As with any film school, you're going to get out what you put in.
Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly called Ryerson, the name changed because the guy was the architect of the residential school system... YIKES) had a reputation for being the best film school in Canada when I applied back in 2017. It was that or Concordia by popular consensus. For good reason, as many of Canada's most exciting young filmmakers came out of this program in the past 20 years, including Brandon Cronenberg, Jasmin Mozaffari, Kazik Radwanski, and Andrew Cividino. While I do think the landscape in Canada has shifted a bit (York University is becoming much better, with younger and more exciting faculty like Matt Johnson, and Sheridan College's thesis films have routinely impressed me more than most work coming out of TMU), there are still a lot of things about this program that simply can not be beaten.
As with any program, there are pros and cons, so let's get into it.
- One of the key selling points here is the LOCATION. TMU puts you right in the smack of the dab of the middle of downtown Toronto. It is the heart of the industry, the center of activity, with no end of great experiences to be had with film culture. I mean, you can attend your first week while taking breaks between classes to go see premieres at TIFF. It's a beautiful thing being so close to everything. With this said, it's easy to let the location go to waste, and you need to be looking for opportunities and work within the city, otherwise you may as well be studying in the middle of nowhere. You're in downtown Toronto, make the most of it.
- A huge selling point of this program, and the strongest thing about it in my opinion is that the entirety of first year is spent Shooting on 16mm Film. I LOVED how assignments restricted us to shooting one reel of 16mm, which was about 5 minutes total of footage. By doing this, students learn the fundamentals of planning what they're shooting, and economy of shoot time. There's no room to waste or do a million takes. You need to make every second count or be out another $100. (Also, for those interested in analog film, some of my peers were taken on as apprentices in the school's on-site film development laboratory).
- On the other hand GEAR CAN BE OLD/DAMAGED. There were very few productions I was on that did not run into issues with the school supplied gear. This ranged from 16mm cameras with huge light leak issues, completely ruining assignments, to highly unreliable sound recording equipment. For the most part, the gear is great, but there's always something that requires an emergency phonecall to the Cage.
- I always say that film school is basically paid networking, and it is true that the most valuable part of any film education is the people that you become friends with and create collaborative relationships with. In terms of classmates, I loved the variety of people that this school gave me an opportunity to meet and collaborate with. I will say, however, that 95% of my classmates had next to no interest in movies, which has never ceased to confuse me.
- Worth mentioning that a few years after graduation, only one of my peers has completed a feature film to date, and they dropped out of the program in second year. So this isn't a program that pumps out filmmakers ready for a feature within a few years.
- The FACULTY IS A MIXED BAG here, with a mixture of former professionals who have not been working in the industry for at least 20 years, and younger professors who are still making great art. I often found that these older "career professors" were giving information that was totally out of date or mostly useless, and it really feels like the program is full of this type. On the other hand, there are some young professors who really make the value of this program go up, as they are actually currently working in the industry and are making waves. Highest praises go to Karen Harnisch, who actively connects students with the industry and helped many of my peers with getting jobs. Unfortunately, professors like her are currently few in number, meaning connections with alumni and industry feels quite rare. But the ones like Karen really make this school shine, and hopefully as the old guard retires, the school truly flourishes again.
- The program is primarily HANDS-ON, meaning you will be making 5 Films in First Year, 4 Films in Second Year, 2 Films in Third Year, and 1 Thesis Film in Fourth Year. For those seeking practice making movies (as we all should be), you get a LOT of valuable hands-on experience.
- Those seeking a more academic approach to film will not be pleased here as there is a bit of an anti-intellectual atmosphere within the school and the faculty (something I discussed with a former faculty member who left for UofT). Film History and Theory are treated as unfortunate obligations, and feedback and criticism among classmates is not really something that is encouraged or taught.
- On that last point, this program is pretty soft in terms of feedback, so those looking to grow will not get the constructive criticism needed until thesis year slams you to the ground. Any professors who offer solid and strong constructive criticism routinely receive complaints from students, meaning that only one or two profs are willing to actually tell you what you need to work on. There's a lot of coddling that happens here, and everyone only hears good things about their work - it can be nice, but I felt like it was hard to grow in that environment at times.
