Quick question:
Who are some directors that never went to film school?
Just really curious about that! Thanks
Who are some directors that never went to film school?
Just really curious about that! Thanks
Name some successful directors that didn't go to film school
- Thread starter HardWorkinFilmSlave
- Start date
I have to disagree with this. For many, film school is their door into the industry, and in such cases film school is anything but counter-intuitive.
I also cannot see how spending 5 days a week learning, studying, practising and honing your filmmaking craft, as well as making movies along the way is a 'lazy' man's way of learning film.
Well, the way I see it, a lot of people are too scared to leave the safe confines of school. There's no failure in film school, all you have to do is pay tuition and it doesn't matter what you make, at the end you get your diploma and a pat on the back. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sound cynical, but the reality is that aside from networking, film school offers you nothing that you can't get just as easily on your own, plus you have to pay a very high tuition that could leave you with lots of debt to pay off if you don't have a wealthy family funding you.
And when it comes to networking, that is also very easy to do on your own, you just have to put yourself out there more. I think that you can absolutely be a successful filmmaker coming out of film school. At the end of the day, if you have talent, you have talent. But that's kind of the whole point, film school won't do anything to change your inherent talent levels, and I think it's clear from looking at the list of directors who avoided film school that almost all of the most talented, original directors throughout the years have opted to skip it, and turned out very well
I disagree that people are scared to leave 'safe confines'. Again, it depends on the school. If you spend money on x online film school that essentially regurgitates FilmRiot YT clips, then yes it was a waste of money. But, the good school are generally not a waste of money. And realistically, film school is what you make of it - just as law school provides passing grades to both superstar lawyers and average lawyers, film school does too. That doesn't mean that all people who go through film school are average, in fact there's an alumni list of major film schools that would prove that point wrong.
No, it won't change your 'natural' talent, btu it will hone that talent into a tangible skill, and allow you to practice your talent and craft and make mistakes in a safer environment.
Sure, if you're talking purely Directors, there's an argument for both sides, but for almost any other craft, I would argue that film school is well worth it. Also, networking during film school is very different to networking on your own - in school you're networking with your own classmates who will be working industry professionals alongside you in the coming years (USC 'film mafia' anyone?) - look at the partnerships that were forged through schools like USC. You're also networking with your teachers who (at least in the good schools) are also industry professionals, often lecturing because the money is insanely good. It also provides you opportunities to go meet people, and a network of skilled crew who are also your friends that you can call upon if you need.
Not to mention that some of the better schools have industry producers watching graduate class students, to see who they should chat to. Some Producers recognise that some schools are going to produce great pupils, and I've seen producers and production companies snap up graduate students for either their first film out of school, or even their graduating short because they want to start the relationship and loyalty early before others can get a hand on them.
That's not to say you must go to film school, but it's most certainly more than a lazy mans way of learning the craft, and certainly not a waste of time, assuming you actually put anything into it.
I challenge this assertion. You are saying then that Directors such Terrence Malick, George Lucas, Robert Zemeckis, Martin Scorsese, Oliver Stone, FF Coppola etc., Cinematographers such as Roger Deakins, Jeff Cronenweth, Janusz Kaminski etc. and countless other film professionals are somehow less talented, and unoriginal?
Last edited:
I always have to chuckle at this debate. School or no, your career is what YOU make of it.
It's tremendously easy to list successful and respected members of all the crafts of film making who did and who did not go to "film" school.*
The discussion has no value. Regardless of the path, it is the person navigating it that makes the difference, not the path itself.
* - interestingly many of the examples who are held as paragons of the "you don't need school" side did, in fact, receive a post-secondary education of some form or another, just not at a "film school" nor as a "film major." See also Christopher Nolan, Stephen Spielberg, etc.
It's tremendously easy to list successful and respected members of all the crafts of film making who did and who did not go to "film" school.*
The discussion has no value. Regardless of the path, it is the person navigating it that makes the difference, not the path itself.
* - interestingly many of the examples who are held as paragons of the "you don't need school" side did, in fact, receive a post-secondary education of some form or another, just not at a "film school" nor as a "film major." See also Christopher Nolan, Stephen Spielberg, etc.
Last edited:
I agree. I find it very weird when people are like 'well, Chris Nolan didn't go to film school!'. Well, no, he didn't, but he did go to study English at UCL, one of the UK's top universities and every bit as competitive, hard working and long as a film school degree.
And, also, that's my path of choice.
Christopher Nolan's schooling:
So whilst he wasn't specifically studying a film-focussed program, I don't know I'd classify him as someone who didn't go to film school - Indeed, his schooling was focussed around his filmmaking, just not as a 'Film and TV' major.
The fact of whether successful people, or people you like did or didn't go to film school has absolutely no bearing on whether it is the right choice for you. Anyone can list names. You can list billionaires who didn't even finish high school. Does that mean everyone should drop out?
The other thing to remember is times have changed. Just because your favourite Director, who started their career 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago did or didn't go to film school, doesn't mean the same options are available to you today.
So whilst he wasn't specifically studying a film-focussed program, I don't know I'd classify him as someone who didn't go to film school - Indeed, his schooling was focussed around his filmmaking, just not as a 'Film and TV' major.
The fact of whether successful people, or people you like did or didn't go to film school has absolutely no bearing on whether it is the right choice for you. Anyone can list names. You can list billionaires who didn't even finish high school. Does that mean everyone should drop out?
The other thing to remember is times have changed. Just because your favourite Director, who started their career 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago did or didn't go to film school, doesn't mean the same options are available to you today.
Right... the days when film school is practically completely free online, and when the best cameras are digital, no money needs to be spent on film, then true the conditions are not the same. They needed it more than students these days, who don't need it at all.
You forget that:
a) Online courses can't teach you anything about actually being on set. They can't practically show you how to light other than explaining shots. They can't sit with you and show you exactly how to operate the equipment you're struggling to figure out. They can't allow you to access bigger and better equipment than you would ever be able to afford on your own, save for a lottery win. They rarely allow you constant access to industry professionals for advice and help on all sorts of things from lighting, writing, sound design to breaking into the industry. Also the better online courses aren't free anyway.
b) Tell me how you define 'best' camera. Certainly the cheapest cameras are digital. High end digital cinema cameras are just about as expensive as film, and tend to get you similar results (see: Alexa). RED is certainly nowhere near the colour reproduction or dynamic range of film, and the BMCC certainly isn't. Sony cameras aren't. The Alexa is close, but at it's day rate, you may find film cheaper to shoot on. How do you define best? Because if it's picture quality, then you couldn't say it's digital, save for a handful of cameras that might vie for the top spot. If it's ease and familiarity of use, I also wouldn't say digital, unless you're talking about Alexa - RED has a complicated and confusing menu system, and a monitoring and exposure system where you can barely even see the desired effect of your lighting on set.
c) No money needs to be spent on film? Yes, you can make a good film on a low budget. But you cannot make a film at all if you spend no money on it (where does the camera come from? Field recorder? lens?)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: film school is what you make of it. It's not for everyone, but it is absolutely great for some people.
To say that one way or the other is the only way you should do it, or that film school is 'completely unnecessary' or a 'waste of time' is wrong.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm gonna say this is a black/white issue. To say a director did or did not attend film school is a simple factual statement. They either did, or they did not.
The clubs that Chris Nolan took part in, etc. -- that's not film school, not even anything close to it. That's an individual choosing their own path, one that isn't prescribed to them by a strict college curriculum. Chris Nolan would probably be making REALLY boring films, had he chosen the more academic film route.
For what it's worth, I've taken a few college filmmaking classes. The first couple were introductory filmmaking classes, taken through the lens of anthropology, and then I took an intermediate filmmaking class, through film school. I enjoyed all of these classes, and I still use most of the principles I learned in them.
Since then, I've learned more by just doing. I think David said it best -- your career is what YOU make of it.
The clubs that Chris Nolan took part in, etc. -- that's not film school, not even anything close to it. That's an individual choosing their own path, one that isn't prescribed to them by a strict college curriculum. Chris Nolan would probably be making REALLY boring films, had he chosen the more academic film route.
For what it's worth, I've taken a few college filmmaking classes. The first couple were introductory filmmaking classes, taken through the lens of anthropology, and then I took an intermediate filmmaking class, through film school. I enjoyed all of these classes, and I still use most of the principles I learned in them.
Since then, I've learned more by just doing. I think David said it best -- your career is what YOU make of it.
Tom Hooper, Oscar winning director of the King's Speech, Oscar nominee for Les Miserables.
He started out shooting short films, went on to directing soaps, moved up to mini-series, movies and then won himself an Oscar.
We were at school together until the age of 16 when his parents pulled him out and sent him to a posh school. Very intelligent guy, far too intelligent to hang out with the likes of me!
He started out shooting short films, went on to directing soaps, moved up to mini-series, movies and then won himself an Oscar.
We were at school together until the age of 16 when his parents pulled him out and sent him to a posh school. Very intelligent guy, far too intelligent to hang out with the likes of me!
Sure, except that many people I've met who think they're really creative and have a deep, inherent talent for filmmaking aren't, and don't. If you're basing your decision on whether to go to school or not on your own self-assessment of your inherent talent you may want to get a second opinion or two from someone who'll be honest with you.
Also, talent is severely overrated - at best it gets you a jump start. If you don't follow it steadily with hard work you'll be left behind by those who do. In fact, apparent talent early on can be a handicap for the very reason that it can keep you from working as hard as you really need to be. So having a talent for filmmaking isn't an argument for skipping film school any more than not having a talent for it is - all that matters is the time you put into it once you get there (or don't).
This is a really interesting discussion. I am thinking about starting Film School in the Spring and I have heard arguments on both sides. Ultimately though, I enjoy school and why not put myself in an environment with other people who love film and want to make films as much as I do.
This reminds me of another debate I hear a lot..
I went to school for computer science, and of course there are self taught programmers as well that didn't go to school. Well.. I started programming at 12, taught myself a lot. Then went to college and learned more.
So in my field I have the perspective of both sides.. and I definitely learned things at college to make me better. But most of what I learned came from studying the textbooks.. and honestly I was not disciplined enough to go through some of those textbooks if I wasn't in a class. They were long, the material was extremely dry for some of them.. but school forced me to do it all and when i came out on the other end i was stronger for it.
If you're disciplined and smart enough though, yes you can access that material, practice and figure it out on your own. But that is a lot easier said than done. School definitely makes things easier on you, but it's not a gatekeeper
I went to school for computer science, and of course there are self taught programmers as well that didn't go to school. Well.. I started programming at 12, taught myself a lot. Then went to college and learned more.
So in my field I have the perspective of both sides.. and I definitely learned things at college to make me better. But most of what I learned came from studying the textbooks.. and honestly I was not disciplined enough to go through some of those textbooks if I wasn't in a class. They were long, the material was extremely dry for some of them.. but school forced me to do it all and when i came out on the other end i was stronger for it.
If you're disciplined and smart enough though, yes you can access that material, practice and figure it out on your own. But that is a lot easier said than done. School definitely makes things easier on you, but it's not a gatekeeper
Why not put yourself in an environment with other people who love film
and want to make films as much as you do by working on film sets?
The problem is you can't generalize like this - there's a big difference between places like art institute or fullsail and respected film departments at major universities like USC. It's certainly possible to go somewhere like AI and do very little and end up with a degree as long as you can make the tuition payments - of course it's also possible to take maximum advantage of your time there, do good work and learn a lot.
But failure in the top film schools starts well before you even get there. Most applicants won't ever get in. Places like the USC, UCLA and NYU film programs have acceptance rates below 5%. If you think the people who managed to claw their way to the top of that heap just coast through once they're in the door you're crazy - it's a competitive environment with a long line of people waiting to take your place if you can't cut it.
I went to a smaller UC and even then it was competitive. I applied and was rejected 3 times before I dropped everything, drove all night to get to the campus, demanded a meeting with the vp of admissions and basically talked my way into school. And that just made it possible for me to start fighting for one of the few production track spots in the film program.
So it doesn't really make sense to generalize about "film school" like that because the term covers way too broad a spectrum of programs and environments.
Because on a micro budget film, you'll be lucky to learn anything that will stand you in good stead for the professional world of film, and on a decently budgeted film you're a liability as you have to be taught everything and there is rarely time for such things unless you are the only assistant in the department, or are happy working in crafty.
Apart from the huge expense, I don't see anything wrong with the right film schools.
I've worked on some micro budget films already and I've tried to get work on slightly bigger film sets, but i haven't had a ton of success.