Ok so I'm applying to these colleges this year, I don't think I'll be admitted into any of the Holy Trinity (UCLA, USC, or NYU) simply because of my GPA avg.

I have about a 2.8 GPA average and a 1500 SAT score.

But I do have a film portfolio that I'm proud of. In the movies I've made I would call myself and auteur. I directed, wrote, editted, and even acted in some of my films in high school.

I got into one festival at a community college and I'm apart of the SF Art and Film program for teenagers in San Francisco.

What I'm trying to say is, what can I do to increase my chances of getting into CalArts or Chapman?

What I want out of a film school is to learn hands on making films, yet also get an education of economics, international relations and other courses to expand my knowledge.

Can you people here try to push me into the right direction of choosing a college with what I have?

The colleges I want to attend are: NYU, UCLA, USC, Chapman, Boston University, CalArts, Emerson, Syracuse, School of Visual Arts, etc.

Yet I'm afraid my GPA won't be up to par and I hope my personal statement and portfolio can help me out greatly.

Thank You

hi there,
i'm planning to apply to CalArts so I know a lot of things about it.based on what i know, calarts is a completely different uni from any other else.it encourages you to be artistic and different, not like others which prefer commercials and hollywood-type movies.so if you want to apply to UCLA, USC, or so on, logically you won't pick CalArts.they have different direction in this industry.
from calarts, you also can't expect lots of hands on or education outside film-making.it's an art school.ucla, usc, nyu, chapman are not art schools.

you should reconsider again the nature or the direction of your career.if you want into more indie or cult movies, then you might wanna try calarts or another art schools.but if you're going to hollywood, then you definitely should go to the Holy Trinity =).

pick your university carefully.find out deeper on the universities that might suit you, don't depend too much on rankings or reviews.

btw,
are you transferring from community college?which com college are you going to?i'm actually searching for com college to transfer to calarts, but i haven't found out. ><

Thanks for your reply, I forgot to state I was a senior in the first post.

After an extensive round of research I'm really hoping I can get into Chapman for film. I don't know if I have even a chance but I'm going to try my hardest to get in with my essay and other things.

I'm looking more toward going to Hollywood yet still doing indie films. I want to be the writer and director in the process of making my films. I'm pursuing more toward the auteur side and be involved with every aspect of my film as well, music, lighting, etc.

More advice would be plenty of help though.

Thanks

I went to School of Visual Arts- I recently dropped out because their program wasn't for me. I had a 2.7 GPA and 1190 on the SATs (I skipped the entire math section ha) and I got into SVA. SVA is incredibly easy to get into. The good thing about SVA is you concentrate on film and nothing but it (English is the only "non-film" class you take)


But in my opinion aim for USC, NYU, or Chapman. I'm thinking of going their next year because keep reading more and more on how great their film program is becoming to be. NYU has more of an "indie" style and USC is more "Hollywood" but I have also read Chapman has both sides.

Anyways, after experiencing "film school" for a few months I'd say you should aim for Chapman, USC, and NYU. I know nothing really about CalArts.

quick warning:
Do not go about proclaiming things like, "I believe myself to reach the level of an auteur"
It comes off as extremely arrogant and gives a pretty bad first impression. I could've easily picked apart your english if I was being a jerk, but I'm going to refrain from that. Just because you performed several roles in a production does not mean you are at the level of what Truffaut would consider as an Auteur. I have done everything you mentioned and more, but that does not put me on a pedestal.
On to the main questions.
I suggest you ask around those who are already in the school for the criteria they will judge you on. Some schools will favor your academic scores more while others will look much more heavily into your portfolio. I know people who have the same GPA as you to get into the so called Holy Trinity as you would claim. Don't forget that your application counts alot too. make everything matter and be as honest as you can in your writing samples and do your best on the interviews and you would be raising your chances of getting in. The most important thing is for you to find out what your route will be. If you want to be a producer with a joint degree in Law, then make sure the schools you apply to has such a program. If you want to be a sound designer, editor, cinematographer, etc etc, then make sure they have the program that will work for you.
From what I understand, many of the universities in California are very hands on and you would probably get into real production by the first few months of attending classes. That being said, I'm going to Chapman and have already participated in a cycle film where I had a ton of fun and learned a great deal as 2nd AC even though I'm an editing emphasis.

All in all, Make sure you know what you want to do before you look into those schools, because some schools are better known for a specific emphasis than others. I can tell you with confidence that if you really want to be a producer, USC's Stark program would be an extremely great choice, but it will be very very very competitive.

Good luck.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike_V,

Mike...read your first paragraph, you sound 10x more arrogant than that kid. Your in no position to give out personality advice.

How do i sound 10x more arrogant than that kid when I said that I have more experience than him and yet I do not call myself an auteur. Just because you did a few positions in a production does not make you an auteur. You need to understand the context of the whole paragraph rather than reply without thinking about it.
Yes I said I can pick his english apart, but I also said I'm refraining from it. which means I'm not going to bash him for sake of civility. Any of the things I've stated in there is not considered arrogant.

quote:

which means I'm not going to bash him for sake of civility.

lolz! Irony FTW!

quote:

Yes I said I can pick his english apart...

Any of the things I've stated in there is not considered arrogant.

Irony FTW x2

Come on guys. Let's play nice.

Thank you for reading this friendly reminder to be civil from one of your site moderators.

FYI, an auteur attitude will be overcome in film school. You can't do it all yourself, and yes, wanting to will often offend, as it did here. Film is a collaborative medium.

That said, I took the OP's mention of being an auteur on his early film is something that applies to my own early work...I took the OP to be saying he HAD to do everything himself, not that he chose to.

Either way, let's stay on topic.

Wow evan, I'm pretty sure I'm human and I am allowed one or two errors every once in a while. Also, just because I said I could does not mean I would. This simply means that I do not find reason to belittle someone because a misunderstanding of a relatively touchy concept. What I said is a cautionary warning to be careful of what to call yourself especially on first impression. There wasn't a point in time in any of my posts where I claim I am better than him. I have said I did more than he did but nothing else. I fail to see how that is ironic at all. (EDIT: l33tspeak is fun and all, but it undermines you more than it helps you. That and the fact that I never said I was better or any other assumptions for that matter.)

To Jayimess, I think the concept of an Auteur is quite different from what is being assumed here. How I perceived it is that an Auteur is those that creates a film beyond the everyday cookie cutting or generic style that makes sense in a holistic manner not the amount of roles one has taken in various film productions.

Plenty of student who are in film school still do a large amount of their "homeworks" by themselves in their first year. Of course you help others along the way, but atleast at Chapman, alot of first year productions are 1 manned for the most part. My production workshop assignments require me to write, direct, shoot, and edit the project. Sometimes I grab myself a cine or a screenwriter to do the job for me, but I feel like it's more of a learning experience on the other aspects of filmmaking at a much much smaller scale. If anything the Auteur concept is pretty over rated nowadays anyways because its meaning has been diminished over time(maybe I'm just overly cynical with the concept of Auteur).

In the end, I do agree with you. Filmmaking is simply one of the biggest collaborative projects out there. Your part in its production makes the film what it is in all of its aspect (be it praise or scorn) and without you, the film will be different in some way shape or form.

Multiple EDITs in here to clarify some of my words here since I usually reply from the top of my head with little regards to fleshing out some of my points.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike_V,

quote:

This simply means that I do not find reason to belittle someone because a misunderstanding of a relatively touchy concept

And Ironic Statement #3 gets a full explanation:

When you say things like "I could've easily picked apart your english if I was being a jerk," it really feels like you are cutting him/her down. Its like saying "well...I could say how ****ty your acting was, but I won't" ...you are basically belittling somebody when you say things like that. It also implies that you are superior, since you are able to see and recognize mistakes that somebody clearly missed, and yet you fail to explain or be constructive. I don't think that is what you were trying to say, but it REALLY reads like that. I'm sure others would agree.

I guess you probably didn't mean it, but you came off like you're tearing psh the beginnings of a new *sshole in your first post... And then denying it... If you didn't mean it, then I guess I understand... The thought was nice, but the delivery was a bit off I guess. No hard feelings (hopefully). Just trying to tone down the "serious" dial in this thread a little bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan:

quote:

This simply means that I do not find reason to belittle someone because a misunderstanding of a relatively touchy concept

And Ironic Statement #3 gets a full explanation:

When you say things like "I could've easily picked apart your english if I was being a jerk," it really feels like you are cutting him/her down. Its like saying "well...I could say how ****ty your acting was, but I won't" ...you are basically belittling somebody when you say things like that. It also implies that you are superior, since you are able to see and recognize mistakes that somebody clearly missed, and yet you fail to explain or be constructive. I don't think that is what you were trying to say, but it REALLY reads like that. I'm sure others would agree.

I guess you probably didn't mean it, but you came off like you're tearing psh the beginnings of a new *sshole in your first post... And then denying it... If you didn't mean it, then I guess I understand... The thought was nice, but the delivery was a bit off I guess. No hard feelings (hopefully). Just trying to tone down the "serious" dial in this thread a little bit.

Not so ironic, but that's a fair enough arguement. My original message was meant as a warning. None of what I said was meant to belittle anyone and if it did, it was not on purpose. As much as anyone says appearance doesn't matter, FIRST appearance matters and I wanted to stress that going around claiming you are at the height of the art of film making sets you up to be ripped apart by those who are better.All in all, it's probably my wording in this case. I would like to stress this again, I have no intentions of putting anyone down nor do I have any intentions of coming off as rude. It is simply meant as a warning for the unwary.

I am applying to USC, NYU, and Chapman.
My SAT score is 2240 and I don't have a GPA, but my grades in school are good.

I think I wrote my essays and supplemental material pretty well, but I don't have much of a portfolio or film experience. As in my portfolio is largely freelance stuff.

Do I have a shot at any of these places? Do they value film experience as much as a passion and drive for film? Because I think those came out in my personal statement and such...

(although this is in the undergraduate forums, I hope my experience apply to graduate school will help you somehow)
From my experience, I believe it's a healthy mix of both. Usually you can find some sort of rating for your grades that can be translated into a GPA score.
In terms of portfolio, you mentioned you have freelance stuff. Is it freelance video projects or is it freelance work that you did (grip, ac, boom-op, etc)?
When I applied, everything I submitted was something I felt strongly about. I mentioned things like how I found passion in nothing else but film. Depending on which emphasis you want to apply to for, they do different approaches. As an editor, they look at my porfolio and how many places I held internships at. As directors, they are required to submit videos of their work, come in on an interview (or over the phone) and they judge you from that point on. Each emphasis has a slight difference and it has slightly more "focus" on specific parts of the application than the other.

In the end, I would definitely say, be as honest as godly possible. If you truly love film, then write about why, your inspiration, your approach, etc.

good luck