The New Cinema School: Wave of the Future or Death of an Art?

For previous posts I have looked to the entertainment industry for material on the latest developments but this week, with the official unveiling of the new School of Cinematic Arts (SCA) building and the accompanying fundraiser for the four facilities still under construction, it appears that Hollywood's eyes are focused on USC. I will take this opportunity to follow suit. This weekend the new SCA complex was shut down to students and vamped up for its official coming out party. Celebrities, studio heads, and potential donors were on hand to celebrate with faculty, board members and of course our benefactor George Lucas (pictured). On March 26th and 29th Variety featured articles about the event. This past February, the New York Times also wrote about the new building, emphasizing that an "institution long known for close ties to Hollywood's movie and television business is demanding its place in the academic tradition." Founded in 1929 as a collaboration between the University and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the USC film school was the first program in the country to offer a bachelor of arts degree in film and has since remained on the cutting edge of the industry while continuously being ranked as one of the top institution in the nation. Nevertheless there is currently a growing concern that USC has become a sort of vocational school, training its students to become technicians in order to fill certain crew positions rather than fostering innovative filmmakers and encouraging the true auteur with an original point of view and a unique vision. The new edifice, an over the top monstrosity of technology reflects this growing issue and raises the question of whether USC will continue to produce the successful future filmmakers of America or if its emphasis on technology will stifle individual creativity and artistry.

Over the years USC has kept pace with advancements in editing and sound manipulation and will continue to do so in the new state of the art facilities. However, success has come at the expense of more traditional curricular offerings. Such a trend became alarmingly apparent this semester when a core course of the graduate program, CTPR 508, a class in which students are paired up to shoot two short movies on 16mm film stock, was changed to a digital HD format. There is no longer a requirement for graduate students to capture their own projects on the medium of film and it appears that the undergraduate program's comparable class CTPR 310 will suffer the same fate. Having personally taken this course and learned much from it I feel its absence will diminish the SCA student's experience. The cameras used in these classes do not record noise so it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to separately record, edit and mix all the sounds—footsteps, clothes rustling, breathing, special effects, et cetera—in order to create the world on screen. This course teaches students the power of the soundtrack, the importance of good visual and audio communication versus reliance on dialogue alone to communicate the storyline. By shooting on HD, the students record conversation and ambiance on set and are allowed up to forty percent of their film to be comprised of on-camera speech. In 2001, when writing about the Robert Zemeckis Center, the first SCA digital film building, journalist Rick Lyman contended that “digital data is much more elastic than film images, frozen on celluloid. A director can shift the perspective of a scene, add a fresh camera movement, alter an actor's performance, transfer the location from Red Square to Times Square, speed up time, [and] slow it down.” As a result of these capabilities the “we will fix it in post” mantra is heard far too often in film school rather than preparing students to effectively plan their shooting schedules or intelligently address problems that pop up on set. Lyman also spoke to Myrl Schreibman, an academic administrator at UCLA’s film school who believes “that creativity flourishes with limitations and restrictions, and if you give schools all the bells and whistles, they stop focusing on content and instead focus on what the bells and whistles can do.” Ability to shoot HD may be a valuable skill to master but SCA is a cinema school and film is still an art form, not just the medium around which an industry was created. Learning to shoot 16mm is essential in teaching students lighting, experimental filmmaking and good storytelling.

Sean Berens, a contributor to USC’s AngeBlongo writes that “the front gates of the new building[pictured] are deliberately meant to look like a studio. What those gates will soon be producing are people equipped to work in studios.” I agree that it seems that SCA, and according to the New York Times writer Sharon Waxman, most film programs, "rather than a breeding ground for auteurs, ha[ve] become a path to a professional career in Hollywood, a foot in the door and a place to make connections."The training we receive places greater emphasis on a given technical expertise rather than storytelling as a whole. I came here to learn how to fully express myself artistically, but over the years I have felt the growing pressure to focus on a specific skill set rather than learning as much as possible about the entire process. Currently on the “producing track,” I have found myself considering doing sound editing on an advanced project to ensure that I graduate with a marketable skill in a less competitive field than directing or producing. While I understand that the mastery of technical skills is beneficial for many film students who always hoped to, or after having taking certain classes decided to, pursue careers in editing or sound design, I feel it is premature for me to give up my dreams and already resign myself to being completely practical as I have been trained to do. While Dean Daley told the New York Times in February that the program and the new building is “very holistic,” and that “we’re not here just to train a cameraman” she was previously quoted in 2006 in the same publication as saying that "we would like to see every student who leaves here have an employable skill." So which is it? Is USC providing us with vocational skills or training the next Spike Lee, Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola? Ideally we would like the education to teach both but with the new program changes in effect, finding a proper balance has not yet been achieved.

This is especially challenging on the undergraduate level, where students do not make thesis films that showcase their talents as writer/directors. Currently the most advanced course in the program is CTPR-480 (or its television based equivalent CTPR-486). Comprised of forty-eight students who work in crews of twelve to complete four twelve-minute films, each member has a specific position much like on a real film production, and the goal is learn to perform one’s function professionally. Each semester only four are chosen to direct and it is a highly competitive process, especially since most students come to school with the goal of becoming a director. Many who do not get this opportunity feel at a disadvantage when they are seeking industry employment. While USC requires that students wait until their second year to begin production classes, in other film programs like NYU/Tisch and CalArts students begin making films in their freshman year. As a result they are able to complete more projects and benefit from those additional learning experiences. Furthermore, according to Film School Confidential UCLA students begin crewing on upper division projects as first years as well as work directly in the industry when they are in their final semesters therefore they “come out with quite a few films under their belt and often some professional credits to their names.” UCLA seems to have reached a balance between content, technical skills and creating relationships with the industry. Lastly, Film School Confidential makes the assessment that USC is “heavily geared toward Hollywood-style filmmaking and focuses far more on getting jobs- on technical training and on pitching ideas to agents and studio executives-than it does on actually writing and directing compelling films.” While other film schools concentrate on story development and nurturing autuers, USC is about teaching the business and technical aspects, all of which are meaningless if you don’t have an engaging story to tell or the creative skills to flesh it out.

What is most interesting is how Lucas himself views this complex. At the unveiling he told the crowd "[w]e're now officially a legitimate school--at least, we look like one," and in February he was quoted in the New York Times as saying “[t]he only way you are going to get respect on a college campus, or a university campus, is to build something that is important. Schools and universities mainly understand money.” He felt this building would bring legitimacy to SCA and to film as a major but as I have argued above, it seems to be promoting more of a vocational rather than a creative agenda. Furthermore the students find the building impersonal and confusing. They cannot park their bikes inside, bring coffee into class, or smoke on the balconies. Until preparation for the unveiling went into full swing the walls were white and totally bare, making the hallways appear labyrinth like. The facilities are not working properly—the high tech projectors are not correctly calibrated and they warp the image one has worked so hard to capture. A trip to the editing lab generally involves changing computers at least once due to technical difficulties. The new building is glitzy but glitchy. These latter problems can all be remedied with additional work on the complex but the bigger issue of fostering vocationalism and promoting creativity simultaneously, and not one at the expense of the other, remains the greater challenge. Whereas at present the scale is tipped in favor of occupational skills over artistry, only time will tell what the new edifice will ultimately succeed in building for the future of the USC film program and its student body.

Fan Me!: A Look at Entertainment Advertising on the Web

As a film production major at the University of Southern California I have learned that a producer's work doesn't begin or end with the making of a film. A producer must also oversee the advertising, marketing, distribution, and promotion of a film. For that reason I decided this week to return to the blogosphere to research details on the process of marketing television shows and movies. Since I am working, with this blog, within the confines of the world wide web, I have chosen to seek out and comment on blogs that address how entertainment is being advertised on the web. I looked at both the broad subject, with a post from Variety entitled "Entertainment Brands Get Equal Footing with People on Facebook" that analyzed how television shows and films will now use Facebook user profiles as advertising, as well as the specific, with the post "Who Will Watch The Watchmen?" that dissects Watchmen's viral campaign. "Entertainment Brands Get Equal Footing with People on Facebook" was written by Ben Fritz for his "Technotainment" blog on Variety.com where he writes about digital media, technology and gadgets from the Hollywood perspective. Fritz is the videogame reviews editor for Variety, the editor of the satirical website Dateline Hollywood and co-author of the New York Times best seller "All the President's Spin". "Who Will Watch The Watchmen?" was written by Gillian Reagan, a writer for the New York Observer, a weekly printed newspaper in New York that is updated daily on the web. Both writers contribute to respectable publications that are both in print and on-line. Although Variety is the more popular of the two in the entertainment industry, both posts address the subject intellectually, make comparisons to the past, and incorporate links to models and outside sources. Reagan specifically includes many hyperlinks to the Watchmen campaign. I have posted my comments directly on these blogs but for convenience I am also including them and links to where they can be found, below.

"Entertainment Brands Get Equal Footing with People on Facebook"
Comment

As a college age student I have had experience with Facebook and have joined and participated in some of these old "fan" pages in anticipation of a film release or a television series debut. I found it very interesting to learn that these entertainment brands switched their Facebook interface. While I agree that the older fan pages limited the amount of information consumers received about the product I believe that these pages were beneficial because they were interactive and spearheaded by a community of fans. Even before fan pages were officially added to Facebook, users formed groups that honored their favorite films like Garden State(fan group pictured above) or Igby Goes Down (group names include Igby Goes Down=God and Igby Goes Down > Garden State). Not all of the information on these pages was official nor was it even comprehensive but they were user driven, fan created and therefore conveyed the attitudes of and feedback from those praising or critiquing the films and shows. Taking these fan pages out of the hands of users and putting them into the hands of big companies as you cited with the South Park example, is expressly counter to the idea of user driven social networking. I think you are right to lament that "letting brands own their pages is, of course one step further away from Facebook's original mission to let Harvard students post individual profiles". I wish you had included in your post information regarding whether these companies pay for these pages. However either way I disagree with Facebook allowing these fan sites to be taken over by the brands at the expense of user control. I think the monetary issue is an important one that should have been addressed in this post. Do you think they are paying for these pages? If they are, do you think this is appropriate for a social networking site?

Additionally, you claim that "for entertainment brands like movies, TV shows, and bands, engaging with fans on one of the two biggest social networks just got a lot more powerful." Do you think that fans really want to join a fan site that is monitored by the brand when they could speak more freely and openly on their own site or form their own group? Additionally, how many users are actually using a site like facebook to look up information on a film when they can access more accurate and detailed information from Imdb.com, or any other movie specific site? What is the benefit of having a page like this on a social networking site which most people use to keep in touch with friends and meet new people? Even if they join a fan page, do most of these users actually interact on a regular basis or contribute to these pages? If not what's the point? It is very easy to click, add and forget.

"Who Will Watch the Watchmen?"
Comment

I am glad someone else in the blogosphere was perplexed and disappointed by Watchmen's viral campaign. As a film student and an avid comic book movie fan I was excited and enthralled by the initial Watchmen trailer. Even though I am not a huge fan of viral marketing nor am I an expert on the subject, I was curious about what Warner Brothers would roll out for the Watchmen campaign after the hugely successful "Why So Serious?" campaign accompanied The Dark Night's release last year. Having never read the Watchmen graphic novel I expected to get introduced to the comic book from the online campaign anticipating that it would reveal even more about the movie. However, like you, I felt the campaign fell short. I found I had to seek out and search for the campaign which had failed to become part of mainstream "must watch" pop-culture. Additionally, I agree with your assessment that "most of the material is too complicated, self-referential and obscure to attract a mainstream audience-and that may also be what is wrong with the Watchmen movie itself." Like you, I found that the campaign preached to the choir in that it did more to appeal to existing devotees rather than attract new fans, a complaint that I have read elsewhere about the film itself. Having since seen the film, I do agree.

As you touch on in your article, the online community was more excited by the casting and production news about the film than the actual viral campaign(one web site is pictured above) advertising its content. Do you think this says something about the effectiveness of viral campaigns in general or do you think it is specific to the shortcomings and mistakes of this particular campaign? If you do think it is specific to this campaign, as you seem to indicate in your article, what would you have done differently to improve the campaign? Do you think the timing of the campaign impeded its success? The Dark Knight campaign, which you praise in your article, was implemented at least eight months prior to the film's release whereas the Watchmen campaign began in mid-January approximately seven weeks before the film's debut, thereby limiting its promotional value to entice future movie goers. Despite this possible misstep the question remains, given the complicated nature of the film's content could Watchmen have ever really succeeded in becoming part of mainstream culture?

Project Presents: For the New Pilot Season, AFTRA Is In and SAG Is Out!

Last year’s crippling writers’ strike is still fresh in the minds of both Hollywood power players and the American public who witnessed all new and original television content disappear practically overnight. True, each show had a few episodes in store that were shot prior to the strike, which the producers were able to economically debut at varying intervals to maximize the number of weeks remaining before the shows went into indefinite repeats, but overall the strike’s effects were devastating to both the industry and the media-consuming public alike. No one wants a repeat of what transpired, especially in the present economic downturn, but with SAG, the Screen Actor’s Guild, and the AMPTP, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, currently unable to reach an agreement in their negotiations of SAG’s new contract, this remains a real possibility. Even more troubling than their failure to reach an agreement is the success of AFTRA (The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) in signing a separate agreement last summer with the AMPTP in lieu of teaming up with SAG to negotiate jointly as it has previously done. As a result of AFTRA’s success and SAG’s unresolved negotiations, those in charge of the approaching 2009 pilot season are increasingly choosing AFTRA contracts over those of SAG. Fifty of the seventy pilots that have been greenlit for filming and network presentation are doing so under AFTRA—sending a message to SAG that they better settle negotiations quickly, or lose out on the season altogether. The more AFTRA shows are made the less power SAG has to negotiate with now and—if AFTRA becomes the increasingly popular choice beyond this season—in the future. Indeed, there are already indications of a more permanent utilization of AFTRA contracts in primetime television

Whereas in the past there was a clear distinction between the two unions—AFTRA represented television and radio artists and SAG solely covered feature film contracts—recently both unions have begun taking on projects in all three categories, blurring the distinctions between each while simultaneously expanding the competition for jobs. What makes AFTRA so appealing to Hollywood executives right now is the security it offers. For almost a year SAG has been plagued by infighting due to dissenting opinions within its own bureaucracy. Richard Verrier points to the strides SAG is making to address and ameliorate their internal problems, specifically by ousting Doug Allen, the former chief negotiator and a strong advocate of striking, in the hopes that his removal would bring a resolution of the negotiations, but as of yet no progress has been made. However, with the television world securing alternatives and moving forward without SAG, even if the organization were to strike, they have lost much of their bargaining power. The best strategic tactic any union has is the ability to picket, but as the general population felt with the writers, television is where the audience first experiences the impact. While the industry recognizes the immediate ramifications of a motion picture actor’s walkout, because it means shutting down production on all films, the American public and international audiences do not see any tangible effects for one or two years, when new movie debuts cease. The film content slated for 2009 and 2010 has already been shot, and studios will have to release them on schedule in order to keep revenue flowing. Absent the backlash from the general population that affected the writers’ negotiations, SAG would have difficulty gaining an upper hand by imposing a boycott. Furthermore, during the writer’s walkout last year, Dave McNary wrote in Variety that the support of SAG and the Director’s Guild was key in solidifying a WGA (Writers Guild of America) win; yet according to Patrick Goldstein, SAG would not get much support right now because of the recession, but more importantly he argues that “when the WGA went on strike, there was a true sense of solidarity with other guilds, notably SAG, based on the feeling that the studios had pushed things too far…the WGA had the high moral ground. SAG today doesn't have similar support.” If the perception of intransigence on the part of SAG members persists and if the union’s reputation as being difficult to deal with continues there might very well be a repeat of AFTRA dominance even after SAG has worked out its issues.

What may in the end cement AFTRA’s return to primetime dominance is its positive impact on the bottom line. All AFTRA projects are required to be shot on non-film mediums, which led to its success in the 1960s and 1970s when recording multi-camera comedies on video was the norm. When the cost of film processing declined shortly thereafter the industry shifted back to celluloid. However with the current boom in HD technology and the new RED camera, a digital tool that looks like thirty-five mm, going back to alternative formats for television seems like a smart and convenient way to cut one to two percent of production budgets without cutting production value or jobs. Cheaper costs mean more profit for the networks and studios, which is important right now especially with online downloading and video streaming stealing television viewers and advertisers. The most important thing is to keep the industry working and delivering to its audiences, who have been faithful. Since the beginning of 2009, movie ticket sales have been up17.5% and theater attendance has risen 16%, indicating that while the rest of the country is experiencing the hard hits of the recession Hollywood is booming. Accordingly, studios should be investing in new projects, but the possibility of a SAG walkout is keeping them at bay, worried that a strike could push Hollywood into financial crisis. If this were to happen, a backlash would most certainly ensue, leaving SAG even more alienated than it already is. In the end, money talks, and it will continue speaking long after SAG has a new contract. The best suggestion to SAG would be to keep negotiating, settle quickly, and avoid any disruptive strikes, because in this town, when you’re out, you’re out.