Let's say you don't have the necessary experience or relevant qualifications from film school, is it still possible to become something of a success in the industry these days? I mean, I know it's important to network and form connections, because it's a case of "who you know" rather than "what you know", but if you haven't studied film-making/script-writing at college or uni, can you work your way up simply by self-teaching?
How far can you go without attending film school
- Thread starter TheJasperCo
- Start date
I believe APE is. Either way, we're splitting hairs to define 'success in the industry'.
Yes, ANYONE can, and that's the whole point (!), there is no commercial/professional industry demand for what ANYONE can do! Completing a feature with little/no budget, getting accepted into low or mid tier film festivals, actually winning awards and even gaining praise from those critics who review amateur films, is certainly a considerable achievement. On the other hand, from a professional/commercial standpoint, all you have proven is that you are better than a number of other amateur/hobbyist filmmakers, you have not proven any knowledge or ability to work at a professional level or produce commercially viable work as defined/required by the film industry.
This statement indicates a lack of objectivity, a lack of ambition and a desire to remain an amateur/hobbyist filmmaker. All of which is of course your choice and is fine, there is of course nothing in the slightest wrong with being an amateur/hobbyist filmmaker! What is wrong, IMO, is confusing amateur/hobbyist filmmaking with professional/commercial filmmaking (or worse still, not even realising there is a difference!) and then forcefully pushing your views/approach to amateur filmmaking on to someone asking about the profession/industry!
If you have no experience of the industry, little/no knowledge of industry standards/requirements/expectations, no experience of producing work to meet or exceed those standards or of the various professional methodologies and workflows employed, how can you possibly judge what is an "excellent" book?
You may be able to judge which books have provided you with info which has facilitated your own personal style of lo/no budget amateur filmmaking but that's no indication of whether that book/info is even applicable to professional filmmaking, let alone excellent.
No, we're really not splitting hairs! If you don't actually work professionally in the industry and can only achieve distribution by self distributing rather than by one of the standard industry distribution channels then by definition you are not even "in the industry", let alone a "success" in the industry!
G
I don't see that at all.
There are a lot of different outcomes that could be described as 'success in the industry' - it could be as simple as getting a full-time job as a P.A. up to becoming a world-famous director.
There's also a spectrum of 'success outside the industry' which could be anything from just getting your feature made up to being commercially successful without going through traditional distribution channels.
Occasionally, but very rarely, they cross over - someone has a breakout indie hit that leads to them getting pulled into the industry. As a direct, proven path to an industry career though it's not a particularly good choice - it's on par with playing the lottery as a means to become a successful businessperson.
If someone's asking for career advice I think it's important to understand what their end goals are so that the advice is appropriate. If their goal is specifically to work in the industry then advice like 'just go make a movie' isn't particularly relevant, as it's not a means to learn the skills & norms necessary to get hired. Neither is "read a book", as much of the practical knowledge of how things work on a professional movie set just isn't written down - it's learned by doing and passed down from experienced crew members to those working entry-level jobs.
Learning & building a career that way isn't for everyone - it certainly wasn't for me, and it sounds like it wasn't for you either. I decided fairly early on that I wasn't interested in working in the industry, and I've built my career elsewhere as a result. But if someone else specifically wants a career in the industry I certainly wouldn't suggest they go about things the way I have, or that my path was superior or the best way to do it. Different goals, different outcomes, different appropriate starting points and paths to success. You seem to be dismissing these other approaches as a waste of time, while arguing that the approach you've taken is the only one that makes sense, without considering that your approach may be entirely inappropriate as a path to what someone else's end goals are.
APE, Man, you're really gonna become unglued if or when I land a Hollywood gig, aren't you?
-----
Donned, look at this way, if someone is going to make a career decision based on comments in an online forum, they're making a bad decision -- whatever they decide to do.
Wise career decision making involves making a LOT of research, and consultations as well as financial planning.
Here's the bottom line and here's why we're splitting hairs -- the kind of person that succeeds in the business has this certain thirst -- they're gonna go for it regardless what you or I, or anyone else says. There is no uncertainity involved -- they're going for it. A person with doubts and/or doing a lot of second guessing will likely bounce out after a few miles down this brutal road -- they just don't quite have what it takes even through they get all the way through film school.
-----
Donned, look at this way, if someone is going to make a career decision based on comments in an online forum, they're making a bad decision -- whatever they decide to do.
Wise career decision making involves making a LOT of research, and consultations as well as financial planning.
Here's the bottom line and here's why we're splitting hairs -- the kind of person that succeeds in the business has this certain thirst -- they're gonna go for it regardless what you or I, or anyone else says. There is no uncertainity involved -- they're going for it. A person with doubts and/or doing a lot of second guessing will likely bounce out after a few miles down this brutal road -- they just don't quite have what it takes even through they get all the way through film school.
Sure - someone who makes a major career decision based on any single point of reference (regardless of where it comes from) is probably making a bad decision. But the OP came looking for advice relevant to their situation, and hopefully that advice constitutes just one part of their decision making process.
I disagree with the part about uncertainty and doubt though - personally I think that's an unescapable part of anything that involves complex, thought-out decision making, life itself to be honest.
To me, when there doesn't appear to be any uncertainty it suggests you haven't really thought things out thoroughly enough or you don't fully understand the situation, or you're deliberately ignoring things that contradict your opinion. Those who succeed tend to be people who are comfortable with uncertainty and doubt, and willing/able to make decisions and progress despite it.
There's a quote from Jeff Bezos that I think summed this up well - people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds. When you don't allow uncertainty there's no room for the possibility that you're wrong, and pushing ahead when you are really wrong certainly isn't a path to success.
That's a classic survivor bias situation though - we generally only see the results of that when the person is proven right in the end. It's a mistake to assume that the key element in their success is that drive to push forward regardless of what anyone says; too many other factors play into the equation. There are likely far more people who just go for it and never really succeed in the industry, because when they don't succeed we're not going to hear about it unless it's someone we know personally.
I disagree with the part about uncertainty and doubt though - personally I think that's an unescapable part of anything that involves complex, thought-out decision making, life itself to be honest.
To me, when there doesn't appear to be any uncertainty it suggests you haven't really thought things out thoroughly enough or you don't fully understand the situation, or you're deliberately ignoring things that contradict your opinion. Those who succeed tend to be people who are comfortable with uncertainty and doubt, and willing/able to make decisions and progress despite it.
There's a quote from Jeff Bezos that I think summed this up well - people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds. When you don't allow uncertainty there's no room for the possibility that you're wrong, and pushing ahead when you are really wrong certainly isn't a path to success.
That's a classic survivor bias situation though - we generally only see the results of that when the person is proven right in the end. It's a mistake to assume that the key element in their success is that drive to push forward regardless of what anyone says; too many other factors play into the equation. There are likely far more people who just go for it and never really succeed in the industry, because when they don't succeed we're not going to hear about it unless it's someone we know personally.
Last edited:
Would you agree the path to success in the film business is among the most brutal of all careers?
It's a cake walk compared to what it takes to become a navy seal.. but certainly not as easy as it is to become a real estate agent.
Again, depends on what you mean by success. Do you define that only as becoming a commercially successful director? Or building a successful career as a grip, cinematographer, editor, writer, etc?
But brutal? Not really. It certainly may seem brutal if your idea of a 'path to success' is that you'll make a film, be discovered and rocket to fame and stardom, bypassing the hard work everyone else is doing - but I'd say the 'brutality' is just the collision of fantasy with reality. But that seems to be a uniquely odd trait of the entertainment industry in general - I rarely encounter people who decide they want to be a CEO or surgeon or master plumber and then expect that it's somehow going to happen without a decade or two of hard work.
Hollywood continuously hires interns, occasionally some of them work their way up and do eventually land full Hollywood gigs. In fact, this is one of the standard routes into the industry. However, if you're talking about walking straight into a Hollywood filmmaking gig as an amateur filmmaker (with no professional experience) then all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't know the difference between amateur and professional filmmaking and have a dream based on delusion!
That's a contradiction! Unless of course you believe that the internet cannot be used for research?
Without doubts or any uncertainty, are you talking about sane (non-delusional) people? Those with the most absolute certainty are generally the ones with the least understanding/appreciation of the realities of professional filmmaking and are therefore the ones most likely to fail!
For the OP, here's the equation: Hard work + talent + dedication + perseverance + film school + internship/apprenticeship + professional attitude = Professional career. Or rather, all this can lead to a professional filmmaking career in a responsible role but even with all this there is no guarantee of "success" and of course the vast majority "bounce out after a few miles down this brutal road". Can one leave film school out of this equation and still succeed? Sure but you've got to compensate for leaving it out! IE. More time/effort studying, practising, interning/apprenticing, networking, etc.
G
Last edited:
Once in the Navy you'll get a gist of what it'll be like to become a SEAL -- brutally hard training and development of specific skill sets.
Entering film school (especially if you don't) you'll have no clue about the brutally harsh road one travels to get to the top The speedbumps -- massive egos, exclusive clubs, intense competition, -- weed out all the most determined. Then there are things like luck, knowing the right people, the ability to pitch in 20 seconds and ass kissing. Did I mention that ASS kissing.
Entering film school (especially if you don't) you'll have no clue about the brutally harsh road one travels to get to the top The speedbumps -- massive egos, exclusive clubs, intense competition, -- weed out all the most determined. Then there are things like luck, knowing the right people, the ability to pitch in 20 seconds and ass kissing. Did I mention that ASS kissing.
This is pretty much what I was thinking reading this thread. 'Success' is a pretty subjective term, based on where you want to go with it. Do you want to be the next Spielberg? Do you want to make a good living from indy films? Become a well-connected go-to writer?
Whether you need film school is also pretty subjective, based on you. Are you a quick learner? A work-horse? Would film school be the best structured way to learn the ins and outs of the industry and the most efficient with good connections to be built and professionals showing you every step of the way? Well... yes, it would. But that doesn't make it vital, there are ways of doing that without an academic background.
I've never been to film school, have no idea how they would structure lessons and courses, or how successful people become afterwards. But it is a professional qualification which could give you a step up. That said, you will still need to prove yourself as competent and talented, and able to go with the stresses and strains of professional life to get jobs.
My experience is medical school. This of course is necessary, legally, in order to practice medicine, but it is also hard work along the way (and after qualifying). Personally, I think some professions are more 'brutal' than film-making is. The need to constantly learn new techniques in film-making, or new rules, is somewhat piecemeal - do you really need the new technique and to be able to understand and implement it to a high level for what you do? Maybe, maybe not. In medicine it is practically a legal requirement that you constantly have to do this, as well as understand legal principles surrounding your job, knowledge of other fields, and so much more, with the emphasis on continuous learning.
So the question is: How much effort do you want to put in, and how much sacrifice are you prepared to make to get to where you want? Nothing worthwhile is going to happen simply staying in your comfort zone. If you really want to make it in the industry, then like all professions, you need to work hard to get there.
Unlike almost everyone here, I don't see "Success" as something subjective. You either are or you aren't. Sure you can be satisfied with your position, but that doesn't make you successful.
The only thing I see subjective about it, is your desired career position. Success for a Director is being asked by studios to direct their next film because you've proven you could turn 30 million into 60. You might not be a household name, but you're certainly a name within the industry. Success for a Grip would be working with directors who can do just that, and continue to move from job to job all on successful, high budget films.
Success in an industry is a definable point in a career... being happy and feeling successful after making a 300 thousand dollar feature that made 400 thousand dollars isn't success, and if you think it is you're simply settling.
Ironically, I see the above as kind of subjective in itself
After all, making a profit on the films, if not success, is what? It's not failure, as your projects haven't failed. You may not be at the very top of the game, but not all success means being at the top. I think of it more as success being reaching a goal. Failure is if you don't reach that goal. And of course what sort of measure you use for success. Making lots of money to quantify it? Making something you're proud of? Winning a coveted award? Making a solid stream of productions instead of the 'one big shot'?The reason I think it's subjective is really because everyone's aims are different. But then I feel differently about success overall and success in parts. Success isn't always just a single point. If I made a film tomorrow how would I define that film as a success?. IF I made ten and half were failures, does that mean I'm generally successful, or generally failing, overall? And of course who decides whether it is a success or failure? I could view it as a failure while the audience think it's a success.
An athlete who becomes a national champion is successful despite not winning at worlds if his aim is the nationals. For others it's a matter of continuity and consistency.
No offence intended if I came off a little brash there. Debate is healthy
Well does being successful in the film industry making studio films that make a lot of money? Or is it making films according to your vision that don't make as much money but gain critical appreciation and a strong following? I think that different people have different goals.
I think Steven Spielberg is a successful filmmaker, but so is Hou Hsiao-hsien. Obviously one is trying to make big studio productions while the other is trying to make more personal films that comments on his society in Taiwan. Hou Hsiao-hsien has gained funding for several projects and has directed 18 feature films, two short films, produced several films for other directors, and is currently making his 19th feature film. I know that Spielberg has directed 25+ films or so, and is of course his films are among the most financially successful of all time. But I think these two filmmakers have two different specific goals and each has succeeded at reaching them. But more importantly, these two filmmakers have one shared general goal and it's that because they love movies, they want to be able to make movies when they want to (secure funding for projects), and generally these movies fit their vision, and of course have the intended audience watch the films. My general goal as a filmmaker is this one, simply to make movies when I want to and hopefully have them fit my vision, as well as having the films reach my intended audience.
Financial success is not the only way to look at 'success.' Just ask John Cassavetes or just about any other filmmaker that got to make the films that they wanted in the way they wanted to make them. Financial success is definitely an objective thing, but the word "success" can mean the accomplishment of any goal, and not everyone's goals are financial when they are making films.
Hou Hsiao-hsien...
Flight of the Red Balloon lost about 3.2 million US dollars
As depressing as his film's outcomes are... he doesn't seem to like to announce the budget he's working with... in the 2000's that's the only one I could view on IMDb...
However, I was using financial as a determiner in my examples as it's far easier than winning numerous prestigious awards or making a cult following (worthy of mentioning).
I can't say if Hou is successful, I don't know his career... the amount of awards is nice, but it looks like almost all his films are just flops with awards... Just looking at it, I'd say he's a settled career.
Hou Hsiao-hsien is one of the most celebrated contemporary arthouse filmmakers. He's one of the two leaders of the Taiwanese New Wave (Edward Yang is the other one), and as I said, he continues to secure funding for the films he makes and he has made a lot of films. He is definitely a successful filmmaker. Kun Hao Chen is an unsuccessful filmmaker, while he made some pretty interesting films he didn't catch on like Hou or Yang and ended up only directing three films because he couldn't secure funding. Wan Jen is also an unsuccessful filmmaker for the same reason. Of the original Taiwanese New Wave filmmakers there are only two successful filmmakers (directors), Hou Hsiao-hsien and Edward Yang as they had longer careers and made the films they wanted to make and were always able to secure funding for their work. Of the two I would say Hou Hsiao-hsien is the more successful (not necessarily better) because he got to make more films that he wanted to make, while Edward Yang struggled to get funding a lot of the time due to his big budget (for Taiwan) flop Taipei Story (again I'm not discussing the film's quality, I think it is a masterpiece even though it was a flop). Hou on the other hand had a pretty huge domestic financial success with A City Of Sadness, and if it weren't for political reasons he would probably be a primary force in Taiwanese cinema (commercially) with his other historical films despite his distinctive aesthetic.
In any case, my point was that success doesn't necessarily mean financial success. I was trying to say that most filmmakers have the common goal of being able to make films they want to make, and they need to secure funding for this. Hou Hsiao-hsien has been able to secure funding for all of his films, and he has made many films therefore he is a successful filmmaker in this goal that he has in common with most filmmakers. If you've ever seen Hou's work, you can probably tell that he isn't interested in financial success, so there it's not a matter of failure or success, he isn't seeking financial success nor are the people funding his films. Now is Hou successful as an artist or not? I think awards have very little to do with it. Countless cinephiles and critics consider him to be a master, his films are touring the country in a great retrospective of all of his films, and other filmmakers such as Jim Jarmusch consider him to be a master. I personally think he's a master filmmaker, and most anyone that has seen his best films (and he's considered to have at least five masterpieces, arguably a few more) would agree.
Last edited: