<p>I’m relatively new to college confidential, and I have an unpopular opinion. But here goes</p>
<p>If you need permission from a money-siphoning school like USC to start a filmmaking career, you will never succeed as a filmmaker. Or a screenwriter. Period. </p>
<p>60k a year? What a joke. You could rent an Arri Alexa for a three week shoot, buy yourself a lighting kit, steadicam, dolly, track, and jib (you’d own ALL of it by the way, no sharing), plus a bunch of other goodies, and even afford to shoot in 35mm with that kind of money. If you spend it wisely and cut corners, you can make a high quality, feature length film for the cost of one year at USC. A film worthy of submission to any film festival, including Sundance or Tribeca (assuming it doesn’t suck). You have better odds of winning a Nicholl screenwriting fellowship than getting into an ivy league, and yet it’d open 100 more doors for the prospective student. </p>
<p>You want to learn filmmaking? Go out and make films. You’ll get better with each one. Buy a cruddy DSLR to practice camera angles. Work your way up. Read books. Forget those BS textbooks that cost $500 and only teach pretentious film theory: there are dozens of great instructional books out there (for under $20) that teach 10x the amount of practical information. You can’t buy talent. You can’t buy connections. You can’t buy a killer work ethic, and industry knowledge comes from one place and one place only: getting your hands dirty and diving in.</p>
<p>This is a USC film school thread, so I thought I’d offer up a different opinion on USC. Take it or leave it. I wish I could take all the students considering going into crushing debt for USC (or any other expensive film school), smack them upside the head, and tell them “you are free. You don’t need to bind yourself to some school to be successful. Now get out there and make something of yourself”. USC is a great option – but only if you can get out without significant debt (and if you understand that your film degree is NOT an employable backup) </p>
<p>You needed to go to a prestigious film school in the days of George Lucas because digital format was not widely used (didn’t even really exist) and 35mm was the only popular delivery format. No average Joe could get access to that kind of material; not to mention that everything (camera, lights, audio equipment, you name it) were big and clunky. There was no such thing as a pocket DSLR camera. Just look at the iphone; you’d need a pickup truck to fit in all the gadgets the iphone encompasses twenty years ago, and now it fits in the back of your pocket. Filmmaking is no different. In addition to this, facebook and social network didn’t exist, so film school truly was the only way to make connections and meet cast and crew. Those days are over. There is no benefit to pampering yourself by sharing expensive sound stages and “world class” equipment as an undergrad, because those materials won’t be available to you upon graduating. The world of film has changed, and now the only way to break in is by starting out in the guerilla/indie route and climbing up the ladder. There is no such thing as a first time director who directs a studio feature. It simply. Doesn’t. Exist. Never. Even Christopher Nolan started out by making his indie film “the following” for $7,000 before he could get anywhere near the dark night’s budget. Going to a big school like USC doesn’t teach young filmmakers how to be frugal and do things cheaply, which is the most important skill of any independent filmmaker. </p>
<p>Good luck to anyone applying (really). I just ask you consider ALL the other options before making a very, very big commitment </p>