unChienAndalou
Member
OK... here's the deal:
I want to make valuable films in my future. I want to avoid becoming a mechanic Hollywood filmmaker, I want to become an authentic and well-cultured auteur, creating movies that denounce socio-policial inhumanities or explore the human existence and experience. Something between Tran Anh Hung (Cyclo) and Bergman.
I have always had my mind set on UCLA (since I've been in community college) until a friend of mine informed me about Chapman.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is how I see it:
UCLA:
pros
-one of the best critical approaches to Cinema and film production in the country, spawning well cultured minds capable of idealizing great films
-one of the best universities in the country, allowing me to take non-film classes with valuable professors and programs
cons
-not too keen on practical means, limited equipment etc.
-would not allow me to go directly into movie-making afterwords
conclusion
UCLA would allow me to stimulate my individual and culture my mind to make great films, but I would leave their program without the physical means to produce a movie. I could get a proper education on film history as well as world and literature histories. Develop my mind like a proper scholar should, and then figure out the practical aspects later, taking Internships or smaller programs to learn the actual trade.
CHAPMAN:
pros
-one of the best practical approaches to film production
-you leave work-ready, almost guaranteed a foot in the door to actual film making
cons
-wouldn't allow me to stimulate and culture my mind as much as a proper scholar should
-strictly Hollywood style approach (hence not critical and hence would hardly spawn a 'new school' of filmmakers
conclusion
Chapman would give me the physical means to produce movies. I could study world literature and world history/politics classes at while I take the production major, allowing myself to get noticed in film-making and guarantee myself a future in film-making while still stimulating my politically aroused mind, but then having lacked a proper concentration and education on theoretical aspects of world culture and storytelling.
I know how important the practical aspect of filmmaking is in a hollywood driven film industry; but I also know that practical aspects are not everything. Anyone can learn how to make a movie, but only a well cultured few can actually make valuable films.
This is just the tip of the ice-burg of my doubts, but hopefully its enough to sprout discussion. I should probably know more about both programs, am I correct in my assumptions about their programs?
Help me out please I'm going insane!
I want to make valuable films in my future. I want to avoid becoming a mechanic Hollywood filmmaker, I want to become an authentic and well-cultured auteur, creating movies that denounce socio-policial inhumanities or explore the human existence and experience. Something between Tran Anh Hung (Cyclo) and Bergman.
I have always had my mind set on UCLA (since I've been in community college) until a friend of mine informed me about Chapman.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is how I see it:
UCLA:
pros
-one of the best critical approaches to Cinema and film production in the country, spawning well cultured minds capable of idealizing great films
-one of the best universities in the country, allowing me to take non-film classes with valuable professors and programs
cons
-not too keen on practical means, limited equipment etc.
-would not allow me to go directly into movie-making afterwords
conclusion
UCLA would allow me to stimulate my individual and culture my mind to make great films, but I would leave their program without the physical means to produce a movie. I could get a proper education on film history as well as world and literature histories. Develop my mind like a proper scholar should, and then figure out the practical aspects later, taking Internships or smaller programs to learn the actual trade.
CHAPMAN:
pros
-one of the best practical approaches to film production
-you leave work-ready, almost guaranteed a foot in the door to actual film making
cons
-wouldn't allow me to stimulate and culture my mind as much as a proper scholar should
-strictly Hollywood style approach (hence not critical and hence would hardly spawn a 'new school' of filmmakers
conclusion
Chapman would give me the physical means to produce movies. I could study world literature and world history/politics classes at while I take the production major, allowing myself to get noticed in film-making and guarantee myself a future in film-making while still stimulating my politically aroused mind, but then having lacked a proper concentration and education on theoretical aspects of world culture and storytelling.
I know how important the practical aspect of filmmaking is in a hollywood driven film industry; but I also know that practical aspects are not everything. Anyone can learn how to make a movie, but only a well cultured few can actually make valuable films.
This is just the tip of the ice-burg of my doubts, but hopefully its enough to sprout discussion. I should probably know more about both programs, am I correct in my assumptions about their programs?
Help me out please I'm going insane!