# Really, WHY UCLA?



## Alexandrathegreatest (Oct 29, 2008)

As some of you know, the UCLA deadline for the MFA program in directing is due this Saturday. I have read some posts concerning UCLA in relation to other film schools, but have yet to get an accurate picture of what really constitutes UCLA. Why UCLA? What's so great about it?

I am going to major in directing, and understand that this also gives me the right to take courses in other departments as well. With that said, I don't think I'll be hindered by the major nor do I think that focusing specifically on directing is going to keep me from studying other aspects of filmmaking.

I also know that UCLA is more favored than USC in regards to independent films, and quirky narratives. I talked to a student on the phone who said "this is no straight laced institution".

Does one of UCLA's main virtues lie in the fact that it encourages less hollywood type films (like Columbia and NYU), but is also conveniently located in Hollywood? I don't mean to say anything bad about USC in making these parallels btw, I didn't research that school at all since I did not take the GRE. 

In any case, given that I know all this information, what really is UCLA all about? Why do you love it? I need to show I've done my research for the personal essay, and I am having trouble finding anything really distinctive about the school.

Thanks all!
Alex


----------



## Ard23 (Oct 31, 2008)

The cliche is that USC is the "Hollywood school" and UCLA is LA's "indie school." I think USC is probably unfairly pigeon-holed as being "hollywood," though i would say its accurate that UCLA has a more "indie" flavor than its location would suggest. They do encourage personal storytelling, and along these lines the school really encourages directors to write their own material.

The school is smaller than USC, so has more of an intimate vibe. On the downside it is the poorest of the top film schools, as its an underfunded state school, but considering tuition is as cheap as it is it sort of balances out (ie you will probably end up renting some outside equipment b/c the school will not necessarily have what you need.) That said, the student body is full of talented, smart, interesting people, and I'd put a majority of the faculty in that category as well. And the UCLA brand name makes up in part for the school's limited resources, attracting top people to give lectures, master classes, etc. There is also a generous amount of award money available for students each year.

As for doing the directing track, you can take a lot of the classes that are offered in the cinematography, producing, and screenwriting programs as well, so its not limiting in that regard.


----------



## Zumbi (Nov 3, 2008)

I've applied for UCLA and USC Directing/Production

As one of my goals BEYOND Directing is Cinematography, I've consider UCLA for the amount of classes the Directors could take.
And of course, because of the INDIE track I could walk.

BUT I think also about USC, due to the equipment. I've heard in UCLA you don't have 35mm cameras. Only in USC.

So, IF I could be accepted in both, I still would have a problem. ESPECIALLY due to the lack of equipment in UCLA.

Ard, how would be possible to LEARN more about cinematography (using 35mm) studying at UCLA?


----------



## Ard23 (Nov 6, 2008)

UCLA has a 35mm camera, but it is reserved for use by cinematography classes. So you do shoot and learn using 35, a camera just isn't available from the equipment office to check out. But its pretty common for students to rent 35 packages outside of school and shoot on them. Basically, UCLA has much cheaper tuition than USC. Some students spend a lot of money getting outside equipment, other students get through UCLA relatively cheaply by using what the school provides, which is certainly serviceable.

Also I've heard UCLA is getting a RED camera some time in the next few months, so that's something...

Frankly, I don't think the quality of the equipment is a good way to pick a film school. Its certainly a plus of USC and a drawback of UCLA, but i would not factor that in too heavily in your decision. Also, learning to shoot 35 isn't too different from learning to shoot 16, all the same principles.


----------



## Zumbi (Nov 7, 2008)

Hey Adr23.

Thanks again. Always nice advices.
Yeah, this is definitely NOT the MAIN factor in my decision... I'm really interested to do to UCLA than USC, to be honest.
I know the principles for both cameras are the same. It's just that hands on 35mm it's nice.

I thought to make a DUAL-DEGREE. But I just applyed for Directing program, as I remember you told it's pretty possible to do MANY cinematography classes, my second objective in filmmaking.
I was just not sure if I need to pay ALSO for the cinematography course. I believe I would.

Anyway, I'm waiting. hope I can get in UCLA (Do you know when the results will be published?).

I saw your post about your thesis film.If I were in USA, sure I would be there to help your team in something I could.


Wish you all the best.


----------

