Theory  versus  practice:  the  continuing  debate

page   includes   a   quote   from   possibly   the   school’s   most   famous   former   student   Francis  Ford  Coppola.  The  scrolling  images  of  alumni  number  75  in  total,  just  four   more  than  the  number  of  screenwriters  alone  listed  by  USC.  There  is  the  sense   that  can  be  gained  from  viewing  both  sites  that  the  UCLA  alumni  page  is  a  place   for   alumni   to   access,   that   also   has   a   somewhat   public   profile.   The   USC   alumni   page  feels  like  it  has  been  created  purely  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  employers   and   investors.   It   is   an   exclamation   of   its   importance   and   achievements   for   the   world   to   see.   USC   has   a   reputation,   as   has   been   discussed   previously,   for   engaging  its  students  directly  with  industry  and  its  alumni  activity  is  also  notable.  

As   Farber   (1984)   says   ‘the   Cinema   Alumni   Association   has   a   job   placement   service  designed  to  put  current  graduates  in  touch  with  older  alums  working  in   the  industry’.  It  is  clear  from  the  alumni  page  alone  that  in  the  nearly  eighty  five   years  of  the  school  the  association  is  very  active  and  that  USC  has  developed  a   clear  understanding  of  and  ability  to  train  for,  Hollywood  industry.  It  appears  to   have   weathered   changes   exceptionally   in   the   industry   due   to   its   direct   engagement  with  commercial  Hollywood  practice  and  shows  no  signs  of  losing   ground.  In  June  2013  a  new  multi-­‐million  dollar  Interactive  Media  building  was   opened.   The   launch   featured   a   symposium   on   the   current   state   of   the   film   industry  with  guests  Steven  Spielberg  and  the  archetypal  USC  graduate  George   Lucas.    

3.4  International  ideas:  new  methods  of  pedagogy    

3.4.1  Theory  versus  practice:  the  continuing  debate    

Within   Danish   film   culture,   there   exists   a   critically   informed   approach   to   film   production  that  has  been  addressed  in  this  chapter  and  it  is  one  that  has  been   expressed  by  Danish  academic  Mette  Hjort  (2011)  as  follows:  ‘I  think  it  is  far  from   the  case  that  all  films  matter.  The  task,  I  think,  for  film  scholars  in  the  future  will  

be  to  help  ensure  that  films  that  genuinely  do  matter  continue  to  get  made,  and   that  they  receive  the  attention  they  deserve’.    

This   explicitly   promotes   a   role   that   academia   can   play   in   the   film   production   agenda,   an   idea   that   does   not   exist   in   the   UK,   at   least   not   publicly   or   predominantly.  Hjort  was  interviewed  for  this  thesis  and  expanded  on  this  theme   and   in   so   doing   created   a   wider   picture   of   how   the   relationship   between   academia  and  industry  could  be  fostered.  Hjort  (2012  Interview)  says:  

I  feel,  to  be  honest,  that  an  awful  lot  of  time  and  money  gets  spent  on   making   films   that   just   aren't   worth   it   […]   I'm   also   interested   […]   in   the   Danish  context,  where  […]  there's  simply  a  limit  to  how  much  money  is   available,   and   where   a   lot   of   effort   is   put   into   making   sure   that   it   gets   spent   on   films   that   are   somehow   'worth'   it   […]   I   would   like   to   see   film   scholars   play   a   more   active   role   in   supporting   those   milieus   of   practice   where  thoughtful,  creative  people  with  a  lot  of  integrity  are  trying  hard  to   make  films  that  make  a  contribution  to  our  societies  and  communities.  

When  looking  at  how  this  could  be  achieved  a  variety  of  answers  emerge.  They   include  taking  the  same  approach  as  Denmark  by  encouraging  the  film  students   of  higher  education  and  film  school  institutions  to  develop  voices  and  careers  as   film   practitioners.   Also,   there   is   the   prospect   of   encouraging   film   students   to   develop   and   support   new   production   agendas   rather   than   simply   fulfilling   existing  ones.  When  asked  how  those  within  academia  can  assist  in  this  change   and  help  new  voices  to  emerge  Hjort  responded:  

Much   of   the   work   of   film   scholars   is   disconnected   from   the   milieus   of   practice.   In   my   own   work   I've   tried   as   much   as   I   could   to   engage   with   those   milieus.   I've   developed   the   notion   of   'practitioner's   agency',   I've   created  a  Nordic  film  classics  series  that  involves  getting  scholars  to  write  

about   films   based   on   extensive   interviews   with   the   practitioners   who   made  them  (Hjort,  2012  Interview).  

This  is  a  clear  instance  how  the  interrelationship  of  film  theory  to  practice  has   made   the   voice   of   the   filmmaker   more   resonant.   It   highlights   again   the   importance   of   theory   to   practice,   and   vice   versa,   in   a   cinematic   context.   The   interview  with  Hjort  finished  with  a  question  regarding  what  constitutes  a  good   education   for   a   filmmaker   from   an   academic’s   point   of   view.   Hjort’s   response   was  as  follows:  

In  my  opinion  the  National  Film  School  of  Denmark  is  doing  much  of  what   needs  to  be  done  […]  The  filmmakers  learn  to  think  about  what  motivates   them/drives  them  as  filmmakers  who  seek  to  communicate  something  to   an  audience.  They're  taught  to  collaborate,  across  the  disciplines,  and  to   rely  on  each  other  for  critique  and  mutual  support  […]  you  will  see  that  it   really   is   managing   to   develop   things   like   personal   integrity,   thoughtfulness,   a   sense   of   responsibility,   etc.   as   well   as   an   individual's   film  language  (Hjort,  2012  Interview).  

In   the   US   Academic   and   filmmaker   Russell   Sheaffer   has   written   about   the   relationship  between  theory  and  practice  and  was  interviewed  subsequently  for   this  thesis.  In  a  piece  for  Indiewire  Sheaffer  (2012)  said:  

University  departments  are  just  beginning  to  see  the  potential  for  a  new   sort  of  work  that  blurs  the  boundaries  of  practice  and  theory,  and  we  can   be  at  the  forefront  of  a  new  way  of  thinking  about  filmmaking.  If  you  are   a  young,  indie  filmmaker,  consider  what  the  academy  can  offer  you  and   your  filmmaking.  If  you’re  a  young  academic,  think  of  the  possibilities  for   critique  that  filmmaking  can  provide.  

Sheaffer  acknowledges  that  it  is  not  really  a  ‘new’  idea,  stating  that  ‘in  reality,   none  of  this  is  new.  Our  academic  forefathers  and  foremothers  have  paved  the   way   […]   Jean-­‐Luc   Godard   and   Barbara   Hammer   […]   are   examples’   (Sheaffer,   2012).  Sheaffer’s  view  offers  clear  balance  for  both  sides  of  the  debate  to  engage   equally.  There  is  no  sense  of  ego  or  elitism  in  favour  of  either  field  of  activity.  

This  in  itself  is  a  step  forward  from  previous  ideas  around  the  balance  or  merging   of   theory   and   practice   and   is   in   line   with   Hjort’s   ideas.   It   also   suggests   an   increasing   international   perspective   of   the   thinking   around   the   issue.   While   these   ideas   are   not   new   it   remains   the   case   that   due   to   the   lures   of   the   commercial  film  industry  they  have  failed  to  gain  much  traction.  Noguez  (1971)   addressed  this  clearly  and  at  length:  

In  the  cinema,  more  than  anywhere  else,  theoretical  teaching  cannot  be   really  fruitful  unless  it  goes  hand  in  hand  with  practice.  So  the  universities   ought  to  also  give  instruction  corresponding  to  the  first  stage  of  the  filmic   process  –  at  the  very  least  and  introduction  to  the  handling  of  equipment   (cameras,  editing  tables,  sound  equipment  etc.)  and  to  filmic  creation  […]  

and  a  theoretical  course  that  will  enable  him  to  think  out  his  practice  and   his  vision  (Noguez,  1971).  

He  expands  on  this,  with  his  blueprint  for  an  ideal  ‘cinema  studies’  department:  

The  ideal  film  teaching  programme  must  indeed  include  discussion  of  the   social  dimension  of  the  phenomenon,  and  will  need  to  make  use  of  the   existing  audio-­‐visual  services,  but  its  priority  must  be  the  study  of  film  as   a  cultural  creation,  an  art,  a  system  of  symbolic  devices  and  an  ideological   product.  It  should  not  aim  to  turn  out  technicians  capable  of  confecting   advertising,   businessmen   capable   of   exploiting   the   commercial   possibilities   of   the   medium   and   the   public,   so   much   as   teachers,   historians,   critics   or   even   simple   cinephiles.   This   viewpoint   on   cinema  

study,  which  we  will  call  ‘cultural’,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  and  also  to   distinguish   it   from   those   which   are   based   on   a   profound   antipathy   to   culture   cannot   neglect   any   of   the   instruments   of   analysis   and   research   offered   by   disciplines   centred   on   comparable   cultural   objects   (literary   studies,  art  history,  etc.).  Like  those  disciplines,  cinema  study  will  thus  be   able  to  contribute  to  the  great  work  of  interpreting  the  totality  of  social   phenomena  so  urgently  called  for,  each  in  his  own  way,  by  such  thinkers   as  Marx,  Freud,  Saussure,  Francastle  and  Panofsky  (Noguez,  1971).  

Admirable   as   they   are,   Noguez’s   arguments   for   a   robust   and   diverse   film   department   are   somewhat   negated   by   an   aggressive   antipathy   towards   commercial  film.  This  stance,  while  present,  can  only  serve  to  keep  commercial   filmmaking  at  a  distance  from  critical  and  cultural  education  development.  While   Noguez  outlines  a  clear  and  commendable  strategy  the  comments  nonetheless   offer  a  commercial  warning.  This  highlights  again  the  running  theme  of  insecurity   but  this  time  from  the  theoretical  field.  Noguez  seems  to  lack  faith  that  his  ideas   can   lead   to   a   more   informed   cadre   of   content   creators.   This   may   be   due   to   institutionalised  constraints  that  have  been  discussed,  and  which  were  present   from   the   early   days   of   the   form.   Denmark,   alternatively,   has   confidence   that   there  is  a  place  for  a  creative,  cultured  filmmaking  in  the  mainstream  of  society.  

As  a  country  it  has  worked  to  promote  an  increasing  convergence  between  the   practical  and  the  theoretical,  the  commercial  and  the  academic.  

Sheaffer  (2012),  in  an  interview  conducted  for  this  thesis,  is  more  effusive  about   the  commercial  potential  of  merging  theory  and  practice,  whilst  still  adhering  to   the  principles  Noguez  outlines:  

I   think   the   university   certainly   does   have   a   very   active   role   to   play   in   creating  a  cinematic  frame  of  mind  from  which  new  creative  content  can   and  does  emerge  […]  I'd  love  to  see  more  institutions  and  more  courses  

that   foster   a   style   of   filmmaking   that   encourages   theoretical   discussion   that  is  "self  analytical"  […]  We  have  a  class  here  in  Indiana  that  requires   undergrads   to   simultaneously   immerse   themselves   in   film   theory   (from   genre   theory   to   apparatus   theory)   while   simultaneously   experimenting   with  film  production  for  the  first  time  (Sheaffer,  2012  Interview).  

Again,  Sheaffer  echoes  Hjort’s  assertion  that  academia  has  a  role  to  play  in  not   merely  responding  to  filmmaking  trends,  but  shaping  them.    

Discussions  in  this  thesis  regarding  the  role  of  strategy,  government,  educational   institutions  and  the  film  industry  in  this  relationship  have  shown  a  considerable   aspect   of   control   and   scepticism   that   has   been   present   from   formative   times.  

This  control  and  insecurity  has  created  a  system  where  the  relationship  between   theory   and   practice   and   their   institutional   representatives,   academia   and   industry,   are   tentative   or   minimal   at   best.   Different   film   cultures’   engagement   with  their  film  education  affects  their  domestic  film  industry  and  culture.  In  the   UK   there   is   the   potential   for   change   that   will   supplement   rather   than   damage   existing   commercial   film   production   activity   but   also   enable   the   form   to   move   forward  into  something  new.  The  technologies  of  production  and  exhibition  are   changing,  as  is  the  cultural  value  of  film,  and  the  shape  of  commercial  cinema.  

There  is  an  opportunity  to  change  with  it,  or,  even  more  interestingly,  to  change   it.   A   detailed   explanation   of   what   some   of   these   technological   changes   are   is   included  in  the  appendix  (Appendix  V:  248).  

4.  Paths  to  the  Pantheon  -­‐  The  education  of  actual  filmmakers    

4.1  Rationale    

This  chapter  analyses  the  education  of  actual  filmmakers  throughout  film  history   to  ascertain  the  impact  of  film  education  on  the  development  of  filmmakers  and   to  highlight  the  diverse  educational  backgrounds  of  filmmakers  throughout  film   history.  The  focus  is  on  practitioners  who  have  found  success  in  both  critical  and   commercial   arenas.   This   collation   of   existing   yet   disparate   data   and   its   subsequent  analysis  has  been  undertaken  to  introduce  different  areas  into  the   consideration  of  the  film  education  debate.  This  data  analysis  was  undertaken  to   ascertain  if  any  trends  could  be  found  regarding  the  idea  that  education  has  a   role  to  play  in  filmmaker  development  and  whether  this  idea  is  worthy  of  further   analysis.  It  is  clear  that  film  education  has  had  an  impact  on  the  development  of   filmmakers  over  the  period  that  film  studio  and  television  broadcast  training  has   decreased   and   suggests   current   disconnections   between   academia   and   film   industry   be   addressed.   Also,   the   sheer   diversity   of   educational   backgrounds   points  to  the  potential  development  of  a  more  diverse  film  education.    

There   is   some   practical   value   in   exploring   empirical   data   in   terms   of   headline   outcomes  in  this  area  particularly  in  regard  to  the  higher  education  market.  The   higher   education   sector   places   a   value   on   the   destinations   of   graduates   as   a   means   of   marketing   and   recruitment.   This   will   be   addressed   in   the   following   section.   A   deeper   understanding   of   filmmaker   education   and   emergent   trends   could  aid  course  design  in  what  is  an  increasingly  competitive  marketplace.  If  a   course  could  produce  not  only  employable  graduates  but  also  potentially  ‘star’  

or   ‘superstar’   alumni   through   more   fully   understanding   the   components   of