AFI 2019 Screenwriting

[StarChild]

If anyone knows or has spoken to any current AFI students, I'd love to hear more about what they think. What they like, don't like etc. I love the idea of doing some production and my interviewers were pretty clear that writing is still the bulk of the work so I'm not worried about not getting enough writing in if I'm lucky enough to get in

 

[Isabellagrcia]

If anyone knows or has spoken to any current AFI students, I'd love to hear more about what they think. What they like, don't like etc. I love the idea of doing some production and my interviewers were pretty clear that writing is still the bulk of the work so I'm not worried about not getting enough writing in if I'm lucky enough to get in

My interviewers told me that screenwriting fellows have a set amount of production hours they have to do, so you'd definitely get to work on some productions!

 

[alanray]

As I'm certainly out for USC, AFI has for sure become my number 1 option. I'm really placing my hopes on them, I would be more than thrilled to go there. They're an amazing program and the collaboration they have between writers and film production right from the go in making 3 short films entices me so much. Although if I don't make it, my next two choices would be LMU then Chapman. I really hope I get at least one of those three schools.

As for Dean's comments on the liberal, PC culture at NYU, don't think for a second it isn't just like that at USC. I have a friend that is a screenwriting professor at USC and he has told me a lot about the program. They're all about that very anal, PC culture over there. To the point where I was actually being advised to censor myself in certain ways in my application materials because it didn't fit with their liberal viewpoints. It just is what it is. They're looking for a certain group of people to fill out their classes. I get it, it's whatever.

So I think this is one of the big advantages AFI actually has over USC (nothing against USC, they were still my first choice). Just that what I know of USC is that they can be very sheltered and a little censoring at times, while when I was interviewing for AFI I DIRECTLY asked them if there would be any creative censorship of what I want to write. And their simple answer was: "Lol no. You can fucking write whatever you want." That's a plus for me folks.

Edit: I hope this doesn't come off as some tirade lol. Just sharing some of my knowledge about the differences between schools. I really hope to see some of you really friendly people at AFI! I hope we all get in

 

[Buusey]

As I'm certainly out for USC, AFI has for sure become my number 1 option. I'm really placing my hopes on them, I would be more than thrilled to go there. They're an amazing program and the collaboration they have between writers and film production right from the go in making 3 short films entices me so much. Although if I don't make it, my next two choices would be LMU then Chapman. I really hope I get at least one of those three schools.

As for Dean's comments on the liberal, PC culture at NYU, don't think for a second it isn't just like that at USC. I have a friend that is a screenwriting professor at USC and he has told me a lot about the program. They're all about that very anal, PC culture over there. To the point where I was actually being advised to censor myself in certain ways in my application materials because it didn't fit with their liberal viewpoints. It just is what it is. They're looking for a certain group of people to fill out their classes. I get it, it's whatever.

So I think this is one of the big advantages AFI actually has over USC (nothing against USC, they were still my first choice). Just that what I know of USC is that they can be very sheltered and a little censoring at times, while when I was interviewing for AFI I DIRECTLY asked them if there would be any creative censorship of what I want to write. And their simple answer was: "Lol no. You can fucking write whatever you want." That's a plus for me folks.

Edit: I hope this doesn't come off as some tirade lol. Just sharing some of my knowledge about the differences between schools. I really hope to see some of you really friendly people at AFI! I hope we all get in

Just curious but what do you want to write that you wouldn’t be able to write because of “liberal PC culture”?

 

[Cody Young]

As I'm certainly out for USC, AFI has for sure become my number 1 option. I'm really placing my hopes on them, I would be more than thrilled to go there. They're an amazing program and the collaboration they have between writers and film production right from the go in making 3 short films entices me so much. Although if I don't make it, my next two choices would be LMU then Chapman. I really hope I get at least one of those three schools.

As for Dean's comments on the liberal, PC culture at NYU, don't think for a second it isn't just like that at USC. I have a friend that is a screenwriting professor at USC and he has told me a lot about the program. They're all about that very anal, PC culture over there. To the point where I was actually being advised to censor myself in certain ways in my application materials because it didn't fit with their liberal viewpoints. It just is what it is. They're looking for a certain group of people to fill out their classes. I get it, it's whatever.

So I think this is one of the big advantages AFI actually has over USC (nothing against USC, they were still my first choice). Just that what I know of USC is that they can be very sheltered and a little censoring at times, while when I was interviewing for AFI I DIRECTLY asked them if there would be any creative censorship of what I want to write. And their simple answer was: "Lol no. You can fucking write whatever you want." That's a plus for me folks.

Edit: I hope this doesn't come off as some tirade lol. Just sharing some of my knowledge about the differences between schools. I really hope to see some of you really friendly people at AFI! I hope we all get in

I do agree with what you said to an extent, in that even though I’m a very liberal individual myself, I do worry about the desire to censor one’s work because it doesn’t conform to a pre conceived notion of politeness or a comfortability with the subject. However, my hope is that any of these programs would not be inclined to censor any particular piece of work because of dicey themes. Let’s be honest here, we’re writers. We are meant to explore the many facets of a great many issues and if a given program takes issue with a piece of work that does just that, well frankly it’s not a program that should have any sort of success (in my mind at least). That being said, these programs are highly lauded in the film industry and have produced some highly talented writers so I find it hard to believe they censor work to that great of an extent. Furthermore, I do think AFI is better at producing films about topics that are deemed as unconventional not because they simply allow it but because they seem to wholeheartedly embrace it. For proof of this, I would recommend checking out Ari Aster’s thesis film from AFI, The Strange Thing About The Johnson’s. It’s delightful in its boundary pushing mentality.

 

[StarChild]

@alanray the more info the better regardless.

I do agree with what you said to an extent, in that even though I’m a very liberal individual myself, I do worry about the desire to censor one’s work because it doesn’t conform to a pre conceived notion of politeness or a comfortability with the subject. However, my hope is that any of these programs would not be inclined to censor any particular piece of work because of dicey themes. Let’s be honest here, we’re writers. We are meant to explore the many facets of a great many issues and if a given program takes issue with a piece of work that does just that, well frankly it’s not a program that should have any sort of success (in my mind at least). That being said, these programs are highly lauded in the film industry and have produced some highly talented writers so I find it hard to believe they censor work to that great of an extent. Furthermore, I do think AFI is better at producing films about topics that are deemed as unconventional not because they simply allow it but because they seem to wholeheartedly embrace it. For proof of this, I would recommend checking out Ari Aster’s thesis film from AFI, The Strange Thing About The Johnson’s. It’s delightful in its boundary pushing mentality.

agreed.

 

[alanray]

I was basically just told to avoid certain words in my application materials. One character should not refer to another character as a "bitch". I should not describe a female character as "beautiful" but instead as "attractive" because that would have been sexually objectifying her. Writing about a character that gets raped in a story would be considered very taboo and might get backlash from your peers (that happened apparently). Those are the examples I have from my guy that teaches at USC. Not that it would be impossible to write certain stories, just that it may be more difficult. I don't know if using some of these words would have actually been a make or break thing or not but I just took his advice because I didn't want to do anything to possibly jeopardize my chances of getting in. I haven't seen Ari Aster's thesis film but I do know about it lol! It sounds very interesting and taboo. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

[Isabellagrcia]

I was basically just told to avoid certain words in my application materials. One character should not refer to another character as a "bitch". I should not describe a female character as "beautiful" but instead as "attractive" because that would have been sexually objectifying her. Writing about a character that gets raped in a story would be considered very taboo and might get backlash from your peers (that happened apparently). Those are the examples I have from my guy that teaches at USC. Not that it would be impossible to write certain stories, just that it may be more difficult. I don't know if using some of these words would have actually been a make or break thing or not but I just took his advice because I didn't want to do anything to possibly jeopardize my chances of getting in. I haven't seen Ari Aster's thesis film but I do know about it lol! It sounds very interesting and taboo. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

TW: Sexual abuse and suicide

I really don't know the context of these words used in your script, so I'm just going to speak in a general sense re: "beautiful." Sorry if I'm going to generalize, but particularly in the past, some writers have taken to simply describing women as "beautiful," while the male characters are given a lot more depth.

If there really is no getting around her attractiveness, such as we're seeing her through the eyes of another character or she uses her looks as a tool or whatever, then yes, describe her through her attractiveness. Do it for a purpose. Not simply because she's beautiful. The way I see it, it's a way to explore your character and find a more creative way to describe her.

As for the rape situation: It's become very commonplace to get women characters to grow or evolve through a really horrible situation they have to go through, usually rape. While rape isn't necessarily taboo, look at Room for example, the way that it's portrayed should be taken more seriously. There have been many instances in which it seems more like a situation to just see the woman in a sexually grotesque position. Again, if there's no getting around it, I think Room did a generally good job of it.

I see this all as another way to explore other story possibilities instead of censorship. It's a challenge, to have to force yourself to think outside of the ordinary. I also want to write about some topics that are hard to talk about such as mental illness and suicidal thoughts. That's another situation in which you have to educate yourself before just showing someone killing oneself because there is a spike in suicides when it's graphically portrayed in media.

I'm not sure why you can't use "bitch," though? I'd have to see it possibly?

I don't think these words would "make or break" your entry into a program since the whole point of these programs is to learn. Everyone is just a lot more aware of what they say and do now because of the social climate that we're living in so I guess your interviewer thought he'd alert you, but should've done a better job of explaining. It's not a matter of just not saying a word or not doing something, but understanding why you shouldn't.

 

[alanray]

TW: Sexual abuse and suicide

I really don't know the context of these words used in your script, so I'm just going to speak in a general sense re: "beautiful." Sorry if I'm going to generalize, but particularly in the past, some writers have taken to simply describing women as "beautiful," while the male characters are given a lot more depth.

If there really is no getting around her attractiveness, such as we're seeing her through the eyes of another character or she uses her looks as a tool or whatever, then yes, describe her through her attractiveness. Do it for a purpose. Not simply because she's beautiful. The way I see it, it's a way to explore your character and find a more creative way to describe her.

As for the rape situation: It's become very commonplace to get women characters to grow or evolve through a really horrible situation they have to go through, usually rape. While rape isn't necessarily taboo, look at Room for example, the way that it's portrayed should be taken more seriously. There have been many instances in which it seems more like a situation to just see the woman in a sexually grotesque position. Again, if there's no getting around it, I think Room did a generally good job of it.

I see this all as another way to explore other story possibilities instead of censorship. It's a challenge, to have to force yourself to think outside of the ordinary. I also want to write about some topics that are hard to talk about such as mental illness and suicidal thoughts. That's another situation in which you have to educate yourself before just showing someone killing oneself because there is a spike in suicides when it's graphically portrayed in media.

I'm not sure why you can't use "bitch," though? I'd have to see it possibly?

I don't think these words would "make or break" your entry into a program since the whole point of these programs is to learn. Everyone is just a lot more aware of what they say and do now because of the social climate that we're living in so I guess your interviewer thought he'd alert you, but should've done a better job of explaining. It's not a matter of just not saying a word or not doing something, but understanding why you shouldn't.

The context to using the word "beautiful" in the scene was describing a woman that was very attractive versus a man that was dorky, comparing them, and then using that so we have a connotation of what to expect of the woman through personal biases and then realizing she is completely different from the expected. If anything, the woman was the more complex one here lol, I was just told to refer to her as something else than beautiful.

For the "bitch" context, It was just a couple arguing and the man called the woman a bitch out of pure anger. I was advised to take it out.

And the rape story, I was told that a writer tried to write a scene/character into his story involving that and that he received backlash from his classmates. Although I was not there obviously, and I didn't get all the details, so I can't make any sweeping comments about it. I do think you make great points though.

I very much agree with you. People should completely be educated about difficult topics before writing about them, because real life situations are lived out by real life people and what we portray can have consequences. Things like mental illness and rape are extremely serious and should be handled as such. I also believe one should have the freedom to write about basically anything they want just so much as they approach it with respect and purpose. It is our responsibility as writers to portray the human condition and that means all of it. The beautiful and the ugly.

 

[alanray]

Also I wanna say if I accidentally offended anyone I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers, I'm honestly a very non-confrontational type person lol. That was not my intention. These are just some of my thoughts that I stand by ?

 

[StarChild]

Also I wanna say if I accidentally offended anyone I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers, I'm honestly a very non-confrontational type person lol. That was not my intention. These are just some of my thoughts that I stand by ?

I think you’re ok. I actually think it’s important that people be willing to bring up all topics especially as writers. If we don’t write it, who will? And it gets increasingly difficult to bring up certain things. I don’t believe that a person needs to experience a thing to write it well- they just need to deal with it with respect and honestly think of themselves in those shoes and then write.

If we have to stay away from certain topics they won’t change. For instance, you have to be able to write a racist/sexist/chauvinistic/all the istic characters to be able to show the world they exist AND usually it’s good to humanize them so people can identify and then want to address the problem. Making a nuanced character that is bad somehow really shows the complexities of life. I imagine non of us started writing to be told what we could or couldn’t say. It’s super hard to say it, and saying it well always helps- but just so long as you have the vocab to express what you’re trying to get across in a room the room shouldn’t jump on someone. It’s hard cause heated topics are always gonna get heated- but hopefully they get heated in a discuss, learn and grow way.

I won’t speak for anyone else- but I wasn’t offended and I like the open discussions even when I don’t reply.

 

[StarChild]

@Dean I don't think you ever mentioned what your plan B is and you got me curious. What is it?

 

[alanray]

I think you’re ok. I actually think it’s important that people be willing to bring up all topics especially as writers. If we don’t write it, who will? And it gets increasingly difficult to bring up certain things. I don’t believe that a person needs to experience a thing to write it well- they just need to deal with it with respect and honestly think of themselves in those shoes and then write.

If we have to stay away from certain topics they won’t change. For instance, you have to be able to write a racist/sexist/chauvinistic/all the istic characters to be able to show the world they exist AND usually it’s good to humanize them so people can identify and then want to address the problem. Making a nuanced character that is bad somehow really shows the complexities of life. I imagine non of us started writing to be told what we could or couldn’t say. It’s super hard to say it, and saying it well always helps- but just so long as you have the vocab to express what you’re trying to get across in a room the room shouldn’t jump on someone. It’s hard cause heated topics are always gonna get heated- but hopefully they get heated in a discuss, learn and grow way.

I won’t speak for anyone else- but I wasn’t offended and I like the open discussions even when I don’t reply.

Yeah that's pretty much the exact point I was trying to make

 

[Septopus7]

I very much agree with you. People should completely be educated about difficult topics before writing about them, because real life situations are lived out by real life people and what we portray can have consequences. Things like mental illness and rape are extremely serious and should be handled as such. I also believe one should have the freedom to write about basically anything they want just so much as they approach it with respect and purpose. It is our responsibility as writers to portray the human condition and that means all of it. The beautiful and the ugly.

This is correct, and I feel like most people would agree. HOWEVER, I think the issue that comes into play is the whole "respect and purpose" angle, because everyone who ever tackles risque content believe they are doing it in a way that is with "respect and purpose." We know it was respectful. How could it not be? We are the ones who wrote it! So, eventually, the argument becomes one side saying "you wrote something that was offensive and poorly handled," and the writer, in turn, saying "Nuh-uh, it totally matters, I was completely being respectful, etc." But, at the end of the day, I err on the belief that anytime a creator gets flack for handling offensive material, they failed. Full stop. They may not believe they failed (or that the material in question is even that offensive!), but if it turned off a sizeable amount of viewers or readers of whatever, it is there (and "I" and "we" and "us") who takes fault. Not necessarily in the act itself, but in their approach to the subject. But digging your heels in and saying "PC CULTURE IS CENSORING me!" is not the right response. At all.

I'm not trying to pick on you at all with what I'm saying here, @alanray -- this is more a comment directed on the HUGE swath of writers, comedians, actors, what have you believing that "PC culture" is ruining art. Very rarely is that the case. When there is outcry on the offensiveness of your work, the culture at large is not solely the problem. It's like that old adage: if everyone you meet is an asshole than maybe, just maybe, you're the real asshole. If you're always finding yourself under fire for the things that you say or do...maybe try not to say or do those things? It's really not that hard to change. To get better. To realize what you are doing is in some way hurting others, and to not do that thing. Take the reactions of others to heart, don't just lump it into a barrel of being "persecuted" for your actions.

I'm rambling here, but this is something I've thought a lot about, especially with my focus on comedy. Yes, comedy is supposed to be risky and surprising and tackle things that other forms of entertainment don't. All that's true. But if the audience doesn't find something funny...maybe it just wasn't very funny? That is never taken into consideration for all the anti PC crusaders in the industry, and it speaks more to their own sense of hubris than anything else.

 

[StarChild]

Yeah that's pretty much the exact point I was trying to make

You did

 

[StarChild]

This is correct, and I feel like most people would agree. HOWEVER, I think the issue that comes into play is the whole "respect and purpose" angle, because everyone who ever tackles risque content believe they are doing it in a way that is with "respect and purpose." We know it was respectful. How could it not be? We are the ones who wrote it! So, eventually, the argument becomes one side saying "you wrote something that was offensive and poorly handled," and the writer, in turn, saying "Nuh-uh, it totally matters, I was completely being respectful, etc." But, at the end of the day, I err on the belief that anytime a creator gets flack for handling offensive material, they failed. Full stop. They may not believe they failed (or that the material in question is even that offensive!), but if it turned off a sizeable amount of viewers or readers of whatever, it is there (and "I" and "we" and "us") who takes fault. Not necessarily in the act itself, but in their approach to the subject. But digging your heels in and saying "PC CULTURE IS CENSORING me!" is not the right response. At all.

I'm not trying to pick on you at all with what I'm saying here, @alanray -- this is more a comment directed on the HUGE swath of writers, comedians, actors, what have you believing that "PC culture" is ruining art. Very rarely is that the case. When there is outcry on the offensiveness of your work, the culture at large is not solely the problem. It's like that old adage: if everyone you meet is an asshole than maybe, just maybe, you're the real asshole. If you're always finding yourself under fire for the things that you say or do...maybe try not to say or do those things? It's really not that hard to change. To get better. To realize what you are doing is in someway hurting others, and to not do that thing. Take the reactions of others to heart, don't just lump it into a barrel of being "persecuted" for your actions.

I'm rambling here, but this is something I've thought a lot about, especially with my focus on comedy. Yes, comedy is supposed to be risky and surprising and tackle things that others dare not to. All that's true. But if the audience doesn't find something funny...maybe it just wasn't very funny?

There’s a lot I agreee with in here and I do think that you very much have to look at your product and notes and see if it’s hitting the mark, but I also think that’s a learning curve. You aren’t likely to get dealing with a touchy subject completely “right” on your first try.

Also, for the idea of others being right- maybe. I mean yes- what you say is true if EVERYONE says it’s offensive etc then yeah hear that, but you also need to look at your audiences and hopefully your note-givers are upfront and good in that they can say “this isn’t my type of piece but here are notes that could make it work.” Some things will never work for some people, but hopefully, if it’s good- and those people are open- they can see if it works outside of their aesthetic. Those people take longer to find. Also you have to take into account if your piece is effective- were you trying to “offend” but in a way that makes people think etc. (I don’t think this applies to @alan ray’s material as he didn’t seem to be trying to offend.) I’m just saying there is no one rule fits all.
I do agree blaming PC culture isn’t useful but also that knowing when and how to break those rules is also a thing.

This is quick rambling and this discussion deserves more time and energy so please know this is not comprehensive of all my thoughts and there are giant oceans of grey on this topic IMO.

 

[kreativesoul]

My plan b is ucla. I applied to the directing/production program. I had my interview over the weekend and I fell in love with it. I haven't heard back yet from chapman or lmu.

 

[kreativesoul]

I also like that at UCLA I can take television writing electives. They focus on making writer-directors.

 

[StarChild]

I also like that at UCLA I can take television writing electives. They focus on making writer-directors.

That’s really cool. I didn’t know that.
Is it a 2 or 3 year for production?

 

[alanray]

My plan b is ucla. I applied to the directing/production program. I had my interview over the weekend and I fell in love with it. I haven't heard back yet from chapman or lmu.

That's great! I hope you get into AFI, UCLA, or both!