# UCLA vs. CHAPMAN



## unChienAndalou (Aug 16, 2009)

OK... here's the deal:

I want to make valuable films in my future. I want to avoid becoming a mechanic Hollywood filmmaker, I want to become an authentic and well-cultured auteur, creating movies that denounce socio-policial inhumanities or explore the human existence and experience. Something between Tran Anh Hung (Cyclo) and Bergman.  

I have always had my mind set on UCLA (since I've been in community college) until a friend of mine informed me about Chapman. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is how I see it: 

UCLA:
*pros*
-one of the best critical approaches to Cinema and film production in the country, spawning well cultured minds capable of idealizing great films
-one of the best universities in the country, allowing me to take non-film classes with valuable professors and programs
*cons* 
-not too keen on practical means, limited equipment etc.
-would not allow me to go directly into movie-making afterwords 
*conclusion* 
UCLA would allow me to stimulate my individual and culture my mind to make great films, but I would leave their program without the physical means to produce a movie. I could get a proper education on film history as well as world and literature histories. Develop my mind like a proper scholar should, and then figure out the practical aspects later, taking Internships or smaller programs to learn the actual trade. 

CHAPMAN:
*pros*
-one of the best practical approaches to film production
-you leave work-ready, almost guaranteed a foot in the door to actual film making 
*cons* 
-wouldn't allow me to stimulate and culture my mind as much as a proper scholar should
-strictly Hollywood style approach (hence not critical and hence would hardly spawn a 'new school' of filmmakers 
*conclusion* 
Chapman would give me the physical means to produce movies. I could study world literature and world history/politics classes at while I take the production major, allowing myself to get noticed in film-making and guarantee myself a future in film-making while still stimulating my politically aroused mind, but then having lacked a proper concentration and education on theoretical aspects of world culture and storytelling. 

I know how important the practical aspect of filmmaking is in a hollywood driven film industry; but I also know that practical aspects are not everything. Anyone can learn how to make a movie, but only a well cultured few can actually make valuable films. 

This is just the tip of the ice-burg of my doubts, but hopefully its enough to sprout discussion. I should probably know more about both programs, am I correct in my assumptions about their programs?

Help me out please I'm going insane!


----------



## cschu011 (Aug 16, 2009)

Chapman....a garentee at getting in the film indistry?

umm NO.  No film schoo is a garentee.  If you want to make films MAKE FILMS. So go to a school where you can do that.

Filmmakers are passionate artist who put their whole being into becoming a filmmaker.  The fact that you said UCLA has limited equipment, should have awsnered your question about which school to go to.

Sure they have good professors.....but your not going to school to make a living off history...your going to school to become an artist.

Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## unChienAndalou (Aug 17, 2009)

I don't just want to make films. I want to make valuable films. I have a camera and have made shorts, that's not the problem. It's that I want to be cultured and have a good education. Good movie makers haven't necessarily been to film school, many have studied philosophy or political science only to later learn the practice of movie making. I want something in between. 

I guess I'm hoping that someone will boast about UCLA and note that there's always time to make movies later on. I need to hear from someone that sustains that it's worth the hard work to get into UCLA, that the program prepares you like no other, that the people there share my ideas on movie making as a cultured medium. 

It's that Chapman seems like the easier way, UCLA the more prestigious. But is it just prestige or is there something more to it that makes UCLA one of the most discusses film schools? Is it just the acceptance rate that livens all the fuss?


----------



## Mike_V (Aug 17, 2009)

You almost make it sound like Chapman is not a pretigious school. Chapman is an extremely nice school in general. Even here in studentfilms it is mentioned as one of the "Big 6". 
Hosnestly if you're doing undergrad it really doesn't affect you that much. What you should be doing is go for a film studies major for your undergrad and then go for a "practical" major for your masters degree. I do not know of any school that has a good strong blend of theory and practice together in 1 major, so I suggest you start with theory then go practical. 
Also, Try to focus more on which program will achieve your goal rather than doing hard divisions between different schools (school A is practical and school B is theory). UCLA and Chapman are both really great schools and it's up to you to figure out what your direction would be.

Lastly, being a cultured film maker does not require you to be in a fancy school, it's all about how much you are willing to study and step beyond normal boundaries of what education has provided you. Graduating from UCLA does not suddenly make you the Autuer director that follows Truffaut's (pardon the spelling I forgot how to spell his name) criteria.
Good luck.


----------



## unChienAndalou (Aug 25, 2009)

I know Chapman is a great school. I know more about the Chapman program than I do about the UCLA program. I guess I'm trying to know more about the UCLA program. 

The fact that UCLA is public and would be better off without a great amount of students means that in someways their program comes off as secretive... in other words if you take a tour of Chapman they'll try to persuade you as to why their school is the better choice, they'll even bring you coffee if you ask. UCLA is more reserved. Even when I went to talk to a counselor at SMC they always lean towards advertising Chapman and lean off UCLA. 

I want to know what the actual courses, professors and experiences are like. A film school always has to have theory. Chapman teaches you how to use the camera, but also how to utilize composition, how to portray certain ideas, emotions, etc, with usage of mise on scene, rhythm, montage or other to convey the subject; extremely more so intriguingly when you are also the auteur of the subject. Each author/professor has theirs to say about it. 
I want to know about the nature of the courses. Take Eisenstein's student's notes from "Lessons with Eisenstein," how would you compare classes to that?

What I'm trying to figure out is if one of these schools is too much of one extreme than the other. I'm sure that UCLA could focus more on the theoretical approaches to writing and  _directing_ (this is where less equipment may at times be a plus) and that it wouldn't be time lost. But I also want to have the physical means and tools to make films one day. I don't want to do critical studies, I want to study production, directing, but I also want to study else. HOW IS the UCLA production program oriented around culturing filmmakers? Howabout Chapman in contrast?

Going through film production undergrad at UCLA then masters at Chapman sounds interesting... does that sound realistic? 

Oh yeah.. now I remember the biggest thing that turned me off of UCLA: the trailers to their film festival shorts. They were visually unappealing, immediate turn offs, but maybe there was more to them (i saw only the trailers). Then I saw Chapman films, aesthetically appealing but often empty or useless; I did see a couple pieces that were more interesting intriguing useful.


----------



## Ard23 (Aug 25, 2009)

I'm in the UCLA grad program. If you really value taking on challenging socio-political themes, becoming cultured in the liberal arts, etc as a way to become a better filmmaker, do what i did and DO NOT get a Bachelor's in film. Its that simple. Study history, literature, political science, etc. and maybe take some film theory classes on the side and tool around with your camera on the weekends. UCLA is a great school to nourish your mind in that way.

UCLA does have limited equipment, and us grads get first dibs on all of it. That said, its a mischaracterization to say that UCLA is not practically-minded. It is very hands on and real-world oriented while still maintaining an independent spirit. I wasn't too impressed with what i saw of the undergrad program, but then again i would probably feel that way about any undergrad program from my vantage point in a grad program.

And yes, UCLA is terrible with PR. That doesn't speak poorly of the school, just some of the people working at the school. Chapman is a for-profit private institution, so they sell you on it. UCLA is a state school with a state school attitude when it comes to self-promotion.

Also i don't know what trailers you saw but i can assure you that the best UCLA films every year are both technically professional and have good stories.


----------



## unChienAndalou (Aug 25, 2009)

Why do you have so much disregard the UCLA undergrad program? 

How about the grad program? Would you recommend it? 

Pardon but I don't know much at all about what happens after the a bachelors, I'm barely getting a hand of the first application process... 
Do you need to have a bachelor's in film to take your masters at UCLA or can you come from another major? 

Otherwise would it be beneficial to take the UCLA grad program after taking, say, Chapman's undergrad?

Your post really compels me, Ard23!


----------



## AshleyM (Aug 25, 2009)

Chien,

You'd likely be duplicating your efforts if you did your undergrad and your grad work both in film.  If you are set upon going to grad school, study something else for undergrad.  It will make you more valuable as a filmmaker and many schools will appreciate that you are more well-rounded, which will help you in your filmmaking.

However, having said that, be sure that the grad school you are interested in attending doesn't have certain prerequisites before being accepted to their program.  There are a couple in which perhaps a minor in film or a couple film classes would be necessary in order to start their program.  You'd have to do that research on your own, of course.

If you are only considering Chapman for grad school, then you definitely would not want to study film for undergrad.  They do not require a film degree in order to be accepted into the grad school, and, in fact, seem to embrace the diversity and life experience that people who have studied in other areas and perhaps worked in the "real world" a bit before attending bring to the school.


----------



## unChienAndalou (Aug 25, 2009)

> Originally posted by AshleyM:
> You'd likely be duplicating your efforts if you did your undergrad and your grad work both in film.



So grad school is the same as undergrad? I thought a grad school is a sort of specialization in the subject of your undergrad, like a masters degree or somewhat? I didn't know they could be taken in different subjects.

This sounds interesting... has anyone done this before and can give suggestions?


----------



## Ard23 (Aug 26, 2009)

No its not the same, its a more focused and intense experience, and (key point) is undertaken by people who are older (usually) more mature, and with some other experiences under their belt.

I don't mean to slam undergrad film programs, or those who enroll in them. But the fact is you do alot of growing up between ages 18 and 22, and once you're past that phase of your life perhaps have a better perspective to be a more effective storyteller.

And that's what its about: storytelling. When you are in your formative years, studying mythology, literature, history, philosophy, etc. will open your eyes to the human experience, the human condition, why people do what they do and the broader scope of how storytelling has changes through the centuries and how it has not. Then once you are sure and ready that filmmaking is what you want, you will have something to actually make a movie about, instead of making movies about people making movies (a common undergrad trap, and one i fell into myself).

UCLA's undergrad program is very highly regarded, and i met some very talented students who were enrolled there. I just knew that it didn't measure up to the grad program in a lot ways (quality of faculty and courses, time devoted to actually practicing how to direct, access to equipment), and for me personally i'm glad i chose to study something else as an undergrad before committing to film as a grad student.


----------



## Danielldrummond (Aug 26, 2009)

Master's and Bachelor's can be taken in different areas.

However, I don't understand this idea that you shouldn't do both undergrad and grad school on film. You could very well take a undergrad in film studies and a grad in production, or go the other way around. Or you could even do undergrad in production and take a Master's in a more specialized field, such as cinematography or screenwriting.

In addition, I have researched the major film MFAs programs, and they don't give any preference to people who did undergrad in history, philosophy, etc. As a user above said, they may even require film credits. So, it is even better to do undergrad in film.

Oh, and of course, the main reason: if film is what you love, and you are going to spend 4 years and a sh*itload of cash in college, it better be spent on something you like, don't you think?


----------



## Danielldrummond (Aug 26, 2009)

> Originally posted by Ard23:
> No its not the same, its a more focused and intense experience, and (key point) is undertaken by people who are older (usually) more mature, and with some other experiences under their belt.
> 
> I don't mean to slam undergrad film programs, or those who enroll in them. But the fact is you do alot of growing up between ages 18 and 22, and once you're past that phase of your life perhaps have a better perspective to be a more effective storyteller.
> ...



I completely agree with what you say about "having something to actually make a movie about". It is completely true, and Scorsese also agrees with it:

“Of course, you may find that the biggest problem of young filmmakers is that they nothing to say. And invariably their films will be either very unclear or very conventional and geared toward a rather commercial market place. “

It is a known fact that young filmmakers usually, uh, suck. Just look most of student films. They have no life experience, many times are egocentrial, and think Transformers is the best film ever. If you like tranformers, well sorry hehe The point is that most people at age 20 don't know anything about anthropology, sociology or even psychology, things that play a major whole in storytelling.

But I don't think that studying something else as an undergrad is the solution. It may have worked for you, but that's just you. If you are a mature, educated student who seriously dedicate to studying other areas, you will exceed all expectations as an undergrad, especially when all your undergrad classmates don't.


----------



## unChienAndalou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Originally posted by Danielldrummond:
> But I don't think that studying something else as an undergrad is the solution. If you are a mature, educated student who seriously dedicate to studying other areas, you will exceed all expectations as an undergrad, especially when all your undergrad classmates don't.



This is true, but then how much further could you exceed if three years after studying world cultures or literature or whatever, you still have your mind set on going to film school?  This would seem to give me the time to do what I want to do before I am given the responsibility to make budget films. Study distant cultures while studying film, study abroad, travel, make my own films.  

Then decide on film schools. 

But then other problems arise: apart from the natural probability that my interests may be drawn elsewhere by then, it seems that grad programs cost a lot more. At Chapman they seem to openly welcome non-film graduates into their grad program (as it says on their site at least), but the tuition is $70?!? Do they offer scholarships and support?  

Is the UCLA grad comparable to the Chapman grad? I guess that if I were trying to take the undergrad in else then grad route, I would have to consider the University to aim towards after I graduate, prior to application; to see which courses I should take in addition to the major?


----------



## Danielldrummond (Aug 26, 2009)

> Originally posted by unChienAndalou:
> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danielldrummond:
> But I don't think that studying something else as an undergrad is the solution. If you are a mature, educated student who seriously dedicate to studying other areas, you will exceed all expectations as an undergrad, especially when all your undergrad classmates don't.



This is true, but then how much further could you exceed if three years after studying world cultures or literature or whatever, you still have your mind set on going to film school?  This would seem to give me the time to do what I want to do before I am given the responsibility to make budget films. Study distant cultures while studying film, study abroad, travel, make my own films.  

Then decide on film schools. 

But then other problems arise: apart from the natural probability that my interests may be drawn elsewhere by then, it seems that grad programs cost a lot more. At Chapman they seem to openly welcome non-film graduates into their grad program (as it says on their site at least), but the tuition is $70?!? Do they offer scholarships and support?  

Is the UCLA grad comparable to the Chapman grad? I guess that if I were trying to take the undergrad in else then grad route, I would have to consider the University to aim towards after I graduate, prior to application; to see which courses I should take in addition to the major? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't be offended, but I didn't understand a single thing in this post   

What I did understand iare two things:

You said that there is a natural probability your interests may be drawn elsewhere? You're not sure you want to do film? Well, that's a different thing. You should be sure of what you want to do. I have been decided to do film studies for more than half of my entire life, I don't even consider doing something else.


You also brought up the costs for grad programs. Well, I must say that I really did not take that into consideration. I am a student from Brazil,and so my financial status is a bit different. I don't plan to pay a single cent for my graduate studies. I will apply to grad scholarships, which are A THOUSAND TIMES easier to get than for undergrad. Therefore that does not affect my decision as it might affect yours.


----------



## unChienAndalou (Aug 26, 2009)

What I meant was _possibility_ not probability, my mistake. I have to admit that there's a possibility. Who knows where I'll be in three years if I take that route.  

My end goal, again, is not just to make movies, but to make valuable movies. I need to develop an idea of what it means to make a movie valuable and whether or not it can be valuable at all. 

My reasoning brings me to put everything into doubt, only after thorough examinations of my doubts can I effectively come to the best of conclusions.  

So sometimes I ask myself whether or not making movies is valuable in itself. I compare it to, say, literature. Works of literature have helped humanity go on and progress with meaning; I want to add to this meaning in my own way. I see potential in movies, I love movies. Having doubts about whether or not film is valuable as a medium may bring me to dislike it, or it may bring me to appreciate it more so than I ever have. The longer the inquiry, the more prepared a filmmaker is (that is, if he ever comes to make movies). 

Daniell...
You say that a mature, educated student who is seriously dedicated, etc, will do good in undergrad. I say that a student who is coming to grad with already another degree will do even better, no? 

So how realistic does this idea sound though? Would changing the discussion to 'which grad program between UCLA and Chapman is more reccomendable after a Bachelors in something else' be too much? 
And are scholarships for grads really that much easier than for non-grads?

Sorry for all the fuss and questions but this community has been great!


----------



## Jayimess (Aug 26, 2009)

What are you even asking here?  These posts are so full of film scholar speak I can't even figure out what you want to be told.

All filmmakers want their films to be valuable, but each filmmaker attributes value differently.  

I do not see the point in getting a film production BFA at Chapman and then going and getting a film production MFA at UCLA, or vice versa.  It's a waste of time and energy, not to mention that you'll be spending money instead of making it for the duration of your grad program.

It's not that it's impossible to get in to grad school with a BFA in film already, it's just not done very often.

All this concern about making valuable films, well, make valuable films.  Whatever that means to you.

Best of luck.


----------



## AshleyM (Aug 26, 2009)

Chien,

What you study for undergrad can depend upon where you want to go for grad school, like I said before.  Some grad schools want you to have film experience (such as California state schools like SDSU, SFSU, for example) while others do not.  You'll have to do some of your own research on this.

What others have said about needing to be well-rounded and knowledgeable about the world in order to make good and meaningful films is true.

You'll get a ton of different opinions on this forum, as you've already seen.  So, take the information, figure out what works for you, do some research about the schools, and make up your own mind.  That's the best advice I can offer.



> Originally posted by unChienAndalou:
> 
> 
> My end goal, again, is not just to make movies, but to make valuable movies. I need to develop an idea of what it means to make a movie valuable and whether or not it can be valuable at all.


----------



## daniel_cb (Aug 26, 2009)

ChienAndalou,

I don't mean this in a condescending way at all, but it sounds like you have a lot of thinking to do. I'd say it would be best to have a focused view on the kind of films you want to make before you enter film school. For example you say you want to learn about socio/cultral/political situations, but you should find inspiration not just by reading and studying, but talking to people and visiting places that effect you. I'm thinking film school is a good place to describe experiences and to express your point of view, but if you have neither you may be wasting your time.


----------



## Ard23 (Aug 28, 2009)

I would actually disagree that you need to enter film school knowing what kind of films you want to make. That was the most common question i got from non-film people upon entering school: "What kind of movies do you want to make?" but it was never an easy question to answer b/c i was still in a process of exploration, and still am.

As i progressed through school, I noticed creative patterns in my own work (work that was made by following impulses, not some sort of larger strategy) that informed me of the kind of filmmaker I was, and the kind of filmmaker I aspired to be.

And on the subject of getting a BFA vs MFA, etc., these are all details that are left to the individual to decide. The larger point is that whether or not you study film as an undergraduate, I think its vitally important to expand your knowledge of the larger base of liberal arts whether or not its written on your degree. Film has only been around for one century, and was built upon the foundation of other art forms and disciplines, and any filmmaker who wants to have a deeper understanding of narrative, and the larger world, should broaden their intellectual experience beyond studying film.


----------

