Hi guys, wanted to speak on a couple of things:
1st off: Columbia is a great narrative school. I've heard nothing but glowing praise for their writing department. They concentrate above all else on story and, truth be told, lately their films have topped all the major film school's in festivals AFI, USC, UCLA, Chapman, and NYU. But the experience you'll get there is definitely not industry based and doesn't prepare you as much for working in the studios as it does for doing independent film. Which is also great. If you're not completely certain please please please contact "Tima" through PM (She's somewhere on the forums or I could point you to her facebook privately). She's a great friend of mine who has been at Columbia for about a year and can give you meaningful insight into the program. (Meaningful, because she is IN the program so what she can tell you is not merely hear-say.)
Secondly-- Chapman's admission reel is just a sampling, not the total of Chapman's work. The films on the reel were from at least 2 graduating classes ago-- maybe more. Chapman's film school has been around for less than a decade with the Marion Knott studios around for only 2 years. Its a baby film school (Can you really compare a 10 year old to a sixty year old fairly?), but it has recently acquired many seasoned professors from AFI, USC, Columbia so basically we're in the learning how to walk stage. This is good and bad-- it means people are working their hardest to "make" the school competitive-- but it also means we're swimming up stream in terms of reputation. The notoriety its received in the past few years its been open should speak volumes-- and its too young a school to have stagnated, resting on it haunches because its already attained famous alumni (This statement is in no way about Columbia, I'm not a part of that program). There have been a few recent thesis/cycle films that don't fit the stereotype people might get from just watching their reel. Also being a baby school, nothing is set, you have ability to change the program and the program will grow with you. In fact, until recently they didn't stress the collaboration between writers and directors-- which is why the majority of stuff seen by many of you was written by the director while the screenwriters spent their time knocking out 3-5 features (many have agents, a few have options or deals). Now, there are more directors realizing that they need writers to make more than surface stories. This will, inevitably change the feel of Chapman films. I'm not saying you should go here, I'm just helping you make a more informed decision. You know you're personality and what you want from a School. I applied to 2 schools last year, got in both. What I wanted in a school was access to equipment and professionals. I knew no one could teach me creativity. I didn't go here to learn that. I came here for access to tools, tuition that wouldn't kill me, and insight into the business I'm getting into.
3-- whoops, there is a 3. Ignore as much as possible other people's "opinions" on where YOU should go. When you visit a school and meet its students, faculty, etc you'll know whats right for you. This is especially true if the people giving advice have never experienced the programs they're advising upon. This is a very personal decision. And what you said about making the movies you want to make, wherever you go is true. No school can really change the type of artist you already are. They can merely give you tools and means of showcasing yourself.
I hope this helps and doesn't just confuse you further.
