film schools
1
for the longest time hollywood simply ignored the few film schools then in existence. after all, with b-movies, they already had their own in-home training program. left alone, film schools adopted a holistic approach in their teaching. they took for granted their job was to nurture complete filmmakers as opposed to specialists. history, theory, and production were seen as connatural. form was judged as important as content. bold creativity was encouraged. diversity in thinking and execution promoted.
it took the blockbuster age for hollywood to revise its attitude toward film schools. why go to the trouble and expense of training personnel when you can get someone else to pay for it? the teaching however had to be reformed if the schools were to graduate more george lucases and fewer rebels. so professionals joined the faculty en masse, taking control of the instruction process. nothing in the curriculum or the college catalogue was changed but the emphasis in the classroom was now squarely on workaday knowledge. not only are students pushed early on to pick an area of specialization (cinematography, editing, etc.), they are also expected, within that adopted field, to duplicate the techniques used in commercial movies. by and large, film schools presently see it as their job to groom filmocrats for the industry.
2
as godard once noted, there are a lot more film schools (300 + in the us alone) than noteworthy filmmakers. if you are interested in making good, honest films, not batman 14 or fast and furious 17, forget about film schools. do your own thing instead. check websites such as nofilmschool.com for background information. the journey may not be as smooth but you will be working throughout the process with films that mean something to you.