How do you become successful?
I’m currently a grad student at USC film school. Your site was a great help to me in learning how to write screenplays, then applying to and getting into USC.
From the class that graduated with you, either from Stark, production, or writing programs, what percentage in your estimation have gone on to success in the industry? What traits defined those who did from those who didn’t?
And if you post this question, please sign me as…
– Rosebud
Los Angeles
“Success” is a pretty hard term to define when looking at a career.
What’s the measure? Money, credits, awards — or some sort of internal satisfaction index? And perhaps more importantly, what’s the time frame? While some grads are directing $100 million blockbusters within years of graduating, most are happy to keep continuously employed.
Probably the best measure of “making it” is to look at people five years after graduation and see if they’re still working in the industry. Yes, Kathy may have arrived at USC looking to direct, but if she’s now an editor on 24, I’d say she’s doing well. Likewise, Dan may have applied to the Stark program hoping to produce the next Schindler’s List, but now he’s an executive at Warner Bros. So he might still make big Oscar-winning movies, but they won’t have his name on them.
By this metric, from my Stark class of 25 students, more than half are still working in the industry. Some run studios; some run TV shows; some run interference for directors. We were unusally successful right out of the gate,1 but I think there are some general lessons to distill:
- You’re not entitled to anything. A film degree is basically worthless. You won’t get recruited, and no one will ever ask to see it.2 An MBA from USC gets you a $100,000 starting salary. A film degree from USC might get you an unpaid internship. All you get out of it is the education, so make sure you’re learning every second of the day.
- It’s about the story. No matter whether it’s film, TV, or a 30-second spot, the ability to convey a compelling story in whatever medium is crucial. A director’s reel can have the slickest shots imaginable, but funny comedy or compelling drama is more likely to get him his next job.
- Everyone climbs the ladder together. A common misconception is that you need to make friends with people a few steps ahead of you. No. You need a lot of friends doing what you’re doing, and you need to help each other out — with information, with advice, and with manpower while they’re making their sixth short film.
- Ask questions. Film school isn’t like other schools. There aren’t many textbooks or exams. Instead, you have smart people who know things, and it’s your job to get the answers you need. Stark has dozens of guest speakers each semester. At first, we’d just ask polite questions about their jobs and the industry. But soon we were asking, “So, what is your life really like? Do you ever see your family? Is it worth it?”
- Make your own luck. Sometimes, magic happens and Spielberg likes your wacky short film. But that can’t happen if you didn’t make it in the first place, and the seven others no one saw. You never know which script, which lunch, which random idea is going to be important. So treat them all as important.
- It’s not Wall Street. While it seems glamorous and lucrative, if you’re coming to the film industry looking to get rich, you’re wasting your time. While you can get rich, the odds are a lot slimmer than almost any other industry a smart person could choose to work in.
Pushed for a number, I’d guess 30-40% of USC film school grads are actively working in the industry. The people from my program who aren’t are by no means unsuccessful. They each found other careers which suited them — though sometimes, that wasn’t by choice. Hollywood isn’t a perfect meritocracy. Really great people get overlooked, or find their stepping stones sinking into bankruptcy just as everything seems to be coming together. It sucks. Success and circumstance are deeply entangled.
But if you, Rosebud, find your own criteria for what you want to do, and better yet, plan for how you’re going to do it, I don’t think those percentages really apply. If you start each day of school and life with the question, “How am I going to get closer to my goal of…” then you’re unlikely to end up outside looking in.
- Michael Cieply wrote a lengthy piece about our class (1994) for the New York Times. It’s a [great article](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20B10FC385C0C7A8EDDAE0894DA404482), but it $4.95 to read it. ↩
- I have no idea where my degree is at this moment. ↩
Articles
March 27th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Yeah… I hear back from USC this week. To be honest, before I read this article I definitely felt as though I’d be crushed if I didn’t get in, but now I don’t know I guess it won’t be as bad. Its been a dream of mine for a while and I will be upset if I don’t get in, but I think reading this article helped open my eyes to the broader spectrum of things. Thanks John, Fight On!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“A film degree is basically worthless.”
A successful Australian writer/director recently said he didn’t see the point of film school when you could get the same knowledge from the library for free, and spend your extra time/cash on actually making films.
Aside from the potential connections, is there anything you’ll learn at film school you couldn’t learn indepedently?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
MEDIA; Triumph of the Producing Class By MICHAEL CIEPLY Published: July 29, 2002
Jonathan Glickman remembers exactly how he broke into the movie business. As a first-year student in the University of Southern California’s Peter Stark producing program, he watched a guest lecturer, the producer Joe Roth, step into an elevator in 1993, and suddenly realized the visitor controlled what might be the last available summer internship. ”If I don’t run into that elevator with him, someone else is going to,” Mr. Glickman recalled thinking as he pounced.
Years later, a classmate, John August, told him: ”I was in that elevator. I thought you were psychotic.”
Mr. Glickman, now 33, landed the spot with Mr. Roth’s Caravan Pictures and quit graduate school to make it a full-time job. Just nine years later, he has amassed a phenomenal list of 18 producer credits, including the back-to-back ”Rush Hour” blockbusters, and he reigns as production president of the Spyglass Entertainment Group, an affiliate of Walt Disney.
But Mr. August, 31, who was elbowed aside, is not complaining. Having done lucrative production polishes on the scripts for ”Minority Report,” ”Scooby-Doo” and ”Jurassic Park III,” he has been busy with the screenplay for ”Charlie’s Angels 2,” after his work on the hit predecessor film, and his critical success in 1999 with the quirky ”Go,” which was directed by Doug Liman.
None of which is terribly unusual for the Stark program’s hard-driving class of 1994 — a brash, ultracompetitive clique of young players who are suddenly surging toward positions of industry power and who appear to embody the soul of a new corporate Hollywood, with its strong emphasis on commerce over art.
Of two dozen students who entered the two-year master’s program in 1992, all but a handful are working professionally in the film business, and roughly half, a surprising percentage, already have significant authority in a business that is notoriously tough to crack.
Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, a writing and producing team since their U.S.C. days, are the executive producers responsible for the WB network’s ”Smallville” series, even while they work on the script for Columbia Pictures’ ”Spider-Man 2.” A pair of classmates, Gregory McKnight and Charles Ferraro, are agents at the William Morris Agency and the United Talent Agency, respectively. Others hold key positions with some of Hollywood’s most prominent production companies, including James Whitaker, an executive vice president at Imagine Entertainment; Scott Strauss, president of Outlaw Productions; Samuel Dickerman, president of Radiant Productions; and Ashley Burleson Kramer, executive vice president at Pandemonium.
”In the last five years, the business has been much more market-driven,” said Scott Rudin, a film producer, who broke into the business as a casting agent in the relatively free-wheeling 1970’s. ”Who could be surprised that a group of people came along who knew how to figure out the market?”
Mr. Rudin said he believed that this next generation of film industry leaders was talented, but also ”unbelievably oriented toward success, incredibly ambitious.” It is a judgment with which the achievement-oriented ‘94 class of Starkies, as the producing program’s graduates are often called, readily concurs.
”I think everybody was told by their parents that they were the most important person on the planet earth,” Mr. Glickman said. He said of his group’s early sessions, ”There was a lot of self-esteem in that room.”
In a series of interviews, the Starkies of ‘94 described themselves as ”extremely driven,” ”ambitious,” and even ”mean.” ”You have to remember, we were teens in the 1980’s,” said Mr. Strauss, who by several accounts started an internal competition for jobs and film credits when he abandoned the program after a year to work with the producer Jon Peters.
A number of graduates talked of classroom conflicts so extreme that they threatened to become physical. Once, Damon Lee — now president of Urban Entertainment — sent a chair flying at Mr. Millar.
In an early demonstration of the deep group loyalty that has become another hallmark of the ‘94 Starkies, however, Mr. Lee helped Mr. Millar at a crucial point in his once-fragile career as a writer-producer.
After graduating, Mr. Lee became an executive at Silver Pictures, a powerhouse for action films. At the wedding of a Stark instructor, Mr. Gough and Mr. Millar begged their classmate for a break. Mr. Lee found an assignment for them on a low-budget Silver production. That eventually led to work on Silver’s ”Lethal Weapon IV,” opening the door to an assignment writing ”Shanghai Noon” for Mr. Glickman at Spyglass.
Mr. August likens such mutual assistance, a Hollywood tradition, to rock climbing. ”Some people drive in a stake, the others use it to climb a little higher,” he said.
The Starkies owe much to the program’s director Lawrence Turman, a longtime producer who chose the ‘94 class with an eye on entrepreneurial zeal. ”There are probably a handful of shy, recessive people working in the film business, but only a handful,” said Mr. Turman, 75, who made his mark early as producer of ”The Graduate,” and who continues to work on film projects.
The Stark program was named for the deceased son of the producer Ray Stark, who provided initial financing. The first class graduated in 1981. Mr. Turman and others noted that applications to film schools with close ties to Hollywood continue to rise even as job opportunities appear to be contracting.
If there is a chink in the Starkie armor, it may be the question of taste. With few exceptions, the ‘94 group have gravitated wholeheartedly toward highly commercial fare, rather than films of any critical importance. ”There weren’t a lot of us who wanted to make ‘Sex, Lies, and Videotape,’ ” Mr. August said of his film school class. ”We wanted to make ‘Die Hard.’ ”
Ambitions notwithstanding, Hollywood’s current 30-somethings, Starkies included, seem to be waiting longer for a shot at the boss’s chair than did the baby boomers who entered the business 30 years ago, when studios were just emerging from a slump and the stakes were lower. Thom Mount, one of the so-called baby moguls, for instance, was in his 20’s when he became the head of production at Universal Pictures in the early 70’s.
The ‘94 Stark graduates describe themselves as being comfortable within the system, and perhaps willing to wait in the shadow of a mentor-supervisor, like Imagine’s Brian Grazer or Spyglass’s Roger Birnbaum, for their shot at the top. Asked who among their classmates would be the first to run a studio, virtually all pointed to Mr. Glickman, the son of Dan Glickman, a former agriculture secretary.
With perhaps not surprising political sense, Mr. Glickman said he still expected Mr. Turman to run a studio. ”And he’ll hire all of us,” he added.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Basically, the only thing that film school can teach you is the technical aspect to filmmaking. Most independent film is shot digitally so most of these people have never even seen film before.
Aside from that, film school is kind of a waste. Although I kind of lucked into directing (a million to one shot), the only people I’ve ever met on a set that’s gone to film school are the PA’s.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:05 am
I’m currently trying to get a scholarship to Vancouver Film School, but meanwhile I’ve created my own film school.
I watch hours upon hours of commentary tracks and behind the scenes documentaries on DVD with people like Peter Jackson, Robert Rodriguez and Ridley Scott. I read books on screenwriting and storytelling. I read blogs like this one and every day I learn something new. It’s pretty much the same as sitting in on a lesson in filmmaking with the greatest directors and writers as my teachers, but of course, since I’m doing it on my own and am not paying tuition, my knowledge is not valued as high as if I had learned exactly the same things in school.
I’m sure that you learn a lot in film school, but with dvd’s, books, blogs and websites you can learn a lot without even leaving your home.
Either way, film school or not, I believe you make your own luck so if you work hard and aim for your goals I think you will be successful.
Also, I don’t know if I’ve ever thanked you John for writing this blog and answering questions about screenwriting and the business. Your posts are a constant inspiration and I always learn a lot from you, so thanks John!
March 28th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Excelent post John, thank you very much. I think it was the great director Alan Parker who said that the film industry was one of the last gipsy industry, functioning much like the industries of yore….degrees don´t count, aprentisship works and blood thirst ambition helps. Alot.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Hey, Andreas
Did you hear they moved back the application deadline to May 15? So the pressure’s off about making that April 30 cut-off.
Good luck!
p.s. just kidding :-)
March 28th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I completed two years of a four-year university film program–I left because I had the opportunity to produce short films with other people’s money. One film led to another, which led to other great opportunities…things are heading in the right direction for my career. I figured that school would always be there if I ever felt the CRUSHING need to get my BFA degree (ha), but that the chance to make films wouldn’t.
But I’m happy that I went to film school, because of a few key points:
I believe that all filmmakers should have the chance to edit the “old school” way at least once–it forces you to make every cut count (because cutting and splicing takes so much work) and to really think about why you are structuring your film a certain way. That kind of thinking has stayed with me through editing projects the “normal” way now.
I had the chance to see how others create stories. By working on each others’ projects, and by seeing how the films evolved through editing, I gained great insight into how different people express their creativity.
I experienced the high-stress atmosphere of film shoots from many different crew roles, and that’s served me well as a producer because I know how much work it is for everyone–from craft service to gaffer to boom op.
I also learned what I loved to do–things I had no idea I’d get such joy out of. I loved being camera op. Being an editor. Even being a producer, because that’s where you can pull everything together. And most importantly, I discovered that directing is where I’ll find my bliss.
I went into film school as a writer–figured I’d be a better screenwriter if I actually MADE films–but gladly left part-way through because I gained the foundation I needed to start finding a real career in film and television.
-BeeJay
March 28th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“If you start each day of school and life with the question, “How am I going to get closer to my goal of…â€? then you’re unlikely to end up outside looking in.”
This quote is going on my wall. Very well put. I couldn’t agree more.
Andreas: I went to the Vancovuer film school and had the time of my life. It’s a very intense, hands on program that will teach you all the technical stuff you need to know.
I don’t profess to be an expert, but for anyone debating attending a technical school like this I would say if you want to be a Director, Producer, or aren’t sure which area you want to get into, then this is for you. If, however, you are most interested in Set Dec, I would simply go do set dec and save your money. If you are only interested in screenwriting, the Vancouver Film School is not the best option.
Best of luck with your scholarship, Andreas. If you need some help settling into the ‘couver feel free to drop me a line.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Thanks for the reply Carol. I’m glad to hear that you had a great time at VFS. My goal is to become a writer/director, so now I want to get the scholarship even more, hehe.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I went to VFS!! The screenwriting program was decent. It allowed me to write for a year and it allowed me to interact with intelligent people that share my passion. But, to be successful, you need to write and you need to forget about GPAs.
If you can write than you can work in this business (for a long time). Being able to talk helps too.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
“end up outside looking in.”???
Isn’t that a BAD thing?
I think Rosebud is trying to end up on the inside, not the outside. Am I wrong?
March 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
To put that 30-40% in perspective, most college graduates migrate from their original field of study into another field. That’s not a bad thing. It’s how a lot of really great ideas happen. I found it helps to get a job before or while you’re in school that lets you experience, or at least get close to, the daily work and people in your chosen field. Get advice from as high up the ladder as you can. Don’t get discouraged by people who, at the moment, aren’t succeeding or enjoying their work but don’t dismiss everything they say either.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
“Most independent film is shot digitally so most of these people have never even seen film before.”
March 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“…the only people I’ve ever met on a set that’s gone to film school are the PA’s.”
That’s because PAing is a great entry position. Those people will likely move on to bigger better jobs in the industry at some point, no need to put them down.
Everybody has to make their own way. Some very successful filmmakers went to film school, so it certainly doesn’t hinder you from ‘making it’. Some very successful filmmakers didn’t go to film school, so it’s certainly not a prerequisite, either.
Personally, I think film school is a great place to learn the technical basics – and find cheap crews. Nothing wrong with learning a craft! Ultimately it’s how you utilize what you’ve learned that really matters.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
“I believe that all filmmakers should have the chance to edit the “old schoolâ€? way at least once–”
I totally disagree. It’s like saying any jet pilot should fly a bi-plane at least once. Technology evolves. Learn it, use it, evolve with it.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Johnny Hartmann, I would have to disagree with you a little on that one. Technology may evolve, but that doesn’t mean it is for the better & it doesn’t mean we have to evolve with it completely. A typewriter would never crash or get a virus. A record player doesn’t need software updates. A film camera doesn’t need the latest release of Windows or Mac. The latest isn’t always the greatest. I think the difference between the new technology & the ‘old school’ ways, is all about the connection between the user & the product. There is more of an emotional bond when a film editor can go into a cutting room & physically cut away strips of film. It becomes more emotional than a simple click & delete. It’s more personal. And I will always prefer & love developing my own photographs in a dark room. In the dark room you can see the picture form on the blank page, it’s almost magical. Having some teenager at Walmart plug away at a machine that will spit out my photographs on a roll connected to everything else makes them feel less special. Yes, I do use the new technology that surrounds us today, but I still use & will never sell my typewriter, record player or my camera. So you can, “Learn it, use it, evolve with it,” but I prefer to hold onto what made me fall in love with it in the first place.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:24 am
–“I believe that all filmmakers should have the chance to edit the “old schoolâ€? way at least once–â€?
I totally disagree. It’s like saying any jet pilot should fly a bi-plane at least once. Technology evolves. Learn it, use it, evolve with it.–
I was on a film festival panel this past weekend with Oscar winner Irving Saraf. Irving brought up this “old school-new school” argument. His take was that films today can sometimes become diluted by the current editing technology. When he used to cut a film, the film was cut. There really wasn’t any going back.
With current technology, through ease of access, there can be so much “tinkering” from so many points of view – the finished product can sometimes suffer.
I’m sure you can argue this from both sides until you’re a nice shade of blue…
March 29th, 2007 at 8:54 am
—- and see, I forgot to add my “signature” to the last Anonymous post — but through the miracle of the latest technology, I’m able to re-edit and add my name.
I must stop arguing both sides…head-is-spinnng.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
–“I believe that all filmmakers should have the chance to edit the “old school� way at least once–�
I worked with 16mm as well (nice) and edited it on a flatbed (bad). wtf is a visceral feel of a film? You gotta be kidding me. Visceral is how you feel by how the film plays, not how you fondle it.
The editing on the flatbed was a horrible and traumatic experience :). I will never do it again. What you do learn with flatbeds: “Final Cut Pro” is a god send.
When in the edit room: edit. If you have a fetish for feeling up film, do it in the privacy of your own bedroom ;) (Don’t do that by using the flatbed).
March 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I’d like to hear about the people who found other (related?) careers that suited them. I had the chance to go to USC’s writing program years ago but frankly couldn’t afford it. Since then, I’ve ended up writing a great deal and having lots of other experiences which I wouldn’t have had if I went to grad school for creative writing. Am I better off? That’s something I’ve wondered about over the years but I think I am. Like John says, a degree doesn’t get you anything. And writers don’t need degrees, they just a place to write.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Film or any school in the arts isn’t a waste. There’s connections. Life experiences.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I graduated USC’s grad screenwriting program. Still paying student loans out the nose.
I honestly think I could’ve gained the bulk of the info by…
a) joining a writing circle worth its salt (honest criticism, encouraging) b) listening to lots of DVD commentaries (Soderbergh’s are especially good) c) finding out when USC was hosting guest speakers and crashing the show d) writing, writing, writing, writing, writing e) interning and not being afraid to share my scripts f) doing coverage for a production company g) reading this blog (I’m learning good business stuff through this)
You could save yourself a ton of dough.
April 7th, 2007 at 1:43 am
To be fair, I think there’s a difference in what you can get out of film school depending on what you want your focus to be. I have always been a writer and have always felt strongly that the best way to become a better writer is to write. And to get honest critique on your writing. And, yeah, to take tips from pros like John when they are generous enough to give them. But I would never go to film school just for writing. You have those things and you have Final Draft (or Word and the ability to format.
On the other hand, I don’t have the resources (cameras, film/video, editing equipment, lights, mics, editors, sound mixers, orchestrators, actors) to bring my idea from the page to a screen of any size. Not with any level of quality, not even that resembling short film. Especially because I’m from Missouri. These are all resources that film school offers which are very hard to get otherwise.
I feel like you need the resources (and connections, granted) more than you need the information. I’m an undergrad student, and I probably understand both conceptually and historically as much about film as many grad film students do. I’ve been studying hundreds of films for years. But it won’t do me an ounce of good if I don’t even have a camera.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I hope you writers out there understand this post. Every time I try to read blogs written by writers or directors I get very depressed. I have no idea if it is because of the sheer number of people trying to break into the business or if it is caused by the underlining feeling I sense from the posts, regarding the difficulties of making a living as a screenwriter. It could also be my anti- social personality refusing to aggregate, anywhere. Anytime. Period. I can see how cool this blog is, and the amount of info I could get from it. Whatever it is in my core that makes me feel like this it also makes me want to forget that all of you people exist and go back writing. Writing is the only time that I am really happy. I was researching something on google when I found you people and I decided to write for after all we are connected through this medium. I hope this made any sense at all. Regardless of that I am due back to a place where I am God. Writing is cool.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Yesterday, in my advanced producing class at USC, a student asked if we “have to work as hard in an internship as in a real job?” Another student asked if “we really have to work those long hard hours?”
No. Please, be mediocre and refuse to work hard. Just focus on that MFA and you’ll be fine.
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
15 feature scripts; a short film I directed and edited…all done with an MFA in Screenwriting at UCLA’s Screenwriting Grad School program in 1998.
And I’m still writing.
Sold a few low, low budget scripts; one optioned, a lot of close, close calls. And I’m still writing, and loving it.
No matter the bankruptcy that came and went; and a car accident I shoulda died in, and month and months and years since leaving UCLA in 1998… of carpentry, working construction.
I put writing, creativity ahead of all else.
It is all about being in love with hearing and seeing and reading stories above all else…and then writing, creating that same feeling those original writers gave me.
I recently acted for the first time in a play version of CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
It was great.
Never thought I had it in in me. It was wierd, and scary and great.
Here’s what i did not do while 4 years at UCLA. I didn’t network…even after being told I needed to. I just wrote.
I didn’t intern at a studio…on the actual lot…where so many chances happen. I just wrote more and more.
I was always ready for those chances; many different scripts in hand; a real good work ethic…but there was something wierd to me about doing the networking.
Don’t make my mistakes folks. DO NOT.
I learned metworking, making contacts outside the Hollywood Beltway; but inside…down there in L.A. — it’s so much easier.
You really can write and write and network just as well.
Keep at it.
MARK11
October 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Thanks for the advice, John. I think everyone here has made some good points. I graduated from Brooks Institute in Fall 2001 and I would say the best things I received there were:
A) A thororough understanding of photography and the technical aspects of photography and filmmaking.
B) Free use of equipment to make films both within and outside the program. I made at least ten short films while I was there and edited on both a flatbed moviola (a novelty, but a good learning experience) and Final Cut Pro (an invaluable skill these days).
C) A dedicated teaching staff, which may have lacked great credentials, but made up for it in knowledge, enthusiasm for filmmaking, and willingness to go outside the bounds of their jobs (sometimes not even sleeping) to help us achieve our goals.
D) Student discounts on everything from computer programs to equipment rental. This was invaluable and I still miss the amazing deals I got, solely from being a student.
The only thing I regret is that, based in Santa Barbara (Ventura after I graduated), it was so easy to focus solely on school and not make the trip down to LA and network.
I moved to LA six months after I graduated. Five and a half years on, I’m still writing and, occasionally, I direct another short film. I keep watching movies. I keep learning. I do wonder if I’m ever going to make a decent salary as a filmmaker. In fact, I think something like wedding video or getting a teaching degree might be a better way to support my passion because doing “commercial” films interest me about as much as eating mud for dinner. I’d rather be able to determine the perspective of my work than have it dictated by a false standard that seems as common in Los Angeles as the smog above the skyline.
It’s difficult for Americans to grasp, but countries like France, Britain, Germany, and Switzerland have a much different perspective on cinema and its uses. Experimental and essay films are as common as anything else. It’s only America, with its crass commercialism, that the personal gets relegated to some outre category and ignored. There is a broad pallete for artistic expression and, unfortunately, the powers that be seem to feel a very limited category is what should be promulgated in all media.