After earning his Bachelor of Arts in Film Studies from UC Santa Barbara in 2003, @Zeno undertook various projects in the industry that paved the way for him to attend Columbia University School of the Arts. In 2024, Zeno graduated from Columbia’s film program with a Master of Fine Arts in Screenwriting. Today, Zeno offers film school application coaching services and, additionally, consulting on scripts. He also divides his time between New Mexico and Romania, working on several film projects for Studio Set and his own company, Animum Pictures.
Alexa Pellegrini for FilmSchool.org spoke with Zeno about his experiences attending the 'Story School,' how his career has evolved since graduating, tips for constructing a strong portfolio, and ways to take advantage of Columbia’s far-reaching alumni network, among other insights.
Editor's note: This interview took approximately 1.5 hours and is a total of 19 pages. Part 2 (9 pages) is available to our Supporting Members, without whom in-depth articles and interviews like this one would not be possible, as FilmSchool.org is 100%-advertisement free. Supporting Members also enjoy full access to private forums, our Application Database that tracks upwards of 4,500 film school applications, and full Acceptance Data statistics for each film program that demystify common questions about how to construct a winning portfolio, ideal GPAs and GRE scores, and much more.
Z: I try to be diversified in my work as an insurance policy to increase my opportunities. I'll be pitching my TV pilot and directing commercials in the near future, and I'm working on a feature script. I’m also doing coaching right now for people applying to film school. It’s been lovely to gain insight as much to help others who are early in the profession. Specifically, helping others refine their work is what reminds me about the fundamentals when refining my own. Nevertheless, one of the most important things I tell them is that you must look at the work holistically, whether it’s applying to school or pitching to a streamer, the sum of the parts must be equal to the whole.
What was your first job like compared to the job you have now?
Z: This is a tip for people just starting out: After graduation, it’s good to have a plan about what kind of filmmaker you are and what you want to do. I mean, I was always kind of playing the chess game in terms of knowing what I had and where I wanted to go. I was a bit older as a grad student than my peers, and I was working on another film. There’s a longer story, but I was basically directing another film I wanted to make but didn’t get to make in the program. And I didn’t have the resources I needed to finish the film.
I put that film aside because a job opportunity actually came up through a colleague. We were all at Columbia connecting through social media, like Facebook and Instagram, from the beginning. We're like a big family — you really get to know each other in a program like that.
I got my first job because my colleague posted a story on Instagram looking to hire writers, ‘Hey, there's this story company I'm working for called Pocket FM that’s looking for people!’ I would say about a dozen or twenty of my colleagues in my year at Columbia actually got to work at this company. Though, Pocket FM recently laid off a bunch of people, which is the nature of this business, especially now. But I kind of had a life raft.
This is the longer story. 10 years ago, I was in a features development scheme in […] Bucharest because I applied for it with a friend who's Romanian. I got to know a bunch of Romanians, and one of them introduced me to his friends. They own a company called Studio Set, an ad agency that does production.
And so I connected with him after being laid off from Pocket FM. But I put myself out there, and was just offering to help him with his feature script for no pay, just to help. Now, I'll be directing commercials for that company, and I got a writer's credit on my first feature because I've been consulting on that script. Then I got brought on formally to write the script, so now I've got a credit on that script that shoots in April [2025]. And I'm directing commercials for a fee at their company. So, all’s well that ends well.
You always want to have a lot of irons in the fire, even if you have a job. You always want to make connections with your colleagues and, also, filmmakers you really like. Don't be afraid to cold email and message people. This business is all about, as people always say even though it’s a cliché, the network you have. Like attracts like, as they say.
Z: I tried to make my statement of purpose connected to all the other materials I was submitting. As mentioned, the sum of the parts should be equal to the whole. And all roads lead to that statement of purpose as the centerpiece — your story, if you will.
I was trying to show that I was a solid storyteller in all my materials — my films, my answers to the prompts, the films I submitted — especially in my statement of purpose. I tried to tell my own story, my own point of view, and the kind of stories I wanted to tell that hinged off my life experiences. I made sure to draw a line from my statement of purpose to the films and prompts I submitted to make it feel like it was a rounded, interconnected portfolio.
Z: I remember it was a film prompt, a statement of purpose… two, maybe three films. I believe there was a script.
Z: I first applied [to Columbia] the year prior to when I got in — I was wait-listed. It was only on the second try that I got in. It’s funny, though, because a friend tried to discourage me from doing that. Don’t get discouraged and, more so, never give up, is the lesson.
But, in reality, being wait-listed means they're interested; they just couldn't find a spot for you based on what you originally submitted. I was interviewed both times and by different people. Different people read my application too, I presume. And, I submitted almost entirely different materials the second time around.
These admissions committees — I know a couple of people on them — talk about all the applications as a group. Certain professors are tasked with a certain stack of students, and they’re usually the ones who interview you. I connected better with the two people who interviewed me in the second interview, which was an added bonus.
I was interviewing at a lot of [film] schools, so I got good at interviewing. Which is why I tried to do it in person as much as possible, even flew out to Los Angeles — it does make a certain impression about your seriousness of purpose. I applied to UCLA, AFI, Art Center College of Design, and one more that I can’t recall. By the time I got to Columbia University, it was the luck of the draw in terms of it being the final interview. The point is, by that time, I had become seasoned at interviewing.
Some people like to prepare for these things. I kind of created a general outline in my head to anticipate the interview. I knew they would ask me about my materials, so I was prepared to, I guess, embellish. But I didn’t want to go in overly prepared because I didn’t want to come across as uptight. I wanted to seem human. You don’t want to apologize for what you didn’t do or what you should have done. You’re kind of trying to sell yourself, in a way. Certainly don’t dare to undercut yourself. Then again, you also don’t want to sound egotistical.
I think that all of us who are applying to film school come from a creative background, to varying degrees. We should be somewhat used to talking about our work. I think that having that approach, where you know yourself and you’re familiar with your work, and you know what stories you want to tell. If you convey that in a way that’s true and specific, because I think it’s really important to be specific — it comes across as compelling to your interviewers.
I want to add that I’m coaching someone right now who was wait-listed, then got rejected the second time. Getting wait-listed the first time and then rejected the second time is a reason to make your application materials completely new. I have spoken with the head of Columbia’s film program about this recently — and a few of my professors — and they stated this emphatically.
Z: It’s a mistake to think, 'I'm going to focus on my statement of purpose' — and then give less attention to everything else. I think you have to look at your whole application holistically, as I say. Also, I think you have to look at your weaker points and be honest with yourself. Better, find someone with some experience in this field who can give you solid, objective feedback.
You know, whether you hire a coach like me — and I'm not trying to pitch myself, it could even be someone through FilmSchool.org or a writer you know — you need someone to look at your materials. I think you really need to reach out to people and, as I said, get objective, critical advice about your material.
I had a good friend look at my statement of purpose. He is not a filmmaker, but he’s a professor at Amherst who’s also a published author for Knopf. That guy went through […] I'm going to say, 11 drafts of my statement of purpose until we felt it was in tip-top shape. He also went through my answers to the prompts and my scripts and everything, and he watched the films. His advice on the statement of purpose was more useful because he's more of an academic writer, not so much of a storyteller per se. And I think you do want people like him who have that writing acumen but, also, people who are storytellers. Nevertheless, his feedback was essential but certainly, I sought the advice of others.
Most importantly, get someone who will actually tell it like it is and be willing to rip it apart. You have to kind of have a thick skin in this business. So, you might as well start with that now. You certainly have to have a thick skin when you're applying to very competitive film programs that have a very low acceptance rate.
As I mentioned before, when I started applying to film school, I applied twice to Columbia. So, I had another year to update and refine my statement of purpose and create and refine the other materials. I went through many, many drafts, and so, with all my materials.
You know, a buddy of mine, a Serbian guy, came in, and his film was better than, I think, anyone's film in our year. It was just amazing. But he had a budget, and he worked with a professional, well-known Serbian cinematographer. He kind of outclassed us all! But we all got in, and clearly, we each had our strong points.
Ultimately, you have to look at your application materials holistically. You have to figure out your weak points. If your grades aren't great, that's not going to help you but you can’t change them. So, focus on what’s in your control. I think you have to look at it as part of a whole. My Serbian friend surely had weaker aspects to his portfolio, but his film was certainly the strongest aspect compared to the rest of us.
Nevertheless, when trying to create a successful portfolio, ask yourself some pertinent questions. Does your statement and purpose say something different that's not in your scripts? Or does it expand on stories you're telling that are maybe fictional? Even prompt responses call back to the statement of purpose in terms of the kind of person you are. Because when [Admissions Committee] looks at you as an applicant, they're trying to figure out […] certain things, like how you are different from everyone else and what makes you unique? How do you look at the world?
The [Admissions Committee] wants to know you. They want to know your unique perspective because […] they’re putting together, let’s say, ingredients for a soup—in this metaphor, the ingredients are made up of people. And they’re thinking, 'Here’s this person, I’ve got a younger person, an older person, one from this part of the world, and another with that perspective.' They’re creating a palette of people who complement each other so we can all learn from one another.
I'm going to sound kind of corny here, but I was telling someone I was consulting with, I said: [The Admissions Committee] really wants to know your heart, because storytelling is about opening up your heart and the heart of the audience simultaneously. Filmmaking is motion and emotion, and if you can convey that and show that you have some sense of storytelling, a perspective, talent, and vision, well, you’re in. The fact is, you don't have to be an expert. They intend to teach you the rest of it.
Z: Let's just say that the program tries to get you from beginner to intermediate to, if possible, expertise. Certainly, more so at Columbia, which is one of the longest film programs. I had a colleague who came into the program, and his dad was a well-known cinematographer in Serbia. He was very much versed in the language of telling stories in cinema. I had a colleague who came in and he had never made a movie before.
So, people come in with varying levels of experience. In the first year, you're taking a basic directing class, and you learn about medium shots and long shots. I knew all about that stuff. So for me, it was pretty remedial. For other people, it was useful. They weren’t just learning about shots, but also lenses for the first time.
Basically, they’re trying to prepare you for your first-year film, and they try to do the same in the second year when you do your second-year film. Of course, the classes get more advanced and sophisticated as you go, the critiques get tougher, and the quality of the professors’ teaching is more rigorous, if you will. Concurrently, you are working on your scripts for that first film in screenwriting.
Meanwhile, you’re taking Professor Andy Bienen’s Elements of Dramatic Narrative which is a core theory class along with, usually, another theory class. I took that one with James Hoberman who was a renowned critic in New York City for The Village Voice — you can also take a Kieslowski class with Annette Insdorf who was close with him. Anyway, they try to give you a broader foundation from which to be a filmmaker.
In the second year, they prepare you to shoot your second-year film, and then you have your thesis film in the third year and beyond. You're taking editing classes, general directing classes, and classes on directing actors. And they just get more challenging as you go along, as your colleagues and you get more advanced and, ultimately, learn from one another.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the learning you do is alongside people of varying degrees of experience who are learning with you. You're learning from their mistakes, and they’re learning from your mistakes. As you all grow together, it's kind of fascinating to see. I can think of one woman who won the short film award at Cannes literally a year out of graduating. And she came in with less experience than some did, but, clearly, she surpassed us all in her way.
Z: I'm just grateful for FilmSchool.org. It was a huge thing that I found when I was applying to grad programs. I was in the woods, lost in the weeds – with all of it, at first. I was just like, 'Who knows what’s on the other side of this black box? I have no clue what’s going on.' And then I found [FilmSchool.org] and the forums and the threads and started being able to interact. I made friends, some of whom have pseudonyms, like I do here. Though we have real names and are real people!
Mostly, I don't know who they are in the real world and yet, I got to know them pretty well. Some really awesome people are here, and maybe that’s because they are creative kin. Even though I'll never see their faces, I certainly learned a lot from them. I was lucky because I had all these other outlets to help me apply to film school, and then once I was in school, I still went back to FilmSchool.org.
That's why I did this interview — I wanted to hopefully give some information that may be useful to people that are out there, going through this process and thinking about life in this crazy, crazy business.
Z: I think that one of the best parts of the program at Columbia University is their direction for actors class, which is four semesters. Like the other classes, you work with four different professors so you get different perspectives. I saw an interview with Peter Dinklage, and he talked about how important it is for directors to know how to work with actors. He said, 'The one thing I notice about directors, particularly the young ones I work with in independent cinema, is that they don’t know how to work with actors.’
I was lucky enough to work with some really great people in my directing actors classes. One of the best people I worked with was this guy, José Santana, and he was just incredible. I talk to him to this day, and I'm always going over my scripts and projects with him. José has worked with some amazing directors from when he was an actor back in the day, like Sidney Lumet, more than once. This guy was in a movie with Madonna — he had a small part in Susan Seidelman’s "Desperately Seeking Susan." There’s just so much wisdom to be shared from someone like him that goes back decades. Though now he is teaching at USC.
What I'm getting at is that I learned how to be a better writer while I learned how to be a director of actors. I was coaching someone recently, and I talked to them about the story and understanding the wants, the needs, and the stakes — not just of the story but also of the scenes. He asked, 'Are you telling me that every scene needs goals, stakes, and urgency?' And I replied, 'Yes, you need it in every scene. It might be in miniature, but it has to be there.’
And when you think about it, it comes down to something as technical and simple as an actor trying to create an emotional moment, and that is only created by that actor understanding their motivation. That motivation is built off the wants and the needs and the stakes in each scene. This is why it feels believable; this is why we are invested as an audience, and more importantly, this is how we feel it too. That’s what I learned from José, from my acting and directing teachers, and certainly from the collective of all my professors at Columbia. It’s a 'standing on the shoulders of giants' kind of thincg. It’s made me a better writer and director, frankly, because now I have a deeper understanding of the nuts and bolts of storytelling.
Z: In a great program like Columbia University, where you learn how to pitch, hopefully you come out of the program with a really good TV pilot. I was lucky enough that I did.
Some of my materials weren't as good as my TV pilot. My TV pilot was the strongest, so I partnered with a producer who was a year behind me at Columbia. She and I are going to start pitching to [streaming platforms], and we're going to attach some actors to the pitch and see if we can get that sold. By the way, the head of the film program, Jack Lechner, says that packaging your pilot is key in this competitive market. The idea is, you’re trying to make it easier for an executive to say yes.
But even when you're pitching, you're also building your network. You might not sell your pilot, but you might find work getting staffed in a writer’s room. This is what someone who is an executive producer and taught a masterclass at Columbia told us. He said that even if you don't sell your pilot to them, you’ve still built that relationship. You should, then, ask if they're hiring any writers. You know, it's kind of like a web. You just have to keep reaching out, and you'll find an opportunity.
Z: I think the best analogy is that Columbia is similar to USC and NYU, not so much AFI. I don't know all the programs intimately, but I’m familiar with most of them. That said, all these programs have some instruction, to varying degrees, on how to work with actors, as it’s critical. Each of these programs within the university also has its own acting programs too, like USC, NYU, Columbia, and so on.
AFI is much more into the technical aspect of filmmaking, which stands to reason, because AFI has a cinematography program and Columbia doesn't. AFI has production design, too. So, they're vertically integrated in more of a nuts-and-bolts technical way in terms of the various departments involved in making a film. In that respect, you get that experience. It’s almost like working on a studio lot.
Columbia has all the food groups, if you will, from a pure storytelling standpoint. You're really getting exposure to that at all angles. From the people who are playwrights teaching you Screenwriting 1 in the first or second semester of the first year to very accomplished directors like Ramin Bahrani, who has amazing movies on Netflix and elsewhere, teaching directing currently. In fact, Entertainment Weekly just listed his movie, "The White Tiger," as one of the 19 best crime movies on Netflix right now.
AFI has money set aside for you, but it’s kind of weird because you pay for tuition, and then they give you money back to pay for the making of films. It’s a little like getting your tax refund back from the government. Columbia is not like that. The tuition is the tuition. Hopefully, you get a scholarship. And you raise whatever else via crowdfunding, et cetera.
Z: By the time you're a thesis student, some professors, like Eric Mendelsohn — he’s just an amazing guy, I had him for directing — invite people to their masterclasses. It's like Dead Poets Society-level stuff, where he invited us after hours into his classroom to watch a movie, and we broke it down. I don’t think any other professor does this!
I will never forget the masterclass he gave on "The Exorcist," where he talked about how to get the audience engaged. Look at how, in the opening, a demonic force is unleashed when a man opens a secret section of an archaeological dig in Egypt. Then we cut to the present day in Georgetown, where a mother is taking care of her daughter, who's home from school. We start hearing these unsettling bumps. Eric was like, 'Does the mom think it’s something? No. Does the daughter? No. What does the audience think? They think it’s evil. Why do we think it’s evil? Because earlier, we saw a scene in Egypt where the force of evil was unleashed.’
I learned a lot in those informal yet formal masterclasses. I think Columbia really has a 'family-like' atmosphere. Your cohort feels like family, and the professors carefully select students to be part of this larger community. They choose personalities that fit, beyond just the typical grad school considerations.
Z: I think I just answered that question when I was talking about the directing actors classes. I think that's really how they do it. That's how they fuse it. But I would say that when you're in a directing class at Columbia, you talk about screenwriting quite a bit. But when you're in a screenwriting class, you don't really talk about directing. It’s cross-pollinated very well. It stands to reason, given that the great Polish director, Miloš Forman, helped design the curriculum back in the day.
To access the final installment of our interview and read Zeno's insights into Columbia's curriculum and writing workshops, mentorship opportunities, and personalized advice about navigating the ups and downs of film school, become a Supporting Member.
For more information about applying to Columbia's film MFA program (and BA program), read FilmSchool.org's interview with Columbia's Admissions and Industry Outreach Departments:
FilmSchool.org is 100% advertisement free, and Supporting Memberships make articles and interviews like this one possible. Supporting Members also enjoy FULL access to the application database (GPAs, test scores, portfolios...), our full Acceptance Data statistics, private student clubs and forums, and other perks.
Alexa Pellegrini for FilmSchool.org spoke with Zeno about his experiences attending the 'Story School,' how his career has evolved since graduating, tips for constructing a strong portfolio, and ways to take advantage of Columbia’s far-reaching alumni network, among other insights.
Editor's note: This interview took approximately 1.5 hours and is a total of 19 pages. Part 2 (9 pages) is available to our Supporting Members, without whom in-depth articles and interviews like this one would not be possible, as FilmSchool.org is 100%-advertisement free. Supporting Members also enjoy full access to private forums, our Application Database that tracks upwards of 4,500 film school applications, and full Acceptance Data statistics for each film program that demystify common questions about how to construct a winning portfolio, ideal GPAs and GRE scores, and much more.
AP: What have you been doing since you graduated from Columbia University?
Z: I try to be diversified in my work as an insurance policy to increase my opportunities. I'll be pitching my TV pilot and directing commercials in the near future, and I'm working on a feature script. I’m also doing coaching right now for people applying to film school. It’s been lovely to gain insight as much to help others who are early in the profession. Specifically, helping others refine their work is what reminds me about the fundamentals when refining my own. Nevertheless, one of the most important things I tell them is that you must look at the work holistically, whether it’s applying to school or pitching to a streamer, the sum of the parts must be equal to the whole.
What was your first job like compared to the job you have now?
Z: This is a tip for people just starting out: After graduation, it’s good to have a plan about what kind of filmmaker you are and what you want to do. I mean, I was always kind of playing the chess game in terms of knowing what I had and where I wanted to go. I was a bit older as a grad student than my peers, and I was working on another film. There’s a longer story, but I was basically directing another film I wanted to make but didn’t get to make in the program. And I didn’t have the resources I needed to finish the film.
I put that film aside because a job opportunity actually came up through a colleague. We were all at Columbia connecting through social media, like Facebook and Instagram, from the beginning. We're like a big family — you really get to know each other in a program like that.
I got my first job because my colleague posted a story on Instagram looking to hire writers, ‘Hey, there's this story company I'm working for called Pocket FM that’s looking for people!’ I would say about a dozen or twenty of my colleagues in my year at Columbia actually got to work at this company. Though, Pocket FM recently laid off a bunch of people, which is the nature of this business, especially now. But I kind of had a life raft.
This is the longer story. 10 years ago, I was in a features development scheme in […] Bucharest because I applied for it with a friend who's Romanian. I got to know a bunch of Romanians, and one of them introduced me to his friends. They own a company called Studio Set, an ad agency that does production.
And so I connected with him after being laid off from Pocket FM. But I put myself out there, and was just offering to help him with his feature script for no pay, just to help. Now, I'll be directing commercials for that company, and I got a writer's credit on my first feature because I've been consulting on that script. Then I got brought on formally to write the script, so now I've got a credit on that script that shoots in April [2025]. And I'm directing commercials for a fee at their company. So, all’s well that ends well.
You always want to have a lot of irons in the fire, even if you have a job. You always want to make connections with your colleagues and, also, filmmakers you really like. Don't be afraid to cold email and message people. This business is all about, as people always say even though it’s a cliché, the network you have. Like attracts like, as they say.
What was the most challenging part of the Columbia University film application?
Z: I tried to make my statement of purpose connected to all the other materials I was submitting. As mentioned, the sum of the parts should be equal to the whole. And all roads lead to that statement of purpose as the centerpiece — your story, if you will.
I was trying to show that I was a solid storyteller in all my materials — my films, my answers to the prompts, the films I submitted — especially in my statement of purpose. I tried to tell my own story, my own point of view, and the kind of stories I wanted to tell that hinged off my life experiences. I made sure to draw a line from my statement of purpose to the films and prompts I submitted to make it feel like it was a rounded, interconnected portfolio.
What creative materials did you submit?
Z: I remember it was a film prompt, a statement of purpose… two, maybe three films. I believe there was a script.
Did you have an interview after you applied? If so, do you have tips for applicants preparing for one?
Z: I first applied [to Columbia] the year prior to when I got in — I was wait-listed. It was only on the second try that I got in. It’s funny, though, because a friend tried to discourage me from doing that. Don’t get discouraged and, more so, never give up, is the lesson.
But, in reality, being wait-listed means they're interested; they just couldn't find a spot for you based on what you originally submitted. I was interviewed both times and by different people. Different people read my application too, I presume. And, I submitted almost entirely different materials the second time around.
These admissions committees — I know a couple of people on them — talk about all the applications as a group. Certain professors are tasked with a certain stack of students, and they’re usually the ones who interview you. I connected better with the two people who interviewed me in the second interview, which was an added bonus.
I was interviewing at a lot of [film] schools, so I got good at interviewing. Which is why I tried to do it in person as much as possible, even flew out to Los Angeles — it does make a certain impression about your seriousness of purpose. I applied to UCLA, AFI, Art Center College of Design, and one more that I can’t recall. By the time I got to Columbia University, it was the luck of the draw in terms of it being the final interview. The point is, by that time, I had become seasoned at interviewing.
Some people like to prepare for these things. I kind of created a general outline in my head to anticipate the interview. I knew they would ask me about my materials, so I was prepared to, I guess, embellish. But I didn’t want to go in overly prepared because I didn’t want to come across as uptight. I wanted to seem human. You don’t want to apologize for what you didn’t do or what you should have done. You’re kind of trying to sell yourself, in a way. Certainly don’t dare to undercut yourself. Then again, you also don’t want to sound egotistical.
I think that all of us who are applying to film school come from a creative background, to varying degrees. We should be somewhat used to talking about our work. I think that having that approach, where you know yourself and you’re familiar with your work, and you know what stories you want to tell. If you convey that in a way that’s true and specific, because I think it’s really important to be specific — it comes across as compelling to your interviewers.
I want to add that I’m coaching someone right now who was wait-listed, then got rejected the second time. Getting wait-listed the first time and then rejected the second time is a reason to make your application materials completely new. I have spoken with the head of Columbia’s film program about this recently — and a few of my professors — and they stated this emphatically.
What are your thoughts on creating a successful portfolio?
Z: It’s a mistake to think, 'I'm going to focus on my statement of purpose' — and then give less attention to everything else. I think you have to look at your whole application holistically, as I say. Also, I think you have to look at your weaker points and be honest with yourself. Better, find someone with some experience in this field who can give you solid, objective feedback.
You know, whether you hire a coach like me — and I'm not trying to pitch myself, it could even be someone through FilmSchool.org or a writer you know — you need someone to look at your materials. I think you really need to reach out to people and, as I said, get objective, critical advice about your material.
I had a good friend look at my statement of purpose. He is not a filmmaker, but he’s a professor at Amherst who’s also a published author for Knopf. That guy went through […] I'm going to say, 11 drafts of my statement of purpose until we felt it was in tip-top shape. He also went through my answers to the prompts and my scripts and everything, and he watched the films. His advice on the statement of purpose was more useful because he's more of an academic writer, not so much of a storyteller per se. And I think you do want people like him who have that writing acumen but, also, people who are storytellers. Nevertheless, his feedback was essential but certainly, I sought the advice of others.
Most importantly, get someone who will actually tell it like it is and be willing to rip it apart. You have to kind of have a thick skin in this business. So, you might as well start with that now. You certainly have to have a thick skin when you're applying to very competitive film programs that have a very low acceptance rate.
As I mentioned before, when I started applying to film school, I applied twice to Columbia. So, I had another year to update and refine my statement of purpose and create and refine the other materials. I went through many, many drafts, and so, with all my materials.
You know, a buddy of mine, a Serbian guy, came in, and his film was better than, I think, anyone's film in our year. It was just amazing. But he had a budget, and he worked with a professional, well-known Serbian cinematographer. He kind of outclassed us all! But we all got in, and clearly, we each had our strong points.
Ultimately, you have to look at your application materials holistically. You have to figure out your weak points. If your grades aren't great, that's not going to help you but you can’t change them. So, focus on what’s in your control. I think you have to look at it as part of a whole. My Serbian friend surely had weaker aspects to his portfolio, but his film was certainly the strongest aspect compared to the rest of us.
Nevertheless, when trying to create a successful portfolio, ask yourself some pertinent questions. Does your statement and purpose say something different that's not in your scripts? Or does it expand on stories you're telling that are maybe fictional? Even prompt responses call back to the statement of purpose in terms of the kind of person you are. Because when [Admissions Committee] looks at you as an applicant, they're trying to figure out […] certain things, like how you are different from everyone else and what makes you unique? How do you look at the world?
The [Admissions Committee] wants to know you. They want to know your unique perspective because […] they’re putting together, let’s say, ingredients for a soup—in this metaphor, the ingredients are made up of people. And they’re thinking, 'Here’s this person, I’ve got a younger person, an older person, one from this part of the world, and another with that perspective.' They’re creating a palette of people who complement each other so we can all learn from one another.
I'm going to sound kind of corny here, but I was telling someone I was consulting with, I said: [The Admissions Committee] really wants to know your heart, because storytelling is about opening up your heart and the heart of the audience simultaneously. Filmmaking is motion and emotion, and if you can convey that and show that you have some sense of storytelling, a perspective, talent, and vision, well, you’re in. The fact is, you don't have to be an expert. They intend to teach you the rest of it.
Can you give us a year-by-year breakdown of Columbia's film MFA program?
Z: Let's just say that the program tries to get you from beginner to intermediate to, if possible, expertise. Certainly, more so at Columbia, which is one of the longest film programs. I had a colleague who came into the program, and his dad was a well-known cinematographer in Serbia. He was very much versed in the language of telling stories in cinema. I had a colleague who came in and he had never made a movie before.
So, people come in with varying levels of experience. In the first year, you're taking a basic directing class, and you learn about medium shots and long shots. I knew all about that stuff. So for me, it was pretty remedial. For other people, it was useful. They weren’t just learning about shots, but also lenses for the first time.
Basically, they’re trying to prepare you for your first-year film, and they try to do the same in the second year when you do your second-year film. Of course, the classes get more advanced and sophisticated as you go, the critiques get tougher, and the quality of the professors’ teaching is more rigorous, if you will. Concurrently, you are working on your scripts for that first film in screenwriting.
Meanwhile, you’re taking Professor Andy Bienen’s Elements of Dramatic Narrative which is a core theory class along with, usually, another theory class. I took that one with James Hoberman who was a renowned critic in New York City for The Village Voice — you can also take a Kieslowski class with Annette Insdorf who was close with him. Anyway, they try to give you a broader foundation from which to be a filmmaker.
In the second year, they prepare you to shoot your second-year film, and then you have your thesis film in the third year and beyond. You're taking editing classes, general directing classes, and classes on directing actors. And they just get more challenging as you go along, as your colleagues and you get more advanced and, ultimately, learn from one another.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the learning you do is alongside people of varying degrees of experience who are learning with you. You're learning from their mistakes, and they’re learning from your mistakes. As you all grow together, it's kind of fascinating to see. I can think of one woman who won the short film award at Cannes literally a year out of graduating. And she came in with less experience than some did, but, clearly, she surpassed us all in her way.
How did FilmSchool.org help you during your journey before, during, and after film school?
Z: I'm just grateful for FilmSchool.org. It was a huge thing that I found when I was applying to grad programs. I was in the woods, lost in the weeds – with all of it, at first. I was just like, 'Who knows what’s on the other side of this black box? I have no clue what’s going on.' And then I found [FilmSchool.org] and the forums and the threads and started being able to interact. I made friends, some of whom have pseudonyms, like I do here. Though we have real names and are real people!
Mostly, I don't know who they are in the real world and yet, I got to know them pretty well. Some really awesome people are here, and maybe that’s because they are creative kin. Even though I'll never see their faces, I certainly learned a lot from them. I was lucky because I had all these other outlets to help me apply to film school, and then once I was in school, I still went back to FilmSchool.org.
That's why I did this interview — I wanted to hopefully give some information that may be useful to people that are out there, going through this process and thinking about life in this crazy, crazy business.
What was the most valuable part of attending Columbia University for screenwriting?
Z: I think that one of the best parts of the program at Columbia University is their direction for actors class, which is four semesters. Like the other classes, you work with four different professors so you get different perspectives. I saw an interview with Peter Dinklage, and he talked about how important it is for directors to know how to work with actors. He said, 'The one thing I notice about directors, particularly the young ones I work with in independent cinema, is that they don’t know how to work with actors.’
I was lucky enough to work with some really great people in my directing actors classes. One of the best people I worked with was this guy, José Santana, and he was just incredible. I talk to him to this day, and I'm always going over my scripts and projects with him. José has worked with some amazing directors from when he was an actor back in the day, like Sidney Lumet, more than once. This guy was in a movie with Madonna — he had a small part in Susan Seidelman’s "Desperately Seeking Susan." There’s just so much wisdom to be shared from someone like him that goes back decades. Though now he is teaching at USC.
What I'm getting at is that I learned how to be a better writer while I learned how to be a director of actors. I was coaching someone recently, and I talked to them about the story and understanding the wants, the needs, and the stakes — not just of the story but also of the scenes. He asked, 'Are you telling me that every scene needs goals, stakes, and urgency?' And I replied, 'Yes, you need it in every scene. It might be in miniature, but it has to be there.’
And when you think about it, it comes down to something as technical and simple as an actor trying to create an emotional moment, and that is only created by that actor understanding their motivation. That motivation is built off the wants and the needs and the stakes in each scene. This is why it feels believable; this is why we are invested as an audience, and more importantly, this is how we feel it too. That’s what I learned from José, from my acting and directing teachers, and certainly from the collective of all my professors at Columbia. It’s a 'standing on the shoulders of giants' kind of thincg. It’s made me a better writer and director, frankly, because now I have a deeper understanding of the nuts and bolts of storytelling.
Did you graduate with at least one project to pitch?
Z: In a great program like Columbia University, where you learn how to pitch, hopefully you come out of the program with a really good TV pilot. I was lucky enough that I did.
Some of my materials weren't as good as my TV pilot. My TV pilot was the strongest, so I partnered with a producer who was a year behind me at Columbia. She and I are going to start pitching to [streaming platforms], and we're going to attach some actors to the pitch and see if we can get that sold. By the way, the head of the film program, Jack Lechner, says that packaging your pilot is key in this competitive market. The idea is, you’re trying to make it easier for an executive to say yes.
But even when you're pitching, you're also building your network. You might not sell your pilot, but you might find work getting staffed in a writer’s room. This is what someone who is an executive producer and taught a masterclass at Columbia told us. He said that even if you don't sell your pilot to them, you’ve still built that relationship. You should, then, ask if they're hiring any writers. You know, it's kind of like a web. You just have to keep reaching out, and you'll find an opportunity.
How does Columbia University compare to other film programs that you know of?
Z: I think the best analogy is that Columbia is similar to USC and NYU, not so much AFI. I don't know all the programs intimately, but I’m familiar with most of them. That said, all these programs have some instruction, to varying degrees, on how to work with actors, as it’s critical. Each of these programs within the university also has its own acting programs too, like USC, NYU, Columbia, and so on.
AFI is much more into the technical aspect of filmmaking, which stands to reason, because AFI has a cinematography program and Columbia doesn't. AFI has production design, too. So, they're vertically integrated in more of a nuts-and-bolts technical way in terms of the various departments involved in making a film. In that respect, you get that experience. It’s almost like working on a studio lot.
Columbia has all the food groups, if you will, from a pure storytelling standpoint. You're really getting exposure to that at all angles. From the people who are playwrights teaching you Screenwriting 1 in the first or second semester of the first year to very accomplished directors like Ramin Bahrani, who has amazing movies on Netflix and elsewhere, teaching directing currently. In fact, Entertainment Weekly just listed his movie, "The White Tiger," as one of the 19 best crime movies on Netflix right now.
AFI has money set aside for you, but it’s kind of weird because you pay for tuition, and then they give you money back to pay for the making of films. It’s a little like getting your tax refund back from the government. Columbia is not like that. The tuition is the tuition. Hopefully, you get a scholarship. And you raise whatever else via crowdfunding, et cetera.
Did Columbia University offer anything outside of the regular curriculum that you would consider a unique bonus?
Z: By the time you're a thesis student, some professors, like Eric Mendelsohn — he’s just an amazing guy, I had him for directing — invite people to their masterclasses. It's like Dead Poets Society-level stuff, where he invited us after hours into his classroom to watch a movie, and we broke it down. I don’t think any other professor does this!
I will never forget the masterclass he gave on "The Exorcist," where he talked about how to get the audience engaged. Look at how, in the opening, a demonic force is unleashed when a man opens a secret section of an archaeological dig in Egypt. Then we cut to the present day in Georgetown, where a mother is taking care of her daughter, who's home from school. We start hearing these unsettling bumps. Eric was like, 'Does the mom think it’s something? No. Does the daughter? No. What does the audience think? They think it’s evil. Why do we think it’s evil? Because earlier, we saw a scene in Egypt where the force of evil was unleashed.’
I learned a lot in those informal yet formal masterclasses. I think Columbia really has a 'family-like' atmosphere. Your cohort feels like family, and the professors carefully select students to be part of this larger community. They choose personalities that fit, beyond just the typical grad school considerations.
How does Columbia University’s film program fuse screenwriting instruction with directing instruction?
Z: I think I just answered that question when I was talking about the directing actors classes. I think that's really how they do it. That's how they fuse it. But I would say that when you're in a directing class at Columbia, you talk about screenwriting quite a bit. But when you're in a screenwriting class, you don't really talk about directing. It’s cross-pollinated very well. It stands to reason, given that the great Polish director, Miloš Forman, helped design the curriculum back in the day.
Continue reading…
Zeno (Columbia University MFA '24) on Inspired Storytelling and Unlocking Networking Opportunities (Part 2)
Exclusively for our Supporting Members, this is the second part of our 1.5-hour interview with @Zeno, a film school coach, screenwriter, and director who works in New Mexico and Romania. In 2024, Zeno graduated from Columbia University School of the Arts with a Master of Fine Arts in...
- Alexa P.
- Category: Supporting Member Exclusives
To access the final installment of our interview and read Zeno's insights into Columbia's curriculum and writing workshops, mentorship opportunities, and personalized advice about navigating the ups and downs of film school, become a Supporting Member.
For more information about applying to Columbia's film MFA program (and BA program), read FilmSchool.org's interview with Columbia's Admissions and Industry Outreach Departments:
How to Get Into Columbia University Film School: Exclusive Advice From the Admissions and Industry and Outreach Departments (Part 1)
The graduate film program at Columbia University School of the Arts is highly acclaimed for its star-studded alumni roster and teaching students how to tell stories that move the masses. In 2022, FilmSchool.org ranked Columbia SOA runner-up for Best Screenwriting Program in its list of top film...
- Alexa P.
- Category: Admissions Interviews
FilmSchool.org is 100% advertisement free, and Supporting Memberships make articles and interviews like this one possible. Supporting Members also enjoy FULL access to the application database (GPAs, test scores, portfolios...), our full Acceptance Data statistics, private student clubs and forums, and other perks.
