Author: (Paul Ramaeker) <[log in to unmask]> Date: 12/14/94 11:20 PM [Editor's note: This message was submitted to SCREEN-L by the "Author" noted above, and not by Jeremy Butler ([log in to unmask]).] My own feeling, having gotten a look inside film programs at UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, and the University of Wisconsin, my present home, is that film school is important for quite a bit beyond on-set practices. Lots of production students at UCLA resented having to take classes on film history and theory. As someone on the other side of that divide, as a scholar in history and theory, I resented that. Now, pursuing a Ph.D in this at the UW, I can understand this resentment better. That is to say, if you are making films, it is hard to think of anything less relevant than, say, suture theory. On the other hand, and this is also something I understand more now that I am where I am, the study of film from an academic perspective (especially history and analysis) can teach one the language of film, and it seems to me that you really ought to know how the language works before you try to speak it. You don't need to do this at film school, of course, but it doesn't hurt either. I agree, largely, with Cal Pryluck- you can get into film production from any number of pathways, and it should really be a matter of looking at what each option offers. The history and theory classes on offer at universities ought to be looked at as a plus, by my reckoning (they seem to have done right by De Palma and Schrader, to name two who are clearly versed in film theory as well as production). Film school also seems to offer quite a bit in terms of support by your fellow students, which is crucial, even if the production faculty at a given school is lacking (if anyone wants the dirt on UCLA production faculty, the good the bad and the ugly, I'm always glad to vent). Film school has its problems, from a production p-o-v, too. It's all in weighing options. -PBR