The problem I have with a film school with all practice and no broader knowledge is that it creates a craftsman; someone who knows nuts and bolts, but doesn't know much more. Such a director will have a limited range, and will only be able to work on films dealing with subjects he's familiar with (for example, horror). Try and give him a period piece, and he's lost.

I keep repeating this, because it is important: NOTHING can teach talent. You either have it, or you don't. To become director, you MUST have talent; everything else helps, but talent must be there. A film school that gives you BROAD education (where you study acting, screenwriting, psychology, visual aesthetics, music, history of the world, history of the arts, history of theatre and film, etc) will prepare you for any kind of project.

There is a reason why most people who graduate from the Academy of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade end up working in the entertainment industry. Even without talent, they will have enough broad knowledge to at least work on the business end of it. Not to mention that the selection process ensures that candidates with little talent are eliminated before they are admitted. A nice thing about societies where higher education is free is, those who are accepted are (almost) always the most gifted ones. If you're 18 and itching to become a director, you prepare yourself and apply. If you get in, you're pretty much set for good.

I think experience is the most important. But Basic knowledge is must. "Great Filmmaker" not attended in film school is not right. But may be they went later. But they know all of tricks and tips about Film making. So I think, if you improve your practical knowledge you can shine in your career.

Wish you good luck.

>>>spam removed<<<

I would say the benefit of film school - at the least the top film schools - is they only accept people who already have some talent. So not only do you have some sort of validation that you may have the chops to work in the film business, but you'll be going to school with the future who's who of the film business.

So not only do they nuture your talent, but you're building contacts and relationships with other talented people that will be working in the film business some day.

Not to say every film school grad from NYU or UCLA becomes the next Scorsese, but the Tarantino's and Kubricks are actually rare.

The list of directors who went to film school is much larger than the ones who did not.

All of these directores went to film school or at least a top college.

Joel Coen
Martin Scorsese
Francis Ford Coppola
Woody Allen
David Lynch
Oliver Stone

Or take a look at a list Film Independent puts out every year - it's called a talent guide. It's all the upcoming talent accepted into their programs. If you read the bios of these people, well over 90% went to a top film program.

Jamie Paszko
Publisher/Editor
www.FilmSlateMagazine.com

But the list of directors who didn't go to film school is impressive:
Quentin Tarantino
Steven Soderbergh
John Sayles
Peter Jackson
Richard Linklater
John Landis
Luc Besson
Martin McDonagh
Terry Gilliam
Brad Anderson
Clint Eastwood
Ridley Scott
David Fincher
Luc Besson
Joe Carnahan
John Waters
Woody Allen - dropped out of college, didn't go to film school
Peter Bogdanovich
David Cronenberg
John Cassavetes
Sam Rami
Paul Thomas Anderson (dropped out)
Kevin Smith (dropped out)
Whit Stillman
Guillermo del Toro
Robert Rodriguez
Jim Gillespie
Paul Haggis
Wes Craven
George Romero
Alfinso Cuaron
Shane Meadows
James Cameron
Shane Carruth

and Orson Welles did pretty good without ever going to film school.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

There is a danger in looking at such a list without context. Some young readers might think that they just don't need film school in order to succeed. The people on the above list possess enormous amounts of talent, which allowed them to launch their film career without formal training.

A good film school is an incredibly valuable investment of one's time. What a person could likely learn by doing over the course of many years (and decades) is crammed into two-three years, and is much more complete than learning by doing (and reading).

If we disassemble it completely, any good film school programme will offer two components: practical work (i.e. making films, from beginning to end of process) and lectures/study. A very studious and persistent person could likely emulate these two on his own by reading the text books and making movies on his own. The advantage of the film school is that the environment provides much more rapid and complete learning than doing it independently.

There are many ways to a career in film. I do not believe any list is
dangerous to look at; even without context. If a new director were
to read that list and decide to make some short films - or even a
feature - thinking that they just don't need film school, they will
fail, they will make a good movie or they will learn something about
the process.

None of those outcomes is at all dangerous.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

I'm currently in filmschool, so I'll be able to chime in on these discussions much more effectively from now on.

From my perspective, and I know this has been stated before, a problem is the definition of film school itself.

The university program I'm in now is a comprehensive film (as in shooting on film) production and film studies program. If I had went to, say, Vancouver Film School, I wouldn't be getting the same theoretical and historical background in my studies. That is a personally significant value for me, and I don't think it could be anything but beneficial to my development as a filmmaker: I had no idea how much I didn't know about early cinema, for example. Furthermore, it was another personal desire to work on actual film. That's a dying practice, obviously, but I don't think I will ever regret having the opportunity here to work with physical film. As someone who's grown up with miniDV and YouTube compression, it's a near religious experience.

These are, of course, all very personal reasons for going through a university program. But that's the point. As everyone has demonstrated throughout this discussion, everyone has a different path to become a filmmaker. Some follow an established one, some craft their own, and some are simply lucky.

So really, perhaps the question shouldn't be "what's the best way to become a filmmaker" but, rather, "what's the way that feels right for me?"

When you haven't quite figured yourself out yet, however (like most teenagers), of course it's nigh impossible to figure out how to answer that question. But that's okay. Just have to make a decision, and make sure you learn from it. 🙂

----------
http://vimeo.com/corax