Filipe,
I am going to quote Werner Herzog to explain why the AFI.
"Many great filmmakers have been astonishingly physical,
athletic people. A much higher percentage than writers or musicians.
Actually, for some time now I have given some thought to
opening a film school. But if I did start one up you would only be
allowed to fill out an application form after you had travelled
alone on foot, let's say from Madrid to Kiev, a distance of about
5,000 kilometres. While walking, write. Write about your experiences
and give me your notebooks. I would be able to tell who
had really walked the distance and who had not. While you are
walking you would learn much more about filmmaking than if
you were in a classroom. During your voyage you will learn more
about what your future holds than in five years at film school.
Your experiences would be the very opposite of academic knowledge,
for academia is the death of cinema. It is the very opposite
of passion".
This is from the book Herzog on Herzog. I have to agree with the man. At least for me filmmaking is more a passionate process than rational. Life experiences are important of course. Film theory is completelly irrelevant (this is just my opinion though) to be a good filmmaker. Either you have the sensibility or you don't. You can't teach or learn that. For me the purpose of going to film school is to film and film some more. Also to meet the right people and film some more. I like AFI's conservatory format. I like the program being two years versus 3 or four. For some people it may be important to have some theory courses. I think you can learn all the theory you need just by watching all the films you can (better if they are "good" films...) and reading and travelling. Living. I come from the field of architecture, so for me is really important the networking and the connections I hope I'll get from AFI. I don't really know, my heart just tells me this is the one for me. We'll have to wait and see.