Film course
August 12th 2009 01:02
The school has created four films so far... Are they crap? Well, to be honest, yes. And in all likelihood, my year's film won't be much better. But the previous films were still given theatrical release, and two of them qualified for the AFI awards.
Add to that the fact that this course is part-time, is the cheapest course in Sydney, and that any profits the film makes will be split between students and school, and the whole package really is an astonishing opportunity. Robert Rodriguez shot "El Mariachi" for US$7000 (only $600 of which was used on production values -- the rest was film stock purchasing, and lab development). Kevin Smith's "Clerks" was produced for US$27,575. And, theoretically, we have access to much better resources than those guys (we just don't have their talent).
Anyways, over the next few months, I'll post a bunch of posts about film-making and acting. Consider yourself warned.
(Update from Monday 15 February 2010: Now that I've almost finished the course, and spoken to many members from previous years, I feel in a position to give reasonable advice about whether you should or shouldn't do this course. If you're thinking about studying film and video prodution and would like to hear about the highs and the lows of Participate, send me a message or leave a comment below.)
***
Trailers from previous films: --
Battle Therapy
This was the first year's film; and the first year, obviously, was something of an experiment. There were around 80 students enrolled in the course, but only four of them were crew members -- the rest were actors.
Battle Therapy Too
Another version of the same film, also produced in the first year (they had so many students they had to have two groups working at once).
Green Fire Envy
Second year's film. The class was much smaller, because Participate didn't spend as much money on marketing.
I don't know if this is technically the best-shot film so far, but I found its images the most memorable.
Particular kudos should go to Ashleigh Cummings, who plays the young girl in this film -- she raised the most money in fundraising (some $10,000), and turned in a decent performance, whilst balancing her Participate activities with high school.
Sweet Marshall
The 2008 production. It was a production that went through a lot of problems (for instance, a key actress quitting before the end of the shoot, scenes having to be rewritten on the spot, sky colouring having to be fixed in post-production).
The acting, on the whole, was the best so far -- they used non-student actors. Camera work and editing was probably technically the best. Story was all over the place.
***
If you can tell that these films are student films, what exactly are you identifying? Is it the acting, the cinematography, the lighting, the editing; or is it the absence of something, like a "moment of wonder"?
Any comments you'd care to make are useful because, presumably, those are precisely the problems that my class will have to try to avoid...
| 70 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
As for what story... Well, at the start of the year we all pitched different stories, and then took a vote. From there, it gets complicated -- different years have done things differently. Group writing in general is a tricky thing, and easily becomes a case of too many cooks.
Basically, anyone can be on the writing team who wants to be, but a month or two in, you have to make a choice -- writing classes are held at the same time as other classes.
In our year, to be perfectly honest, the writing teacher has been responsible for most of the story, because he has a twofold task: he's supposed to teach us, and there has to be a result, since everything depends on script.
We didn't start this way, but we've slipped into a process of working out the story beats during class (brainstorming, and then having the teacher decide what happens next). I personally have a lot of issues with this method. For instance, I'd argue that groups never produce unity of composition, and that trying to brainstorm and get agreement like this doesn't allow room for thinking carefully about a problem. I'd much rather that the courses were structured as workshops, that individual people could produce their own scripts, and that, three or four months into the course, we simply took a vote on which script to use.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Anyone out there who's wanting to learn to make movies... Save the money you would have spent on the course, and instead buy a Canon 5D Mk II and other equipment. Most anything that you need to learn, you can learn from YouTube, forums (like DVXuser#, books, DVDs, Creative Cow, VideoCopilot, Philip Bloom, etc. Your showreel counts for a lot more than any accreditation.
Basics of video camera handling and operation you can probably learn from a weekend course at Metroscreen. Or, just ask a cinematographer.
Basics of film camera operation -- two week course at AFTRS.
On-set protocol -- assist as crew on half a dozen shoots.
I'm no guru, but am very happy to answer any questions you have if you ask at this blog or my other blog on low-budget filmmaking.
Bottom line: in my opinion, most film schools, #especially) including Participate, and including universities, are a big waste of time and money.
Comment by VViLL
Can you recommend the most established, well recognised film school in Sydney? I have already been to uni (architecture and planning) and dont much like the ide of doing another "university" course. I want a course that will emerse me within the industry and provide me with a decent qualification.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous
But mostly, you will play with one he approves.
Participate Film Academy is really not a big Academy and as a learning institution, it it NOTHING like what you are thinking. I have met a few past students who have nothing good to say about this school.
It is cheap....and cheap for a reason!!!!
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
The price is neither here nor there. Who cares if it's cheap. Metroscreen is also cheap, but it's a great place to go to -- 80% of grads get employment in the industry, allegedly.
I think the price is probably commensurate with the qualification offered and the hours of instruction (a Saturday each week for a year, as opposed to full-time study in other places#. Previously (up to 2010) there wasn't a qualification. Now, there's some sort of diploma.
Incidentally, there are other costs that will inevitably come up. The course fee isn't all you'll pay. Be prepared for that if you want to do this course. People are expected to raise a budget before the film starts. If you fail to raise the budget, you'll be paying out of your own pocket for many things. Consider the lost income when you have to take weeks away from work to work on the film. Consider the living expenses if you have to shoot on location. And there is also a personal cost -- plenty of people have lost girlfriends and boyfriends because they've neglected them to work on the film (on the other hand, there are some cases where people have hooked up).
Learning -- not great, compared with what I've experienced elsewhere. OK, fairly terrible. Sorry, any Participate people out there; that's my opinion, and you're entitled to yours. I honestly think very very few ex-students would recommend the school or want to work with Art again. Mind you, I think most film schools are missable. You learn more by following Phillip Bloom's blog, or visiting Video Copilot, or hanging out on DVXuser, etc.
A lot of the learning at Participate was simply watching DVDs -- in particular, Dov SS Siemens' DVD and the Hollywood Camera Work DVDs. Some industry people occasionally (very rarely) came in and taught for an hour or two, but their classes, while often full of insights, were unsystematic, and I doubt very much that they taught sunk in or connected to actual practice. A lot of classes and homework were pretty irrelevant. Things like reading, "How to win friends and influence people" (I kid you not), or instruction on how to build a team.
On the other hand, you learn things like rolling cables and taking care of gear that I don't think you're properly taught in other places. I know a lot of cameras at TAFEs get roughed up, for instance.
As for Art deciding the script... That's pretty much true. If you did write a script that appealed to him, I think he'd consider it. But if it doesn't appeal (which is the most likely scenario), then he'll tell you that he's funding the whole thing, and what he says goes, and you have to use this other script instead.
But if you're prepared for him to do all this, then you won't feel hard done by.
It's the same for every creative decision. Most of the time, he'll simply take over. The whole thing is Art's show; you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
The unavoidable interpretation (and this might NOT be true; who knows what Art thinks) is that he's simply using people to provide money and labour to make his own films, to provide vehicles for family members with acting aspirations, etc.
This is how it looks, and how most ex-students see it (I've talked to them!). Art knows that people think this. Of course, I don't know if this is what Art actually thinks. In fact, I'm skeptical that Art is consciously manipulative.
I believe he rationalises it to himself. I think he thinks, "They're struggling. I have to step in, or the whole thing will be a mess." There's some truth to this -- anyone who's been on a student set knows how long it takes to get things done (not that Art was that much quicker from my experience -- spent hours fiddling with dedolights). But there's also the fact that, by constantly stepping in, Art is preventing people putting anything of themselves into the films (they simply become automatons, workers), and he's also preventing people learning from mistakes.
Basic message -- adjust your expectations. You're going in there to work on Art's film, not to make your own film. In my year, Art chose script, actors, locations, directed, was cinematographer... This wasn't what I'd signed up for, so I was disappointed. But if I'd known what to expect, then maybe I'd have thought differently.
You learn things about how to get movies made -- how to get locations, how to save money, cut deals. You learn things on set that it might not be easy to learn elsewhere -- taking care of equipment, working under a lot of frustration and pressure, working long, long hours #sometimes around 16 hours a day#, and how to cope with copping a lot of abuse from Art #he regularly speaks to crew in a way that would be unacceptable elsewhere#. You also learn plenty of things not to do.
So the experience is worth something; where else will you get the chance, while a student, to work on a feature film, albeit a feature film at the very, very low end? And as crappy as the results are (and I'm not being mean -- let's be honest -- they're all kinds of bad), the process still has some degree of professionalism, and the results do get theatrical release (through a relationship with Hoyts Fox Studios and others), and probably will get entered in the AFI Awards.
Would I have done it if I knew what it was? No. I'd have saved my money for gear and taught myself.
Did I learn something? Yes.
Was the learning good? No. But things may have changed. Who knows.
Could I have learned more elsewhere? Yes. But there are also some things I probably wouldn't have learned elsewhere.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Most established school is AFTRS. But what I'd recommend is to enrol in Metro Screen's 3-month full-time course, or to save up money and buy your own gear.
TAFEs are OK.
From what I've heard, avoid everything else. Universities, JMC (unless doing animation), Sydney Film School, International Film School, etc. If you want to know why, ask.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
I reckon, if you have the balls, you should make your own film instead of working on someone else's. Get a copy of The Guerrilla Filmmakers Handbook. Watch the commentary to Rodriguez's El Mariachi. Buy Dov SS Siemens' DVDs. There's lots of resources out there to finding out how to go about this. If you don't have the balls to do it now, will you be in a much better position after pouring three years and a tens of thousands of dollars into a degree course?
Sydney Film School -- I know very little about this, but I used to go to high school #and university# with the guy who runs it. I know nothing about quality of instruction, and have never met anyone who goes there. I think they bought Red One cameras a few years back. If they can afford such things, they must be doing well. This would make them one of very few places in Sydney #or Australia# that has such equipment #costs around $1,000 per day to rent normally#. How much time students actually get to play with the cameras I don't know.
What they charge per year, I don't know; but the thought sickens me of spending $20,000, $50,000, $100,000 per year on any film school, even if it's allegedly the best in the world. The sheer waste of money. Give me just $10,000, and I'll make a decent film for you. It's a bit like the way acting classes are a limitless black hole that you pour your money into, the teachers preying on the dreams and desperation of the students.
About money for Participate, I think I might as well make a few quick notes:
-- In addition to your course fee, you're expected to raise money for the film, and to pay for your living expenses while making the film #which add up a lot since you're not working at the time#. The idea is that the course fee does NOT go towards the film, but goes towards the teaching throughout the year. Repeat: students must raise money to pay for the film #and for associated living expenses# in addition to their course fees.
-- Money is raised through any fundraising idea you can think of -- holding a band night and charging a door fee, selling chocolates, running a lottery... My year performed pitiably in raising money. Maybe $2,000 among among half a dozen or so students. The year before us apparently raised $12,000 with around a dozen students, the year before them $25,000 with two dozen students. The year before that was much larger #some 80 plus students#, and they would have raised much more again.
-- If you don't raise money, basically you must pay out of your own pocket. The producers #student producers and Art# simply assumed #without discussing it with the rest of the class# a discretion to spend on items they thought were necessary, and to hand us the bill afterwards. It must be said that, at the end of the day, they didn't spend that much money in the scheme of things. Would have cost each of us a few hundred at most. Expenses not accounted for #but which presumably could be deducted as business expenses for running the school# include things like petrol, stationery, phone calls.
-- The films themselves don't cost an awful lot, but expenses build up fast. The main expenses are food #for yourself, actors, etc#, accomodation, transport, consummables. In some cases, damage to equipment #eg a broken spreader for a tripod#. You'll find on any low-low budget production that food is one of the main costs, and costs more than you might think. I think -- it must be said -- that most of the damage expenses would have come out of Art's own pocket #albeit that pocket was lined with course fees#. For instance, I think some actors damaged the lapel microphones when they yanked them off their clothes, and I don't remember being separately charged for the cost of these.
-- Consummables: most expensive were light globes #can run to a few hundred each# and tape stock #Art used to shoot on DVCPRO 50, which cost a few thousand#. Other stuff included gaffer tape, and various bits and pieces... Also, thank you presents. One great thing I learned from Art. He was big on emphasising "leave the location better than you found it" -- tidy up all garbage, including stuff that you didn't create -- and also give anyone who helps you a six pack of beer, or a bottle of wine, or some other gift.
-- There were also expenses in post production. For instance, the purchase of several large hard disks to edit on and use as backup #much cheaper now than it used to be#. And potentially unlimited expense in organising any marketing, etc. As much as you can afford. I'm not sure of what expenses are involved into transferring into a theatrical format #eg DCP#, but this wouldn't be cheap, and for our year probably came out of Art's pocket/course fees rather than the collective students' pockets.
-- Most locations we got for free, but some we paid for #including a hospital and cemetery -- each about $200/$300 per day#. On one occasion, we rented a house for a week, and both lived and shot there.
-- Art supplied all equipment #camera, lights, sound, grip equipment#, so there were few times anything was actually hired. A girl in our class used to work for a company that hired out roadwork equipment #like lights and cherry pickers#, so we got those for free! Occasionally rented a car to transport gear. The value of all this gear, if we had paid for everything, would have been a fair bit. Mind you, we didn't need everything he had; people have made better feature films on a lot less.
-- Actors and crew on deferred payment. If there's a profit, it gets split. The trick is that "deferred" means "never". I think everyone accepted that and wasn't doing it for money. It was never specified how much each person would get in the event of profit; the contracts simply said, "up to discretion of producer". Also, when you say that PROFITS are alotted, this means after expenses have been recouped. And there's so many ways to inflate the number. For instance, Art could fix the hire rate of his equipment at whatever price he liked, and could charge for his own time at whatever price he liked.
Comment by Anonymous