Why wait for film school?

One reason why many aspiring filmmakers aren't making films right now is, "I'm going to make a killer film once I get into film school". Good luck getting into film school...

Well once they actually do get accepted to USC or UCLA, the reason becomes, "I'm going to make a killer film once I enroll in the (blank) class". At USC the class tends to be Intermediate Film Production AKA CTPR310.

CTPR310 is a required class for all Film Production majors at USC and it entails creating a short film in half a semester. Previously, 310 films were shot on 16mm film but recently they switched over to HD(Sony EX1). Students are provided with practically all they need to make a short film(lights, grip, camera, editing station). And being that 310 is one of the highest level production classes that is required, many students wait until it comes around to make their film.

However waiting to make a film is absurd. Just imagine your film is being funded, but you have to wait a long time before you can actually make it... Oh, and you're funding the film. Huh?

That's right. Waiting to make a film is absurd but waiting to make a film when everything is already available to you is extremely absurd. The stuff the school provides is not free. You paid $200,000 to attend film school.

What's more?

-Your provided budget is $0.

-If you break any equipment, you pay for it.

-You are forced to work with a random partner.

-Weird rules like aspect ratio must be 16:9 and all sound must be post production sound.

CTPR310 and many other film production classes are absurd. You are not only paying for it, you are not getting your money's worth. And you only have one chance to make or break a film. That's like buying a $500 lottery ticket.

They use ancient technology at film school...

One of the things that has always surprised me about USC film school is the amount of ancient technology they use. Sure lights, lenses and grip last forever, but camera's do not.

As a camera fanatic I was interested in seeing what camera I would be working with for the introductory film production class(CTPR290). I expected some kind of HD prosumer camera like the Canon XH-A1 or the Sony FX1. After all it was the year 2008 and HD was pretty standard.

However when the cameras were introduced in class, I was sorely disappointed. The camera was the Sony PD170, a standard definition camera. It's not ancient, but it looks ancient.

The professors seemed excited about it though.

Professor 1: We will be using the Sony PD150 for this class.

Professor 2: No. I believe we have upgraded to the Sony PD170.

Yeah big upgrade. I bet you can't tell the difference between a PD150 and a PD170.

Anyways it's as if USC wanted to pick the biggest camera that produced the worst image. No high definition, no 24FPS, no 1/48 shutter, terrible sound(you are not allowed to record sync dialogue in 290 anyways)...

But wait... David Lynch used the PD150 for Inland Empire, Danny Boyle shot 28 Days Later on a standard definition Canon XL camera, Chan-Wook Park shot Paranmanjang on a freaking Iphone.... Those films looked good...

Those directors had their reasons. I'm not saying that the PD150 or standard definition is not capable of producing good cinematography. In fact it can produce great cinematography. But I think in an introductory class, the last thing students want to worry about is why the resolution is so bad or why there is a loud hiss in the sound or why everything looks like a documentary because the camera can only do 60i.

The idea behind the PD150 is that students get to learn about manual controls and also learn about limitations. First of all, at least 95% of 290 film will be shot in auto mode. They teach you how to manually expose and focus but they never really teach you why manual controls are important(it's not advanced cinematography!).

Secondly, HD cameras have manual control as well(well duh). They also have 24fps, 1/48 shutter speed, better sound, less grain etc. And with technology getting cheaper and cheaper every day, it is not hard to find an HD camera with manual controls that is a financially viable option for USC.

Thirdly, how uncreative is it to impose/create limitations on students? Filmmakers who aspire to make the best already have enough limitations/challenges to deal with. Filmmaking is about solving problems, not creating them. Students should be worried about how they should do a certain camera move, or how they will get a believable performance from an actor.

Cameras are not perfect. They are not meant to be perfect. But come on... Either get some HD cameras(perfectly financially viable option), or save some money and get some flip cameras.

The Golden Path to success in the film industry.

Chances are if you are attending film school or thinking about attending film school, you want to do one of the big creative jobs. You probably want to be a director, producer or a cinematographer. Most film students aspire to direct. Basically people just don't go to film school to become a gaffer(not to degrade the role of a gaffer).

The question is, how many of those aspiring filmmakers actually end up doing what they want to do? Very few.

The fact of the matter is that there are way too many aspiring filmmakers and most of them have no clue. No clue of the golden path to "get into the industry". That's because there is NO WAY to "get into the industry" except YOUR WAY. Your way is the golden path.

That means you have to be true to yourself and do what you want in life. This means thinking for yourself. Don't let anyone tell you what to do. That includes parents, friends, film schools and blogs(this does not mean don't listen to what others have to say. Listen but make your own decision).

If you are true to yourself, you will follow your desires. If you are extremely motivated to become a filmmaker, and you are true to your feelings about that, you will find yourself(not anyone else) working towards that goal. If you see yourself right now with a goal and desire but no progress, you are not being true to yourself(or being very lazy).

In film school and everywhere else I have seen VERY FEW aspiring filmmakers who are true to themselves. As a matter of fact, an aspiring filmmaker who is true to himself is not an aspiring filmmaker but is simply a filmmaker. These are the kinds of people that would have been making films regardless of the situation they were in. Whether they had money, a camera or whether they had attended film school or not, they would have become filmmakers(Yes I believe Coppola would have become a director regardless of whether he attended film school or not).

Are you being true to your desires? Are you being true to yourself?

When I'm trusting and being myself... everything in my life reflects this by falling into place easily, often miraculously. -- Shakti Gawain

COMPLETE 2011 Oscars Predictions

Here are the official FSS predictions for the oscars (as of February 21, 2011). These are predictions rather than personal preferences. Do I think these films deserve their awards? Maybe some of them...
And yes I think that Social Network will take best picture and Restrepo will take best documentary. The King's Speech is a British film and I think that would be enough for Social Network to win this year(and yes I know British films have won before). Exit through the Gift Shop was a great film, but I don't think it is "Academy material"(it doesn't touch on issues that the Academy seems to favor).

Best Picture - Social Network
Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids are All Right

The King's Speech

The Social Network

127 Hours

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter's Bone

Actor in a Leading Role - Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

Javier Bardem (Biutiful)

Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network)

Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

James Franco (127 Hours)

Jeff Bridges (True Grit)

Actor in a Supporting Role - Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Christian Bale (The Fighter)

John Hawkes (Winter's Bone)

Jeremy Renner (The Town)

Mark Ruffalo (The Kids are All Right)

Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech)

Actress in a Leading Role - Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Annette Bening (The Kids are All Right)

Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole)

Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone)

Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

Actress in a Supporting Role - Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)

Amy Adams (The Fighter)

Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)

Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)

Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom)

Animated Feature Film - Toy Story 3

How to Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3

Art Direction - Alice In Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Inception

The King's Speech

True Grit

Cinematography - True Grit (Roger Deakins)

Black Swan (Matthew Libatique)

Inception (Wally Pfister)

The King's Speech (Danny Cohen)

The Social Network (Jeff Cronenweth)

True Grit (Roger Deakins)

Costume Design - The King's Speech (Jenny Beaven)

Alice in Wonderland (Colleen Atwood)

I Am Love (Antonella Cannarozzi)

The King's Speech (Jenny Beaven)

The Tempest (Sandy Powell)

True Grit (Mary Zophres)

Directing - David Fincher (The Social Network)

Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)

David O. Russell (The Fighter)

Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)

David Fincher (The Social Network)

Joel and Ethan Coen (True Grit)

Documentary Feature - Restrepo

Exit through the Gift Shop - Banksy, director (Paranoid Pictures)

Gasland - Josh Fox, director (Gasland Productions, LLC)

Inside Job - Charles Ferguson, director (Representational Pictures)

Restrepo - Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger, directors (Outpost Films)

Waste Land - Lucy Walker, director (Almega Projects)

Documentary Short Subject - Strangers No More

Killing in the Name

Poster Girl

Strangers No More

Sun Come Up

The Warriors of Qiugang

Film Editing - The King's Speech (Tariq Anwar)

Black Swan (Andrew Weisblum)

The Fighter (Pamela Martin)

The King's Speech (Tariq Anwar)

127 Hours (Jon Harris)

The Social Network (Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)

Foreign Language Film - Biutiful

Biutiful (Mexico)

Dogtooth (Greece)

In a Better World (Denmark)

Incendies (Canada)

Hors la Loi (Algeria)

Makeup - The Wolfman

Barney's Version

The Way Back

The Wolfman

Music (Original Score) - The Social Network (Trent Reznor And Atticus Ross)

How to Train Your Dragon (John Powell)

Inception (Hans Zimmer)

The King's Speech (Alexandre Desplat)

127 Hours (A.R. Rahman)

The Social Network (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross)

Music (Original Song) - "If I Rise" from 127 Hours

"Coming Home" from Country Strong Music and Lyric by Tom Douglas, Troy Verges and Hillary Lindsey

"I See the Light" from Tangled Music and Lyric by Alan Menken Lyric by Glenn Slater

"If I Rise" from 127 Hours Music by A.R. Rahman Lyric by Dido and Rollo Armstrong

"We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3 Music and Lyric by Randy Newman

Short Film (Animated) - Day & Night (Teddy Newton)

Day & Night (Teddy Newton)

The Gruffalo (Jakob Schuh and Max Lang)

Let's Pollute (Geefwee Boedoe)

The Lost Thing (Shaun Tan and Andrew Ruhemann)

Madagascar, carnet de voyage (Madagascar, a Journey Diary) (Bastien Dubois)

Short Film (Live Action) - Wish 143 (Ian Barnes and Samantha Waite)

The Confession (Tanel Toom)

The Crush (Michael Creagh)

God of Love (Luke Matheny)

Na Wewe (Ivan Goldschmidt)

Wish 143 (Ian Barnes and Samantha Waite)

Sound Editing - Inception

Inception

Toy Story 3

TRON: Legacy

True Grit

Unstoppable

Sound Mixing - Inception

Inception

The King's Speech

Salt

The Social Network

True Grit

Visual Effects - Inception

Alice in Wonderland

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Hereafter

Inception

Iron Man 2

Writing (Adapted Screenplay) - The Social Network (Aaron Sorkin)

127 Hours (Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle)

The Social Network (Aaron Sorkin)

Toy Story 3 (Michael Arndt, story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich)

True Grit (Joel Coen and Ethan Coen)

Winter's Bone (Debra Granik and Anne Rossellini)

Writing (Original Screenplay) - The King's Speech (David Seidler)

Another Year (Mike Leigh)

The Fighter (Paul Attanasio, Lewis Colich, Eric Johnson, Scott Silverand Paul Tamasy)

Inception (Christopher Nolan)

The Kids are All Right (Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko)

The King's Speech (David Seidler)

Money for your film!

One of the greatest barriers for filmmakers, artists and anyone in general is the lack of resources, namely money. First off, let me state that going to film school WILL NOT help overcome that barrier. You will actually find yourself $200,000 poorer after film school(no duh). But aside from the fact that film school sucks, how could/should you respond to the barrier of money?

Cry

Most people will end up doing this. They will complain about the lack of money and wait for stacks of hundred dollar bills to come flying their way. The film will never get made. "El Director" will find themselves working in another industry.

Produce it

You need money? Great! Time to go and get it. You can start by finding a paying job. Start saving. If your budget is $1 million, you will have the money to make your film in about 20 years. Way to spend all your time making money rather than making films.

Get creative

Think. How can you make a film now(or in the near future) in your current situation with the resources that are available to you? Don't think of what you need, but rather think of what you already have.

When it comes to the barrier of money, we usually think of how we can overcome the barrier. We see how big, wide and tall the barrier is and begin to calculate what it will take to put it behind us. What we sometimes don't realize is that the biggest barrier is creative rather than physical. It is in our heads. Once we realize that we can creatively overcome the barrier, it ceases to be a barrier and rather becomes a challenge.

Again, think of what you have rather than what you need.

This is not to say that anyone can create a film packed with explosions, gunfights and car chases on a zero budget(though someone, maybe you, probably could). This is to say that if you have the heart to create, don't let money stop you.

"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." -Eleanor Roosevelt

Websites for Filmmakers

An ever growing list of websites for filmmakers. Please make suggestions by commenting...

Communities

DVXuser.com - One of the best online independent filmmaking communities/forums.

HV20.com - Sorta like a mini version of DVXuser.com.

CreativeCOW.net - More of a technical community encompasing effects, broadcasting and motion graphics to name a few.

Cinematography.com - A online cinematography community. Everything from HDV to 35mm to gripping to reel critique is fair game.

Watch - These great sites to watch films, tutorials, behind the scenes, interviews...

Youtube.com

Vimeo.com

Resources

Celtx.com - Free screenplay and preproduction software. FREE!

Freesound.org - Sound effects resource for films and other media.

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Movie_Making_Manual - Just discovered this recently. An online book detailing the filmmaking process from development to distribution.

Filmsite.org - A look at the history of the greatest film(according to Tim Dirks).

Free film school (without a scholarship)

Why pay to go to a film school if you can go for free?

Buy my book to find out how.




Just kidding.

I'm not selling a book on free film school. If I were, you would have to pay to get something for free. Additionally, I don't think there is such a thing as a free academic film institution. There is however a way you can get a film school education for free. As a matter of fact, it's better than film school. It's called the internet.

I probably don't need to tell you about the internet because you're probably reading this on the internet right now(really, I'm gonna skip all the common sense). But for the record, Google is your best friend. You can learn just about anything through the internet and best of all it's mostly free.

Wait, but think about it for a second... People out there(i.e. film school students) are actually paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for free stuff? There must be a reason for it?!?!?

"But you learn stuff at film school that you can't learn elsewhere."

Oh yeah? Are you seriously going to compare what one person(a film professor) has to say about film to what millions of people have to say about film? Are you going to compare the few hours you spend in class "learning" to the thousands of hours you could spend on the internet reading about film?(By the way don't spend all your time learning about film. It defeats the purpose as you won't have any time to apply that knowledge to actually make films.)

"But you can go to film school while learning from the internet."

Why spend the money in the first place?!?! Go buy a car or even a house.

"But how about all the people you can meet?"

Meeting a collaborator in film school is great. But there are hundreds of thousands of ways of meeting collaborators out of film school. Paying $200,000 to meet someone sounds like... prostitution?

"But the internet is bad quality"

Yes. Much of the internet sucks. But then much of film school sucks.
The internet has its fair share of crap. But it does have many great resources to learn about filmmaking.

Besides, film students use Google all the time to write papers.

Types of film students

Pretentious

They have messy hair and always talk with their head tilted and one eye half closed. In their free time they either watch art films, smoke cigarettes, smoke drugs, or smoke just about anything else. Their films are only good to watch when drunk or high.

Guerrilla

Will do absolutely anything to "get the shot"(no pain no gain). Wears a Che Guevara shirt 365 days a year(the same one). Usually make films that have a lot of action and hints of anarchy(e.g. breaking a window of a cop car) but the films themselves look terrible.

Trivia
Brainy and know everything. They can name all the oscar winners and are usually very proud of it. They can do the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" on anyone and anything(they can probably do one degree of Kevin Bacon). One thing they can't do is make films.

Hollywood

Very knowledgeable on Hollywood film set vocab. Will say things like, "hand me a c-47 so I can diff up this baby baby". Everything will look bad until there are at least 10 lights setup and at least 20 crew on set.

"If there is life after death, Imagine the price of meat!"

Words by Drew Casper never cease to amuse me. Drew Casper is the infamous USC film critical studies professor. He knows a lot about film. As a matter of fact his class CTCS190 Introduction to Cinema may be one of the most informative/educative classes in the whole USC film school.

His lecture is an introduction into why western film is the way it is. He is very enthusiastic in talking about the techniques, aesthetics and history behind films and always ends his lecture with a film. Casper loves film.

However the thing is Casper does not just love film. He LOVES film and loves teaching it. His enthusiasm for film overflows every class. He is very theatrical and considers his lectures a performance. In fact every lecture ends with an applause from the "audience".

He began one semester's class by riding a bicycle into class, wearing a red hoodie and with an E.T. doll on the bike's basket, all to the theme song of E.T.

He likes to "get into it".

It seems however, that some students don't take Casper seriously due to his demeanor. Casper and his class has a certain reputation that seems to cause a lot of students to "take his word with a grain of salt". His students sometimes even pick on him.

In a recent class Casper asked a student to make a well-known statement. The student proceeded to say, "Casper is crazy". The student thought he was being funny but Casper was not amused.

In another situation Casper asked a student to ask him a question. The question was, "how old are you?" Casper proceeded to bring the student up on stage and demonstrate film composition by dragging him across the floor.

Are students being disrespectful? Is Casper a bit too eccentric?

The fact is Casper knows a lot about film and is very confident about it. And this makes some if not many film students feel very insecure(I am not referring to film students in general. I am referring to insecure filmmakers/students). It challenges their own knowledge about the craft they are using to tell stories. Because as soon as insecure people are admitted to one of the most prestigious film schools in the world, they begin believing that they are the best. As soon as they see the admission letter, they begin imagining how the red carpet will feel.

The one thing I learned from CTCS190 is how little film students(including me) know about film. Our goal as filmmakers should be to strive to exceed what we know and challenge ourselves when making films. To remain an empty bowl rather than a full bowl. For a full bowl cannot take anything more.

"Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." - Steve Jobs

Film school sucks... some more than others...

Any student attending USC will pretty much be brainwashed into believing UCLA is the worst thing in the world ever. A true Trojan will say that UCLA is worse than USC in every single aspect. And with USC passing UCLA in college rankings, it seems undeniable that UCLA is worse than USC.

When it comes to film school there is definitely no debate, UCLA is definitely worse than USC. USC is bad but UCLA is worse(much worse).

On first impression however, it seems pretty even between USC and UCLA. They are known to be two of the best film schools in America. Google "best films schools" and you will see that USC and UCLA are on most if not all lists. Some say that USC has better facilities while UCLA has a better Graduate program while UCLA is also definitely cheaper. USC seems to have more "successful" alumni in the industry but UCLA has its fair share of famous alumni(Francis Ford Coppola attended UCLA).

However it only takes one look at the UCLA film school admission website to see how bad their program is. Their BA program is only two years long and they don't accept freshmen. What? WHY?

We all know practice makes perfect and that the earlier we start the better, but UCLA goes against all of that. UCLA expects to produce a certified(i.e. a Bachelor of Arts) filmmaker in two years and wants its students to start late.

Any type of artist has to learn the craft of their art form and to learn their personal style, and this takes time. The artist may learn craft and style from classes, but without practice and experimentation the artist will never be able to express themselves fully through their art form. When we see a great pianist, we assume that they must have started from a young age and that they have thousands of hours of practice(though it is never too late to start). And we must see great filmmaking in the same way. Filmmaking must be a process of practicing and taking time and learning through experience, just like any other art form(I'm not saying go and practice for 8 hours like professional pianists do. Or am I?).

USC doesn't seem to be able to create filmmakers in 4 years. I am not aware of too many people with jobs in the industry after graduating from USC, and I am only aware of 1 person to actually have a chance at a multi-million dollar AAA feature film title(to be blogged about at a later date).
But UCLA is cocky enough to think that they can produce a filmmaker in 2 years!!! That is being very irresponsible and disrespectful to the art of film.

Basically what UCLA is saying: take our classes and well give you a filmmaker tshirt. That way you can go around wearing your UCLA(or USC) film school shirt and pretend you're a filmmaker. Lame.

Film school is EXPENSIVE

USC is known to some as the University of Second Choice(especially to the school across town). Though there may be some debate about whether USC or UCLA is a better school, we can almost be certain that USC is a University of Spoiled Children. That is, U$C costs a lot of money to attend.

USC tuition by itself is about $40,000. Which is very misleading since that does not include living expenses and supplies/textbooks. Altogether, one year of U$C costs over $55,000 while four years costs over $220,000.

I don't need to say it, but that's a lot of money.

As a matter of fact, that's enough money to make at least 30 feature length films(I am sure a very talented director/producer could manage even 200 films with $220,000. Yes this is extreme, but get the point).

Budget of Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi = $7,000
Cost of Attending USC = $220,000
$220,000/$7,000 = 31.4

What can 30 films like El Mariachi do? Well here is what El Mariachi did:
-Over $2,000,000 in Box Office in the US only
-Robert Rodriguez lands a major production deal
-Robert Rodriguez becomes a well known director

That means that 30 films like El Mariachi has the potential of:
-$60,000,000 in Box Office
-Multiple major production deals
-Multiple spotlights for directors

Again, yes this is a bit ridiculous and extreme but you get the point.

Further education is very expensive.

For some fields further education is necessary. E.g. I would never trust a doctor who never went to college. However for filmmaking(or any art field) further education in an institution is not always necessary. There are many great filmmakers who never went to film school.

So before you go to film school, ask yourself what you want.
1. Do you want to pay over $200,000(or be $200,000 in debt) so that someone can tell you what to do. (and never be given the opportunity to direct/produce a feature film)
2. Do you want to use that $200,000 to make a film(s) your way. (and possibly end up with millions of people seeing your film(s))

USC film school acceptance

Apparently USC film school is hard to get into. Even harder to get into than Harvard Law. The acceptance rate for USC film school seems to be at around 4% while for Harvard Law the rate is 11%.

Since the acceptance rate was so low, when I first came to USC I expected most of the film students to be very enthusiastic about film-making. It was too much expectation. One of the first film students I met had not even selected film production as his first choice major. And he was not the only one to have never touched a video camera in his life. Another student could name all the Oscar Best Picture winners all the way from 1928 to the present. But he had never ever even tried to write a script or make a film of any kind. Smart but lazy and very arrogant.

Of course not all students I met were like this. There were some very brilliant and talented filmmakers at USC, but that was very rare(to be blogged about later). The majority of USC film school students were people who treated USC like a golden ticket into the multi-billion dollar industry of Hollywood. These were people who expected to direct AAA feature film titles, merely because they graduated from USC film school.

That...
is pretty ridiculous.

Just think about it. Who in their right mind would give someone $30 million to make a film just because they had a USC film school sticker on their resume?!? If there is such a producer I would love to meet them, cause I have a GREAT idea for a film.

Seriously, no one would even give $100. That's because artistic or filmmaking talent is not judged by a degree. A Bachelor of Arts degree can be an indication of talent, but that is not always the case.

Talent is indicated by results. Results like:
-Directing a short film
-Editing a music video
-Producing a feature film
-Having your film play at a festival
(Not results like, "I got an A+ in my film theory class")

So, what do you have to show your talent? A film school on your resume or a feature film?

What has "resulted" from your filmmaking talent?


Don't even comment. Just go and make films.

Film school or Alcoholics Anonymous?

The first production class I took at USC was the infamous CTPR 290/241 Cinematic Communication and Fundamentals of Cinematic Technique. I have heard of people getting 290 tattoos after taking the class to show their "accomplishment".

In 290 students are required to create(write, shoot, produce, edit, etc.) 5 short films in one semester. Doesn't sound like a big deal...

So the first class was introduction time. Everyone gets to know one another. Again doesn't sound like a big deal...

The first thing we had to do was to write our names on a "Hi my name is..." name tag. Things are sorta starting to get weird. I'm thinking Fight Club...

Professor: "So as we go around please tell us your name, year, major, where you are from and a life changing experience."

...

Wait... did he just say a life changing experience??? I'm thinking, "Am I in the right class?? This is starting to sound like a group therapy session."

What ensues is some of the most intense drama ever. The first production class ever and I am hearing strangers share stories about how their father died or almost died or how they turned Muslim or how they fell in love with their soul mate. Tears streaming down all faces in the class.

This is not film school.... this is alcoholics anonymous or something. The only way that could have been film school is if we started filming all the drama. That would have made a great Youtube video.

I found out later USC had received complaints from students about the 290 professors and they were under review. The introductions in the first class was their attempt at enhancing the learning experience and bonding the whole class together. Of course it did not work, as later in the semester there were multiple films produced in that class that expressed frustration at USC, the professors and the film school. And it turns out, for whatever reason they have now stopped teaching at USC.

But believe it or not, that was my first day of the first production class at "the best film school in the world", and it was a sign of things to come.