This is a rant. An aggressive rant, at that.
I will be completely honest: Out of the three hours spent at the sophomore film screenings, two hours and thirty minutes of that time was a total waste. Out of the thirty worthwhile minutes, ten was spent smoking cigarettes outside the building.
Why is it that instead of witnessing the childhood of the next generation of filmmakers, I feel as if I have just witnessed the product of three year olds playing with Bolexes, Arris, or their dad's Handycam? As subjectively as I can, I will try to explain. As a disclaimer, I must add: Even though I am going to down several films ruthlessly, I am, by no means, saying that I can do any better. But, what I am saying is that better can be done.
First and foremost, I must present an argument I was introduced to by Aison, my screenwriting teacher. Throughout the last year I have spent with him, he has, on multiple occasions, talked about the how SVA provides the instruction to help students make beautiful films -- which I can totally agree on -- but in most cases the script is horrible. Most of the films I saw today were as techincally sound as possible, they were gorgeous. But, their tragic flaw was the story. Today I saw handfuls of shorts that were very pretty, but the script was for the birds. Where there should have been a noose of narrative thread, there was only a few strands of weakened yarn.
Why is this?
Because in most cases, the student who directed the short also wrote it. While I know that the other divisions of the film program and enrolled in one short story workshop, there is obviously something horribly wrong with this process. The scripts were flat out horrible. They sucked, and I am not afraid to say it because, as a writing major, I not only know what a solid script should contain, but I also know I am more than capable of writing one. We'll get to that.
Aison said, "If Spielberg doesn't write his own scripts, what makes a twenty-two year old think they can?" That says it all for me. Aside from that, the professional world would blow some of these kids' minds if they thought they would be able to shoot their own writing. Surely, it happens, I cannot deny that. But how many times is there a success? Two come to mind: Lawrence Kasdan's Body Heat and Zack Braff's Garden State. This is a problem I feel SVA needs to deal with. Sure, for sophomores, they should be lenient and allow them to shoot their own scripts, but what about the thesis students? The ones that shoot fantastic looking films that fall apart when someone tugs on the narrative thread? What a waste of time! Wouldn't someone rather make an all-around excellent film rather than satiate their own desire to make a project that is "solely theirs?"
I will sympathize here, only because I do realize the selfish desire for the sole responsibility of making a masterpiece. If I were a thesis student, or any student in a production class, I would like to shoot my own script just to receive as much credit as possible. No one wants to share credit. What if this short makes it big? It was all mine. But, again, I must stress that, in most cases, the real industry will not be like this.
Igor Sunara said in my freshman year production class, "A good movie can be made from a good script, and a bad movie can be made from a good script, but a good movie cannot be made from a bad script." I am in full realization of this truth now.
As a writing major, I am pretty sure that I have a decent grasp on what a good script should contain, but of course, it is not limited to these principles. A good script should have well-rounded characters, not symbols of human beings. These characters should have a conflict within themselves that will be resolved by the end of the film. On top of that, there should be an external conflict that is also resolved. There must be a cathartic moment that allows the audience to relate to the victory or defeat of characters. I'm not saying that scripts must contain these elements, but allow me to regress for a moment to clarify.
I would only assume that the purpose of a film school is to teach a student how to write, produce, direct, light, edit, and shoot a film. While some people may be gung-ho about being avant garde and coming up with the next new revolution in filmmaking, I think it is fair to say that most people in a film school are there because they want to make it big. Don't try to lie your way out of it. Making it big is not selling out, like many would call it. Making it big is not harming your integrity or morals. Making it big is just being successful, it is succeeding in filmmaking. Tony Luke said, "The people that say 'sell out' are just jealous because they never made it big."
Being successful means that you are capable of making a film that others can relate to, and because of that, people go see it and you become a success. Every student's dream is to make money off of their films, that's why they are there in the first place. Success lies in commercial films, but with the constantly changing tide, opportunities always exist to allow some to be more artistic than others, especially after becoming the aforementioned success.
While it is not necessary to have such common principles in a script (characters, internal and external conflicts), it is only beneficial to have them in order to make a film. Even though this came from the mouth of a person I cannot stand, "Most artists keep their professional or commerical career separate from their artistic career," makes total sense. And, in most cases, commerical comes before artistic simply because its the aspect of the profession that brings home the bacon. And that is what you want, BACON. You want to have a career making films, you want to make money making films, and while 'arthouse' films do make money, you know that it will never compare to studio successes.
My overall point is most student filmmakers need to find it within themselves to abandon the selfishness that drives them to be a writer/director, and not because of commerical pressures, or scholastic pressures, or any other pressure, but soley to make a film the best it can be. Some people can write and direct, but the truth is, the majority cannot. This majority needs to relinquish their role as writer and take a script from someone who knows how to write one so that after that martini shot, everyone knows the footage to be cut in the editing lab and inevitably become the final cut of days, weeks, months, or years of production will be the best product it can ever be. A good script is the backbone of a good film. Student filmmakers need to realize this now so that their blood, sweat, and tears do not go to waste on the process of making a movie from a script that simply never had a chance.
Why is it that instead of witnessing the childhood of the next generation of filmmakers, I feel as if I have just witnessed the product of three year olds playing with Bolexes, Arris, or their dad's Handycam? As subjectively as I can, I will try to explain. As a disclaimer, I must add: Even though I am going to down several films ruthlessly, I am, by no means, saying that I can do any better. But, what I am saying is that better can be done.
First and foremost, I must present an argument I was introduced to by Aison, my screenwriting teacher. Throughout the last year I have spent with him, he has, on multiple occasions, talked about the how SVA provides the instruction to help students make beautiful films -- which I can totally agree on -- but in most cases the script is horrible. Most of the films I saw today were as techincally sound as possible, they were gorgeous. But, their tragic flaw was the story. Today I saw handfuls of shorts that were very pretty, but the script was for the birds. Where there should have been a noose of narrative thread, there was only a few strands of weakened yarn.
Why is this?
Because in most cases, the student who directed the short also wrote it. While I know that the other divisions of the film program and enrolled in one short story workshop, there is obviously something horribly wrong with this process. The scripts were flat out horrible. They sucked, and I am not afraid to say it because, as a writing major, I not only know what a solid script should contain, but I also know I am more than capable of writing one. We'll get to that.
Aison said, "If Spielberg doesn't write his own scripts, what makes a twenty-two year old think they can?" That says it all for me. Aside from that, the professional world would blow some of these kids' minds if they thought they would be able to shoot their own writing. Surely, it happens, I cannot deny that. But how many times is there a success? Two come to mind: Lawrence Kasdan's Body Heat and Zack Braff's Garden State. This is a problem I feel SVA needs to deal with. Sure, for sophomores, they should be lenient and allow them to shoot their own scripts, but what about the thesis students? The ones that shoot fantastic looking films that fall apart when someone tugs on the narrative thread? What a waste of time! Wouldn't someone rather make an all-around excellent film rather than satiate their own desire to make a project that is "solely theirs?"
I will sympathize here, only because I do realize the selfish desire for the sole responsibility of making a masterpiece. If I were a thesis student, or any student in a production class, I would like to shoot my own script just to receive as much credit as possible. No one wants to share credit. What if this short makes it big? It was all mine. But, again, I must stress that, in most cases, the real industry will not be like this.
Igor Sunara said in my freshman year production class, "A good movie can be made from a good script, and a bad movie can be made from a good script, but a good movie cannot be made from a bad script." I am in full realization of this truth now.
As a writing major, I am pretty sure that I have a decent grasp on what a good script should contain, but of course, it is not limited to these principles. A good script should have well-rounded characters, not symbols of human beings. These characters should have a conflict within themselves that will be resolved by the end of the film. On top of that, there should be an external conflict that is also resolved. There must be a cathartic moment that allows the audience to relate to the victory or defeat of characters. I'm not saying that scripts must contain these elements, but allow me to regress for a moment to clarify.
I would only assume that the purpose of a film school is to teach a student how to write, produce, direct, light, edit, and shoot a film. While some people may be gung-ho about being avant garde and coming up with the next new revolution in filmmaking, I think it is fair to say that most people in a film school are there because they want to make it big. Don't try to lie your way out of it. Making it big is not selling out, like many would call it. Making it big is not harming your integrity or morals. Making it big is just being successful, it is succeeding in filmmaking. Tony Luke said, "The people that say 'sell out' are just jealous because they never made it big."
Being successful means that you are capable of making a film that others can relate to, and because of that, people go see it and you become a success. Every student's dream is to make money off of their films, that's why they are there in the first place. Success lies in commercial films, but with the constantly changing tide, opportunities always exist to allow some to be more artistic than others, especially after becoming the aforementioned success.
While it is not necessary to have such common principles in a script (characters, internal and external conflicts), it is only beneficial to have them in order to make a film. Even though this came from the mouth of a person I cannot stand, "Most artists keep their professional or commerical career separate from their artistic career," makes total sense. And, in most cases, commerical comes before artistic simply because its the aspect of the profession that brings home the bacon. And that is what you want, BACON. You want to have a career making films, you want to make money making films, and while 'arthouse' films do make money, you know that it will never compare to studio successes.
My overall point is most student filmmakers need to find it within themselves to abandon the selfishness that drives them to be a writer/director, and not because of commerical pressures, or scholastic pressures, or any other pressure, but soley to make a film the best it can be. Some people can write and direct, but the truth is, the majority cannot. This majority needs to relinquish their role as writer and take a script from someone who knows how to write one so that after that martini shot, everyone knows the footage to be cut in the editing lab and inevitably become the final cut of days, weeks, months, or years of production will be the best product it can ever be. A good script is the backbone of a good film. Student filmmakers need to realize this now so that their blood, sweat, and tears do not go to waste on the process of making a movie from a script that simply never had a chance.