and like-minded people that I see as a benefit of film school.

The whole point of digital video filmmaking is that you DON'T need many lights or 'gear' or large crews.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I would say if you compare a graduate short from the national film school you will see the standard is much higher than most low budget shorts that are being made. For instance something like Small Change which was a graduate film from there last year and went to Sundance. Or 'Undressing My Mother' - a student film that was wildly successful - it won best European short some years back.

What's short films got to do with this thread? The OP is asking about making feature films i.e. film production.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Lenny Abrahamson is a prime example. Works in television, features and ads. His stuff in all three is of a very high quality.

Yeah but as I pointed out you can't make much of a living from working solely on low budget features.

Out of interest I'd like to hear some of the low budget Irish features which you think are good.


Some are.

Conor McMahon has a new feature Stitches due out this year which has already secured North American distribution at Cannes and is getting great reviews. He works in television too.

Gary Shore has been snatched up by Hollywood and is attached to three feature projects at the moment. He also makes ads.

Kirsten Sheridan's Disco Pigs is excellent. Her new film Dollhouse has been well received at Berlin and SXSW.

Ciarán Foy just won the audience award at SXSW for his film Citadel.

Ken Wardrop's His & Hers is a fantastic film. He also directs ads.

All of these directors "wasted their money" at film school.

I'm not saying you have to go to film school to make films. I just think you can't dismiss all film schools out of hand as being totally a waste of money.

I wouldn't rate any of them to be honest. Not at the international level. They would need to produce more quality work to be considered 'great directors'.
The only director to emerge from an Irish film school and do really well is John Moore but he has zero impact on Irish cinema.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

That's the point. We SHOULD be these making low-budget feature films most of the time. We should be producing directors who make one feature after another using low budgets. But thanks to the film schools this hasn't happened much. That's why Irish cinema is so bad and that's why Irish directors have performed so badly.

I'm all for making features using low budgets - especially these days. But how low are you talking? People need to live so people have to get paid otherwise filmmaking is just an expensive hobby that they do in their part time.

But even low budget features have to raise the cash somewhere and that takes time.

I don't think you can blame film schools for more low budget features not being made. What makes you think that's the problem?

If it's so easy to get quality low budget features made then why aren't more people doing it outside then?

The whole point of digital video filmmaking is that you DON'T need many lights or 'gear' or large crews.

If you want to make something well you still need some amount of lights, gear and crew no matter what you're shooting on. Granted you can get away with less but if you rock up with just a camera man, director, sound man and actors then you'd want to be pretty feckin' good. Otherwise we'll just turn out Charlie Casanova style sh*te.

What's short films got to do with this thread? The OP is asking about making feature films i.e. film production.

Well the thread has diverted into a discussion also on the benefits of film schools. I was using the point that people coming out of film school are working at a higher level quicker than some people who don't.

Also the OP didn't mention features. Film production covers shorts and features. You might not think shorts are a good place to learn the craft but most people do.

I wouldn't rate any of them to be honest.

Well chances are you haven't seen all their work, have you?. Maybe watch them before you dismiss them as not being up to your standards.

Not at the international level. They would need to produce more quality work to be considered 'great directors'.
The only director to emerge from an Irish film school and do really well is John Moore but he has zero impact on Irish cinema.

Are you talking solely about commercial success here? John Moore is not that great a director at all I wouldn't say. None of his work is quality - it's popcorn stuff that does well but it's instantly forgettable.

Just as a matter of interest who would you rate as a great Irish director?

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yes using low budgets. But how low are you talking? People need to live so people have to get paid otherwise filmmaking is just an expensive hobby that they do in their part time.

Well that's what TV is for. If you want a steady job work in television but don't applaud the film schools for producing graduates who end up directing Raw.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm all for making low budget features but even low budget features have to raise the cash somewhere and that takes time.

Spend that film school fee on making your first feature!

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you want to make something well you still need some amount of lights, gear and crew no matter what you're shooting on. Otherwise we'll just turn out Charlie Casanova style sh*te.

This again is the problem with our films schools. People judging films on a technical basis. Plenty of Irish films out there that are very well made but still sh*te.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Well the thread has diverted into a discussion also on the benefits of film schools. I was using the point that people coming out of film school are working at a higher level quicker than some people who don't.

So what? Lots of world-class directors start off making rubbish features and get better. In fact their early stuff is usually more interesting no matter how poorly made it is. Directors who have all the training and can work at higher levels are more suited to TV anyway.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Well chances are you haven't seen their work. Maybe watch them before you dismiss them as not being up to your standards.

I have seen their work and again they are overrated.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Are you talking solely about commercial success here? John Moore is not that great a director at all I wouldn't say. None of his work is quality - it's popcorn stuff that does well but it's instantly forgettable.

Just as a matter of interest who would you rate as a great Irish director?

Commercially he's returned more profit with his films than any of the above titles you list. We don't have any 'great' Irish film directors. Never will if everyone heads off to film school as the best international filmmakers start out making their own stuff on the cheap and develop their own style.

Galvasean

Out of interest FishBowl, what low budget Irish features do you consider good?

FishBowel

I thought this was brilliant but not sure if €800K is considered low budget? Directed by a playwright not a film school graduate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMYnGTL33F8

johnny_ultimate

FishBowel wrote: »

The whole point of digital video filmmaking is that you DON'T need many lights or 'gear' or large crews.

Just to say this is absolute nonsense. While digital filmmaking has made certain things easier and cheaper, it has in no way negated the need for lights, gears or crews. Yes, a new type of low-fi cinematography has emerged (and you certainly don't want every film to look like that), but for the vast majority of looks traditional film techniques are as vital as ever.

And yes, Snap is probably the most interesting Irish film of recent times (albeit not without its flaws) but DoP Kate McCullough - who is responsible for many of Snap's aesthetic triumphs - studied film and cinematography in IADT and later Poland. So it certainly didn't hurt her.

AnonoBoy

This again is the problem with our films schools. People judging films on a technical basis. Plenty of Irish films out there that are very well made but still sh*te.

Films should be judged on a technical basis. Not solely on it but how well a film looks and sounds is part of what it should be judged on.

So what? Lots of world-class directors start off making rubbish features and get better. In fact their early stuff is usually more interesting no matter how poorly made it is.

You're going to have to provide examples here. I'm curious to know who you're talking about.

Directors who have all the training and can work at higher levels are more suited to TV anyway.

And you're basing that on what exactly?

I have seen their work and again they are overrated.

Have you? I'd be interested to knowing where you saw Citadel since it hasn't been released in Ireland yet. The same for McMahon's new feature. It hasn't even been screened for the cast and crew yet.

Commercially he's returned more profit with his films than any of the above titles you list.

So you're judging films purely on commercial success then? In that case why are you so intent on making low budget features? Low budget features rarely make big returns at the box office.

We don't have any 'great' Irish film directors. Never will if everyone heads off to film school as the best international filmmakers start out making their own stuff on the cheap and develop their own style.

Yeah like that Martin Scorsese guy. Or that guy Wes Anderson.

Sure loads of great directors (Fincher, Spielberg) didn't study film - although Spielberg wanted to. But there's lots who did.

I think you're being quite-blinkered in your anti-film school bias to be honest.

As with Galvasean I'd love to hear what low budget features you do think are good.

It's very easy to sit and rant about why Irish cinema is not successful but blaming it all on film schools is just inaccurate.

People who did go to film school aren't stopping anyone else from going out and making their own low budget features. And people are doing it, so why is it still film schools fault that none of these films have become successes?

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

I thought this was brilliant but not sure if €800K is considered low budget?

You suggest earlier that people put the money they would have spent on film school towards their first low budget feature. You'd want a lot of students pooling their fees before they could stretch to 800k.

Snap was an interesting if flawed film though. - a cut above most Irish films. And as Jonny pointed out the DP was a film school graduate.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You suggest earlier that people put the money they would have spent on film school towards their first low budget feature. You'd want a lot of students pooling their fees before they could stretch to 800k.

I said it wasn't really low-budget. But it was made for far less money than many other Irish films which were awful.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Snap was an interesting if flawed film though. - a cut above most Irish films. And as Jonny pointed out the DP was a film school graduate.

So what? No Irish film school graduate could have directed that movie.

FishBowel

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just to say this is absolute nonsense. While digital filmmaking has made certain things easier and cheaper, it has in no way negated the need for lights, gears or crews. Yes, a new type of low-fi cinematography has emerged (and you certainly don't want every film to look like that), but for the vast majority of looks traditional film techniques are as vital as ever.

Not it's not. What lights did the Dogma 95 films use? None is the answer. Far more impressive that most Irish titles.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And yes, Snap is probably the most interesting Irish film of recent times (albeit not without its flaws) but DoP Kate McCullough - who is responsible for many of Snap's aesthetic triumphs - studied film and cinematography in IADT and later Poland. So it certainly didn't hurt her.

What this obsession with 'flaws'? Typical film-school way of thinking. We need more films like this with flaws.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

So what? No Irish film school graduate could have directed that movie.

In your opinion.

You seem quite blinkered and unable to appreciate or accept that there are many fine directors that have come out of film schools. There are also many terrible directors too. In the same way that there are great directors who didn't study film and terrible directors that didn't study film.

Your insistence at laying the blame for it all at the feet of Irish film schools is pretty blinkered. It's pretty boring to be honest.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Films should be judged on a technical basis. Not solely on it but how well a film looks and sounds is part of what it should be judged on.

Rubbish. More film-school logic, lots of great films with bad sound e.g. Kes.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Have you? I'd be interested to knowing where you saw Citadel since it hasn't been released in Ireland yet. The same for McMahon's new feature. It hasn't even been screened for the cast and crew yet.

See this is where we differ. I doubt another stupid Irish horror movie is going to make others take note of our cinema?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So you're judging films purely on commercial success then? In that case why are you so intent on making low budget features? Low budget features rarely make big returns at the box office.

There are loads of international examples. In fact the trend in Ireland is to move to lower budgets because of this.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yeah like that Martin Scorsese guy. Or that guy Wes Anderson.

Sure loads of great directors (Fincher, Spielberg) didn't study film - although Spielberg wanted to. But there's lots who did.

I think you're being quite-blinkered in your anti-film school bias to be honest.

As with Galvasean I'd love to hear what low budget features you do think are good.

Film schools were useful in the past: watching obscure movies, getting to use film, learning editing etc. But these can all be done on your own now. Better to buy a good DVD collection with the money as everything is now available.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's very easy to sit and rant about why Irish cinema is not successful but blaming it all on film schools is just inaccurate.

People who did go to film school aren't stopping anyone else from going out and making their own low budget features. And people are doing it, so why is it still film schools fault that none of these films have become successes?

I blame most of the crap Irish films that look great and are technically above average on the film schools.
Anyway, if the OP really wants to go to film school wouldn't it be better if he went to a good one abroad?

johnny_ultimate

FishBowel wrote: »

Not it's not. What lights did the Dogma 95 films use? None is the answer. Far more impressive that most Irish titles.

Yes, but the Dogma 95 movement produced maybe two or three great films, and a lot of crap. They're probably responsible for 0.001% of the great films ever made, if even. Even its founders have gone on to abandon its principles after one or two experiments. Do you think Melancholia didn't use lights? Antichrist? Hmm. I certainly don't think Mr Von Trier would instantly say all digital film-making doesn't need light.

Some films look good with no lights, the much vaster majority don't. Your favoured older films, going by your posts in this forum, certainly feature a plethora of lighting setups.

Anyway, let's see the examples of your non-lit work, ey?

Fishbowel wrote:

What this obsession with 'flaws'? Typical film-school way of thinking. We need more films like this with flaws.

Oh you.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

Rubbish. More film-school logic, lots of great films with bad sound e.g. Kes.

Lots of sh*t films with bad sound too.

That doesn't mean that people shouldn't strive to record sound properly. Or make sure the shots are framed properly and the focus is correct.

The sort of 'ah sure that'll do' attitude is just the talk of people who don't have the skills to do better.

See this is where we differ. I doubt another stupid Irish horror movie is going to make others take note of our cinema?

Despite your insistence I doubt you've seen either of those films have you but yet you've already dismissed it as 'stupid'. I'm not even sure which on you're talking about. Have you seen Citadel or Stitches?

Anyway, if the OP really wants to go to film school wouldn't it be better if he went to a good one abroad?

Sure if they can afford it. So your hatred of film schools is only restricted to Irish ones is it?

I blame most of the crap Irish films that look great and are technically above average on the film schools.

So why not team up DoPs from film schools with your magical non-film school directors then and get good films that are technically excellent.

The funny thing is that I agree with you that there's a slew of Irish films that are technically great but are boring as f*ck. I just don't think that blindly saying "nobody from a film school could ever have directed that" is the way to look at it.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

In your opinion.
You seem quite blinkered and unable to appreciate or accept that there are many fine directors that have come out of film schools. There are also many terrible directors too. In the same way that there are great directors who didn't study film and terrible directors that didn't study film.

Your insistence at laying the blame for it all at the feet of Irish film schools is pretty blinkered. It's pretty boring to be honest.

Sure there are, most are now working in TV or making shorts and winning useless awards. But the OP wants to get into FILM PRODUCTION. So unless he plans on emigrating there is little chance on getting regular work in this area here. He could of course make his own stuff but thanks to your advice he needs to spend a few years in film school first.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Lots of sh*t films with bad sound too.

That doesn't mean that people shouldn't strive to record sound properly. Or make sure the shots are framed properly and the focus is correct.

The sort of 'ah sure that'll do' attitude is just the talk of people who don't have the skills to do better.

Sure, but you don't need to go to film school to learn this.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Despite your insistence I doubt you've seen either of those films have you but yet you've already dismissed it as 'stupid'. I'm not even sure which on you're talking about. Have you seen Citadel or Stitches?

From viewing previous Irish horror movies I have no expectations that these ones will be any better.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So your hatred of film schools is only restricted to Irish ones is it?

Yes, I can't blame foreign film schools for our dire Irish films?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So why not team up DoPs from film schools with your magical non-film school directors then and get good films that are technically excellent.

The funny thing is that I agree with you that there's a slew of Irish films that are technically great but are boring as f*ck. I just don't think that blindly saying "nobody from a film school could ever have directed that" is the way to look at it.

That's a good idea but I get the impression with Irish film schools the best people drop out? The team players stay and graduate. The kind of people who would talk a non-film school director away from trying different things? Film schools teach you to how to make films the same way as everyone else makes. That's why most Irish movies are so bad but look great?

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

From viewing previous Irish horror movies I have no expectations that these ones will be any better.

So your attitude is, Irish horror films haven't been good so far, so it'll always stay like this? That's the spirit! :rolleyes:

Perhaps wait to see films before you actually dismiss them totally.

That's a good idea but I get the impression with Irish film schools the best people drop out?

Where do you get this impression from? Examples would be great if you have any.

The team players stay and graduate. The kind of people who would talk a non-film school director away from trying different things?

If the director can be talked out of trying things by his/her crew then they shouldn't really be directing. The director's job is to realise their vision. Sure there's discussion with the crew but unless it's for budget or safety reasons they should always be the ones with the final say.

Film schools teach you to how to make films the same way as everyone else makes. That's why most Irish movies are so bad but look great?

I don't agree with that. If you're a good filmmaker, being taught the fundamentals doesn't make you like everyone else. You've got some pretty set ideas about Irish film schools, have you ever attended one or is this (as I suspect) all second hand information and opinions?

I believe that the majority of the problems with Irish films lie with the scripts not the direction to be honest.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So your attitude is, Irish horror films haven't been good so far, so it'll always stay like this? That's the spirit! :rolleyes:

Perhaps wait to see films before you actually dismiss them totally.

Fed up waiting, they're all sh-te. Anyway, Irish cinema will never make an impact with horror movies.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I don't agree with that. If you're a good filmmaker, being taught the fundamentals doesn't make you like everyone else. You've got some pretty set ideas about Irish film schools, have you ever attended one or is this (as I suspect) all second hand information and opinions?

Nope and I don't want to.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I believe that the majority of the problems with Irish films lie with the scripts not the direction to be honest.

That is yet another problem with the film schools - blaming the scripts. There's more to movies than making technically adept films based on quality scripts. Seriously, there's this obsession that Irish films are bad because of the script! This excuse has being going around for years. We can't make good films and it's the screenwriter's fault! If only our film school graduates could find a great script they will have a successful career!

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

Fed up waiting, they're all sh-te. Anyway, Irish cinema will never make an impact with horror movies.

Just showing how open-minded you are there. You've already decided you have all the answers and know what's going to happen. But yet you offer no answers except "don't go to film school."

And what's wrong with Irish film? "Film school"

Nope and I don't want to.

So all your assertions that film schools only teach people to make films like everyone else are based on..... guesswork really?

That is yet another problem with the film schools - blaming the scripts.

Who said anything about film schools blaming the scripts? I'm doing it. Me, not a school. And you yourself have admitted you've never been to a school so how would you know that's something they even do?

There's more to movies than making technically adept films based on quality scripts.

Yes but it'd be a f*cking good place to start from for Irish films wouldn't it?

Seriously, there's this obsession that Irish films are bad because of the script!

It's not an obsession it's observation. Sh*te scripts that don't get past a 2nd or 3rd draft are produced over and over again in Ireland and they're woeful.

What do you think the problem is? Do you think there's great scripts out there being made all the time but somehow the direction is somehow killing them?

When you watch a bad Irish film do you just grumble "film school" over and over instead of actually thinking about what could have been impoved?

You're talking about of your hoop quite a bit here. This conversation is so familiar I'm actually starting to think I've met you before! Another person who says Irish film is wrong because X but yet can't offer any real concrete ideas on how to change that. And anyone who does try to do stuff is dismissed just like you did above saying all Irish horrors are sh*te and you're fed up waiting. This is getting boring at this point to be honest.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just showing how open-minded you are there.

I don't think people making horror movies can do anything new in this country?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So all your assertions that film schools only teach people to make films like everyone else are based on..... guesswork really?

It's based on watching several bad Irish films that are technically well made.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Who said anything about film schools blaming the scripts? I'm doing it. Me, not a school. And you yourself have admitted you've never been to a school so how would you know that's something they even do?

Taking a guess?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yes but it'd be a f*cking good place to start from for Irish films wouldn't it?

It's not an obsession it's observation. Sh*te scripts that don't get past a 2nd or 3rd draft are produced over and over again in Ireland and they're woeful.

What do you think the problem is? Do you think there's great scripts out there being made all the time but somehow the direction is somehow killing them?

You're talking about of your hoop quite a bit here. This conversation is so familiar I'm actually starting to think I've met you before!

I think a move away from scripts would work? Use a looser structure, more improvising, more stuff done in one take, more scenes using little dialogue.
Low-budget stuff doesn't need overwritten scripts.

AnonoBoy

I think a move away from scripts would work? Use a looser structure, more improvising, more stuff done in one take, more scenes using little dialogue.
Low-budget stuff doesn't need overwritten scripts.

Looser structured films still need scripts or treatments. I'm not saying overwritten scripts (ie bad scripts) are what we need. When I say scripts are the problem I mean exactly that. So whether it's more improvisational approaches or whatever, we need to be telling better stories and in better ways.

You'll be glad to know that Kirsten Sheridan (who you've already dismissed) has already done this with her latest film. But I'm sure you already know it'll be sh*te before even watching it.

You've got a strange idea as well that low-budget somehow automatically equals superior. It doesn't. There's just as many (if not more) bad low budget films out there, we just don't end up seeing them.

FishBowel

I heard it was bad. Telling better stories can't be taught in film school. That's my point. If you have no good stories available then all the quality sound and camerawork won't matter. I think more playwrights and artists should be making feature films in Ireland. Surround them with a good crew from the film schools maybe? The film schools only teach you the technical aspects and networking. The important stuff has to be learned elsewhere.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

I heard it was bad.

Well be sure not to check it out for yourself and just listen to others.

Telling better stories can't be taught in film school.

No I don't think it can. But going to film school doesn't necessarily rob you of that ability if you have it already.

That's my point.

Is that your point? I honestly don't know what your point is since it's changing so often.

Surround them with a good crew from the film schools maybe?

I suggested that a few posts ago and you said that directors would be talked out of decisions by film-school educated crew.

FishBowel

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is that your point? I honestly don't know what your point is since it's changing so often.

Here are my points again:

• Irish films schools are a waste of time. Maybe 20 years they were worth attending but with today's digital technologies there are cheaper and quicker ways to make a movie
• if you really want to go to film school then there are better ones abroad
• there is little regular work in big-budget movies here and a film school degree won't get you a good job on these productions
• most Irish movies are technically good but overall bad. The film schools have to take some blame for this.
• Irish horror films are crap
• just because a movie has quality cinematography/script/sound doesn't automatically make it good
• most Irish directors have never made a feature film because they can't
• low-budget films shouldn't use the same techniques as larger productions
• it's not my fault you went to film school and never heard these views before

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

[*]it's not my fault you went to film school and never heard these views before
[/LIST]

I refer you to my post here where I said the following:

This conversation is so familiar I'm actually starting to think I've met you before!

It's not my fault you don't read posts properly.

Seriously though, what you're saying is nothing new. I've heard it all before. I agree with some of it but a lot of it I think is quite simplistic.

ScumLord

FishBowel wrote: »

Not it's not. What lights did the Dogma 95 films use? None is the answer. Far more impressive that most Irish titles.

What this obsession with 'flaws'? Typical film-school way of thinking. We need more films like this with flaws.

Light is vital to filming, it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. You can get by with little light but if you want any control over what your doing and you want to make sure you have the best video you can get going into CC your going to want control over lighting. Chroma keying is next to impossible without a set of lights.

FishBowel

I didn't say it's nonsense. What's nonsense is using the exact same lighting set up as used in film. You don't need lots of lights for video. But because people are taught this stuff in film school they approach everything they make like a David Lean epic! The idea that you need to go to film school to learn advanced lighting when they end up making stuff with digital cameras is daft.

Galvasean

Anyone else sensing some serious should chip here?

ScumLord

FishBowel wrote: »

I didn't say it's nonsense. What's nonsense is using the exact same lighting set up as used in film. You don't need lots of lights for video. But because people are taught this stuff in film school they approach everything they make like a David Lean epic! The idea that you need to go to film school to learn advanced lighting when they end up making stuff with digital cameras is daft.

You don't need to go to film school to learn lighting, no. You can learn it the hard way like I did and it takes months of trial and error to learn what could be learned over a few days, it will take months to perfect what you learn in a class but it certainly cuts down on time spent getting the correct way of setting up if someone tells you what you should be aiming for.

Fair enough I was trying to mess with green screens. I have a digital camera, a fairly good one and it demands as much light as you can throw at it. In the sun shine it's amazing, overcast or in doors it struggles. You can compensate for that but it will cost you in overall image quality.

FishBowel

I think this is an Irish thing. Everyone's afraid of making mistakes. That's why they need to go to film school first before making anything. Sure, if you want to make award-winning shorts and epsiodes of Love Hate then film school is probably a good idea. But that's not film production.

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

I think this is an Irish thing. Everyone's afraid of making mistakes. That's why they need to go to film school first before making anything. Sure, if you want to make award-winning shorts and epsiodes of Love Hate then film school is probably a good idea. But that's not film production.

Can I just ask one pertinent question - do you actually work in the film/tv industry or are you offering all this amazing insights as an outsider who's never worked on a set ever?

FishBowel

I'm offering these amazing insights to the OP to prevent him wasting money and years on getting a useless film qualification. You're only sore because I've hit a few raw nerves that you've heard before but don't want others to find out.

johnny_ultimate

Quiz for the day:

What do Charlie Kaufman, Terence Malick, Gus van Sant, Aaron Sorkin, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Jerzy Skolimowski, John Lasseter, David Gordon Green, Francois Ozon, Nick Park, Kathryn Bigelow, Francis Ford Coppola, Zhang Yimou, David Lynch and Darren Aronofsky have in common?

Answers on a postcard please!

Seriously: many 'film schools' are absolute cack and will happily hand you a cert or a diploma for sitting around on your arse for a year or two and giving them a cheque. Others are focused on 'film studies', and will provide you less practical knowledge than a making of DVD. Others will prepare you for the industry and provide you with valuable practical experience, industry contacts and other genuine benefits, as well as worthwhile academic qualifications. Works for some, doesn't work for others. Do your research and find the good ones. Watch and analyse as many films as you can in your own time, from every discipline, era, style and genre. Go out and make films: even if they look and sound ****, obvious potential is the best stepping stone you can have. Make contacts: artistic collaborators and potential business partners. If you want to go anywhere in Ireland, learn to work the system. If you don't, emigrate. Have enthusiasm. Have fun. Be inspired. Fight to make what you want. If you want to make films for the love of cinema, prepare to be impoverished for the forseeable future. If you want to work in the industry, be ruthless.

Do what you want to do. Listen to a variety of opinions, and make an educated decision. If you want further education, go for it: a good practical qualification will be no harm whatsoever to you going forward. If you want to just take your 5D and start filming **** ASAP, or get involved (paid or volunteer) with other people's productions, then you are more than entitled do that too. Both have proven successful in individual cases, and a combination of both is an equally valid option.

Galvasean

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Can I just ask one pertinent question - do you actually work in the film/tv industry or are you offering all this amazing insights as an outsider who's never worked on a set ever?

FishBowel wrote: »

I'm offering these amazing insights to the OP to prevent him wasting money and years on getting a useless film qualification. You're only sore because I've hit a few raw nerves that you've heard before but don't want others to find out.

Quite the question dodge there...
Do you work in the film industry yourself FishBowel?

AnonoBoy

FishBowel wrote: »

I'm offering these amazing insights to the OP to prevent him wasting money and years on getting a useless film qualification.

Your definition of amazing and mine differ greatly obviously.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread stating that you need a qualification, in fact everyone knows the qualification isn't important. It's the experience film schools offer that is the attraction of them.

ScumLord

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Your definition of amazing and mine differ greatly obviously.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread stating that you need a qualification, in fact everyone knows the qualification isn't important. It's the experience film schools offer that is the attraction of them.

And of course the piece of paper. If you want a job in film you'll be sending your CV to big companies that value pieces of paper whether we like it or not that's just the way things are.