Is film school worth it?

It’s a complicated question that every person has to answer for themselves, but I wanted to focus on one aspect of it which I like to call the Film School Paradox: as the cost of making films goes down, the cost of film school goes up.

The absurdly high cost of a graduate education in the United States continues to rise with no end in sight. A recent article in the New York Times gives a dire prognostication:

With unemployment soaring, higher education has never been more important to society or more widely desired. But the collapse of our public education system and the skyrocketing cost of private education threaten to make college unaffordable for millions of young people. If recent trends continue, four years at a top-tier school will cost $330,000 in 2020, $525,000 in 2028 and $785,000 in 2035.

Seven-hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars!

UCLA holds a unique position at the eye of California’s budgetary storm, with tuition having gone up nearly $7,000 in the two years I’ve been here. As I’ve mentioned earlier, this development heavily contributed to my decision to graduate a year early.

That being said, if you look at the top five film schools and their respective tuitions, UCLA is actually somewhat affordable:

1. NYU (With Insurance Fees) $48,020
2. Columbia (First and Second Year) $50,873
3. AFI $42,329
4. USC $40,960
5. UCLA (In-State) $23,000

But it’s still a lot of moolah! For one year’s tuition at any of these schools, you could easily buy a nice camera package or even finance a whole feature (see my microbudget list).

With recent developments in digital technology, it seems like an increasingly viable option to go and shoot your own feature or short without paying forty grand a year. What to do with that feature after it’s done, or how to get the money to make it is outside the scope of this article.

In the old days, film students went to school to gain access to prohibitively expensive thirty-five and sixteen millimeter cameras. Those days are officially gone; this year all major manufacturers announced that they will no longer make film cameras. Meanwhile the new RED Scarlet, with accessories, sells for $15,000.

This is the film school paradox; as the difficulty and expense involved in making films decline, the cost of a film school education continues to rise. Or as William Butler Yeats put it:

The falcon cannot hear the falconer.

Film school can offer mentorship, feedback, a professional network, peer relationships, technical training and time to work on your craft. All of these are incredibly valuable, but it will be interesting to see at which price point film school applications drop off, if they haven’t already.

A Graduate MFA Directing student who becomes a top director is statistically comparable to an MBA becoming a CEO at a Fortune 500 company. But my guess is that most top-tier MBAs who don’t become CEOs have far fewer problems paying off their student loans.

I still believe that a film school education can be worth $100,000, but as the prices continue to soar high above that mark, students will be increasingly faced with the serious choice of whether two to seven hundred thousand dollars, or the price of most features in Sundance’s low-budget NEXT section, is really worth it.

What do you think, can the falcon hear the falconer?

One of the most publicized corporate blunders this year began with Netflix’s realization that consumers still like DVDs. A lot.

Netflix’s response, including raising subscription prices and its failed Qwikster spinoff, severely compromised Netflix’s subscription base, consumer trust and market value. All because people still like their DVDs.

And justly so; DVD chapter browsing and bonus content were such a dramatic improvement over VHS that after their release in 1997 consumers started buying movies like never before.  In 2002 DVD sales finally eclipsed those of VHS, which died for obvious reasons: it was a cropped, low-quality version of a film you had to play end to end. Compared to DVD, VHS obviously sucked.

I myself bought into the DVD craze and own around three hundred of them. Now that I do most of my viewing through streaming on my computer and other digital devices, you would think I would have switched to Download-To-Own (DTO) for recent purchases. But looking now at my collection in the two years since DTO became a viable option I own three VTO titles, or one percent of the movies I own. And I hate them. So much.

Compared to DVDs, DTO sucks. It’s like a digital VHS: pricey, no access to special features and clunky (or impossible) to move between devices. DTO’ing (yes, it’s now a verb) a movie off Amazon or Itunes is like owning a crappy DVD for three times the cost of renting it.

Renting digital make a lot of sense; you can watch the movie once and return it at the click of a button. That’s why people rent movies; to watch them once and return them. People who rent movies aren’t interested in special features; they’re not even sure if they like the movie yet.

Buying movies is a different story; consumers buy DVDs they’ve already seen to re-experience them, and also perhaps to learn about how they were made. DVDs conditioned consumers to expect the added value of special features. which DTO does not provide. This is why DTO, from a consumer standpoint, is not a suitable substitute for DVDs.

In other words, DTO sucks.

If I can rip a DVD onto my computer and play it with special features, why the hell can’t I buy that exact same thing in digital format?

Amazon and Itunes take a sizeable cut for their distribution services (around 30% per download). This is significantly higher than brick-and-mortar stores like Best-Buy, who often sell DVDs at a loss to drive shoppers toward other more profitable items in their stores. My guess is that the revenue discrepancy between DVD and DTO is a major reason for content owners to bet against the latter, even at the cost of consumer satisfaction and potential sales.

One thing’s for sure; as of this writing DTO is a crappy way to own a movie. It makes more sense to pirate or rent than it does to DTO, which right now feels like more of a punishment than anything else.

Also: not being able to screen capture Itunes movies sucks. That’s all.

These people? Yeah they're in debt.

A while back Short of the Week Editor Andrew S. Allen told me I should write about my thoughts about film school strategy. Here are the seven things I came up with that I find essential to any successful film school career:

1. Find Your Voice

This is a murky territory that a lot of people get confused by. Your voice is the kind of stories you want to tell, the kind of stories that move you. If you come into school loving romantic dramas, but decide to make an action picture just to “try it out,” the odds are it will probably not be as good. Basically this means finding and trusting your intuition, being able to listen to yourself for what you find important. Miranda July said in a Q & A at the Los Angeles Film Festival that she wakes up every morning and asks herself what she really wants to do today. That’s not a bad start.

2. Make A Lot of Short Films, Finish the Damn Things, and Make Them Cheap

One of the things that still baffles me about film schools is how instead of making a bunch of cheap films, we make a couple very expensive ones. The learning potential for a film generally remains the same no matter how much money you spend on it. Putting a film together, and then being forced to watch it over and over again is the best way to learn how to make a movie. Shoot digital, shoot a lot, and set deadlines to finish. I wrote a post earlier called “Good Enough,” and I meant it. Not every film will be a masterpiece. The best films are the ones you learn the most from.

3. Write/Develop A Lot of Features (Including One You Can Make For Nothing)

If you want to be a writer/director, as it seems most people in film school do, you have to write a lot of features. As with the short films, some of them will be better than others. The most common story repeated in film schools is:

Jimmy just won Sundance/Cannes/Berlin/the Student Oscars with his short film, he got repped at WME/CAA/Paradigm, but he doesn’t have any features done, so now he’s going to spend 6-12 months writing/rewriting while the buzz dies.

For a first person account of this, see this post on John August’s blog: http://johnaugust.com/2011/missed-opportunities-and-second-chances

The second (and far more common) thing that happens is that your short film is not a massive success, and you don’t get the great agent/manager to guide you to new career heights. That’s why you have to write something you can make, no matter what, for cheap.

I wrote last week about how Ryan Koo raised $125,000 on Kickstarter. He has no major credits, as far as I can tell has never had a short film at a major festival, and is relatively unknown. He did have a blog though, which was free, and a lot of savvy and hard work, which is also free. The point is you can make your first feature, you’re just going to have to be realistic and do it for CHEAP!

Abe Sylvia, a UCLA alum whose Dirty Girl hit theaters this weekend, said that the one thing he wished he’d done in film school was write more. The more scripts you have, the more movies you can potentially make. If you don’t have any scripts, you don’t have any movies. Period.

4. Submit to Film Festivals/Screenwriting Competitions

Hopefully one or two of your short films will come out well. In which case you’re going to have to learn to start throwing money and DVDs into the abyss known as film festivals.

The second portion of this is applying with your screenplays to contests like the Nicholls, Goldwyn (for UC Students), the Sundance Labs, Zoetrope etc. Development interns and assistants in Hollywood power through the finalists for these competitions all the time, and it is one of the best ways for an unknown to get read without representation, and even to secure representation.

Submitting to film festivals and competitions is pretty straightforward, and I already wrote a post about short film festival strategy, so I’m not going to go too in depth here.

Basically it’s a lot of work. You’re running a little office (I have a spreadsheet) and every few weeks or so you:

1. See which deadlines are coming up.
2. Pay entry fees and mail dvds.
3. Check to see if new deadlines have been announced.
4. Weep over the innumerable rejections.

5. Intern

Yes, this is the part where people go, “Internships? Isn’t that slave labor?” The answer is: kind of.

An internship will teach you how the industry works from the perspective of the people who actually get paid to make movies. If you do a good job, they will become contacts that can help you in the future with job searches, script notes, general encouragement or connections to other film people.

This is your way to spend two days a week learning how people who can make your movies think, and should not be overlooked. I’ve done two in my two years here, and I wish I could have squeezed one more in.

Every school (at least in NY and LA) should have some sort of internship listing. If your last name isn’t Coppola or Reitman, I suggest you give them a look.

Bonus: If you work for a small company, you may even find a mentor.

6. Form Long-lasting Relationships With Peers

Another oft-quoted cliché in film school is; “keep track of your peers, you will be climbing up the ranks together.” This is very true. How many friends did you have before film school who could Assistant Direct a movie? Shoot one?

Your peers are the people who you can go to in times of need, who might be able to help you make that $50,000 feature by providing some of the slave labor it implies, and who (hopefully) have a vested interest in your success.

In some ways this can be the biggest gift you have coming out of film school; a group of like-minded, passionate and motivated people who you can always call if you don’t understand color correction or need a last-minute grip.

7. Finish Fast and Minimize Your Debt

The bottom line is that America seems to care less and less about the rising costs of education and the welfare of its students. I recently posted the following commentary on facebook:

While we can petition our government as much as we like, the bottom line is it’s going to get more and more expensive to study here in America, at least until the education bubble pops. The sad thing is that we’re willing to bail out the banks, but not the universities.

I’m choosing to graduate a year early from UCLA because I didn’t see the point in going any farther into debt that I already had. You learn how to make a movie in film school. My feeling was that once you’ve done it a few times, you’re ready to leave. The factors that I had the most control over that contributed to my debt were:

1. The cost of my films
2. My lifestyle
3. How many outside jobs I worked

For $50,000

For $100,000

For $200,000

In the end I still think film school is worth it. It’s a lot to cram into 3 (to 7) years, but that’s why we pay the big bucks, right?

These campaigns are a lot of work, a full time job even, as Koo chronicles in his excellent post which you can read here: http://nofilmschool.com/2011/09/how-i-raised-125000-on-kickstarter/

In the spirit of all this I’m going to discuss the career of Drake Doremus, whose film Like Crazy, shot on the 7D, won this year’s Sundance Film Festival. Here’s the trailer:

Like Crazy sold for FOUR MILLION DOLLARS (read about it here) to Paramount at Sundance. Not bad for a first feature, right? Except it’s not his first feature; it’s his fourth. And he went to film school at AFI before that. And he’s only 28.

Drake Doremus is a symbol of a new model of filmmaker; the kind who makes a lot of movies, for cheap, while he’s learning his craft. If you look at Doremus’s career prior to Like Crazy, you can see a nice progression.

Moonpie (2006): Hollywood Film Festival, Hamburg Film Festival, Indie Film Festival

Spooner (2009): Slamdance, Newport Beach, Sonoma

Douchebag (2010): Sundance (Competition)

Smaller festivals into larger festivals. Small budgets, small deals and a lot of practice. None of these films cost more than $300,000. Some of them cost much less. None of them are as good as Like Crazy, but without them, Like Crazy would never have been possible. Doremus does have a special background; his mother Cherie Kerr was the founder of the Groundlings, a famous LA-Based acting school and theater. He also paid his dues though, teaching at the Orange County High School for the arts.

As I wrote in an article on Sofia Coppola’s short film, connections don’t mean talent; talent means talent. And talent takes time. So go forth and make a lot of movies. They’re not all going to be good, but they will each make the next one better. The kind of perseverance it takes to make four low-budget feature films is the same as that which is necessary to have a career as an independent film director. You all get the point, so I’m going to end with a wonderful quote from Ira Glass, also via Nofilmschool.

Maybe we should give him a cat?

One of the big words you’ll hear bandied about in LA when talking about main characters is “likeability.” “I don’t like him enough.” “I can’t track him.” “We need a ‘save the cat’ moment here.”

This problem was very well summed up on the delightful Story Notes From Hell:

I was doing an outline of a horror story where the main character was a deranged and mentally ill man who became an axe murderer. The story executive had this to add:

Exec: We have to make him likable.

Me: He’s an axe murderer.

Exec: He still needs to be likable.

Me: Maybe he shouldn’t be an axe murderer?

Exec: No, that’s fine, but he’s gotta have likable features.

Me: Well—

Exec: How about he has a cat that follows him around as he kills people? People love cats, and the cat can be his best friend or something?

Me: Maybe he saves someone’s life, or helps someone—

Exec: No, let’s give him a cat.

So what do we do if we want an introspective or difficult main character who isn’t relentlessly saving babies? What if we’re interested in protagonists from films like Faces, Naked or Julia, where the main character behaves in a less clear moral way?

Some people would say:

1. Find your own money for your movie.
2. Probably in Europe.

It seems I underestimated the importance of this trend. Microbudgets ($250,000 or less) have been a major launching pad since long before the nineties. If your short films don’t get into a major festival (and even if they do), this may become a route for you.

Here’s a list of directors and their first feature films which fall into this category:

John Sayles, Return of the Secaucus 7 ($60,000)

Bryan Singer, Public Access ($250,000)

Spike Lee, She’s Gotta Have It ($175,000)

Christopher Nolan, Following (6,000 pounds)

Darren Aronofsky, Pi ($20,000)

Todd Haynes, Poison ($250,000)

Robert Rodriguez, El Mariachi ($7,000)

Tobe Hooper, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (< $300,000)

David Lynch, Eraserhead ($10,000)

Wes Craven, The Last House On The Left ($90,000)

Kevin Smith, Clerks ($25,000)

Neil Labute, In The Company of Men ($25,000)

Richard Linklater, Slacker ($23,000)

Jim Jarmusch, Permanent Vacation ($12,000)

George Romero, Night of The Living Dead ($114,000)

John Cassavetes, Shadows ($25,000)

Satayajit Ray, Pather Panchali (Under $40,000)

Gus Van Sant, Mala Noche ($25,000)

One objection that’s always raised in these discussions is that these figures don’t reflect how much it cost to finish (some) of these films. But the reality is, from the filmmaker’s side at least, it was enough to find someone who would pay to release the films.

Another interesting point here is that many, many of these films were shot ON FILM for less than many graduate thesis films cost.

Just as a clincher, here are Peter Broderick’s 9 principles of ultra-low budget filmmaking:

THE REVISED RULES OF ULTRA-LOW BUDGET

Although significantly enhanced by digital tools, much of the original ultra-low budget framework remains unchanged. In my 1993 article “Learning from Low Budgets,” I listed nine rules-of-thumb for microbudget production. Let’s examine how these rules have evolved from the early days of the model when every low budget feature was being shot on film until today when the vast majority of ultra-low budget features are made digitally.

Hell or High Water Commitment - A committed core group, determined to make a movie come hell or high water, is still essential.

No Nonsense Resource Assessment – Filmmakers start by assessing the resources they have and those they are certain they can find. It is essential to accurately determine the money, equipment, locations, crew, and post facilities that will definitely be available to the production.

For any digital production (especially one designed to be transferred to film), it is important to carefully research a series of technical issues (e.g. the best format, NTSC vs. PAL, audio recording to camera or DAT) to determine how the necessary image and sound quality can be achieved.

Realistic Scripting - The script is often written after the resource assessment. But whenever it is written or modified, it must be possible to make the scripted movie with the resources available. Shooting digitally rather than on film usually reduces the budget thus reducing the risk of running out of money during production.

Imaginative Financing - Every conceivable method is used to minimize and postpone expenditures. Digital makes both easier. It reduces the cost of production by eliminating the cost of film stock and processing, and camera rental. Digital also postpones, and in some cases eliminates, the cost of making film prints if filmmakers use digital projection at festivals. They often decide not to make a film print if theatrical distribution isn’t an option.

Recruiting Cast and Crew - It is essential to find capable cast and crew who will work for little or no compensation while enduring the rigors of ultra-low budget production. Shooting digitally may make it easier to attract actors who want the opportunity to give their best performances. For digital productions it is important to find a talented DP, who is either experienced in digital cinematography or committed to learning the fundamentals.

Pragmatic Planning - “Budgeting, scheduling, and other planning must me done carefully to maximize the use of limited resources and minimize problems.” This is especially true for digital production. As part of the extra technical research required, tests should be done prior to production. After a lab is chosen, footage should be shot using the designated camera under anticipated lighting conditions. Then the lab should transfer this footage to 35mm, and project it for the director and the DP. This makes it possible to optimize the camera settings in advance, and enables the director and DP to know exactly how their digital images will ultimately look on film. When shooting digitally it is also necessary to have a realistic plan about the audio postproduction path (especially if using PAL).

Guerrilla Production – Ultra-low budget production on film is usually short and intense since only a small shooting ratio (eg. 5:1) is affordable. When shooting digitally, the camera (or cameras) can be on most of the time leading to 20:1 and 30:1 shooting ratios. Using small digital cameras and a small crew enables inconspicuous production in real world locations, making it possible to capture reality rather than faking it. Owning a digital camera allows greater scheduling flexibility. When I asked Gary Winick when he was going to finish shooting his first digital feature, Sam the Man, he replied, “Tonight if it rains.” Digital production can also be much longer, with more shooting days spread over an extended schedule.

Extended Postproduction – Postproduction on film can require significant amounts of cash for equipment rental, lab work, negative cutting, etc. This money is often raised in bits and pieces dragging out postproduction. Digital post is less resource intensive since more steps can be done on a desktop computer. The length of digital post is usually determined by creative rather than financial needs. Digital allows relatively quick and inexpensive recuts and can raise the question – when is the movie ever done?

Boundless Opportunism – Ultra-low budget filmmakers have to be able to create and take advantage of opportunities. Digital production allows more opportunities for creative choices throughout the process.

He goes on to discuss the formidable distribution hurdles facing microbudgets, which in my good spirits I’ll refrain from commenting on. You can read his whole article here.

A Son Like You: 17 Months

Jersey’s For Lovers: 12 Months

Honor Student: 8 Months

Between Us, A Dog: Still Unfinished (In Sound Design)

I’ve had many highs and lows throughout the postproduction of these films. This summer I decided that no matter what, all of them would be finished. In doing so I forced myself through the post-production process of locking picture, finding a composer, doing sound design and finally color correcting. It was difficult but very rewarding; you can learn a hell of a lot in color correction and sound work that will help you on your next project.

The way I got myself through it was to remember that sometimes something is good enough. Any of those films could have taken even more time in each of the processes, but I looked at the films and the deadlines I set for them and decided they were good enough. As a filmmaker you never know whether a film is good enough for Sundance, or Cannes or whatever festival you dream of going to. You can decide however when a film is good enough for you.

This summer I also embraced minimalism; owning only what you need to own, keeping only what you need to live. There are many similarities between finishing your film and embracing minimalism. There’s a tremendous feeling of accomplishment with every film you finish, every closet you clear, every shelf you liberate.

Some some of your films might go to the shelf, while others will go to vimeo or festivals, but every one is a triumph. So the next time you’re sitting at your computer, thinking about the unfinished projects, just ask yourself, “Is it good enough to finish now?”

When you export that final file, you’ll feel a sense of freedom and accomplishment that you can bring to your next project. It’s a wonderful place to be.

You can see the films and read the post here:

http://jasonbkohl.com/archives/2010/5-shorts-that-launched-features/

I thought that after a year it would be interesting to check in where those diverse directors are in their careers.

1. Sikumi – Director Andrew Okpeah Maclean

After a successful festival run, including a premiere at Sundance and also playing Berlin and Seattle, Sikumi the feature film appears to have failed to secure a traditional distribution deal. They are currently in the beginning stages of an $80,000 kickstarter campaign to raise the funds for a theatrical distribution. You can see their kickstarter video here:

I donated; I loved the short and believe in the feature version as well. Give them a visit and donate if you can, I would love to see this film come to theaters.

2. Crossbow – Director David Michôd

David Michôd’s feature film Animal Kingdom won the World Jury prize at Sundance 2010. It went into theatrical release in the US and worldwide, earning $6.8 million dollars overall. The film most likely made its money back.

As for his future plans, the most recent interview I could find comes from the Guardian in February 2011:

As for Michôd’s next move, Hollywood always has room for a decent thriller director, even though Melbourne has plenty more tales for him to draw on. He’s not committed yet, but it’s likely he’ll be Los Angeles-bound. “It’s not just the resources that are available to you there, the energy of that place is intoxicating as well,” he says of Hollywood. “My head is filled with Australian stories, but at the same time, there’s this incredible window of opportunity, and I do feel compelled to climb through it while it’s open.”

So it looks like Michôd is headed for hollywood, what comes after that we’ll see.

3. The Raven – Director Ricardo de Montreuil

The Raven garnered a LOT of attention in Hollywood and apparently a feature film version was bought by Paramount. Just as a side note, Monteuil is not quite the young buck I made him out to be in my initial post. He had made two feature films in Peru before he moved on to make The Raven.

The feature film version of The Raven is being produced by Mark Wahlberg. Montreuil is also signed on to direct a project called lowriders according to the Hollywood Reporter:

The coming-of-age drama has been described as being in the vein of 8 Mile, also made by Imagine and Universal, and follows a kid from Pacoima with a dead-end job and dreams of building the perfect lowrider. When he finds fortune and fame, the local bad ass wants a piece of him, and he questions his pursuit of the American dream.

As of right now, the most recent thing I can find about him (in 2011) is his twitter account.

4. Gowanus Brooklyn – Directed by Ryan Fleck

Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden’s last feature film was called “It’s Kind of A Funny Story,” starring Zach Galifinakis. It premiered at the 2010 Toronto Film Festival and was distributed by focus features, garnering about $6.5 million on an 8 million dollar budget, going up to 742 screens in its widest release. It got a metacritic score of 63.

Nothing seems to have been announced for them since “It’s Kind of A Funny Story.”

5. 9 – Directed by Shane Acker

Shane Acker’s “9″ was released in 2009. the film grossed $31 million on a 30 million dollar budget. His most recent project is an adaptation of the popular Thomas the Tank Engine children’s stories, as reported by Deadline:

“I’m a recent father, with a 20-month old daughter,” he told Deadline. “We lead such busy lives in Hollywood, always running and hustling, but children tend to slow you down a bit and reconnect you with that inner world. It reinvents your imagination, seeing things through a child’s eyes It was transformative  for me and that is what inspired me about the possibilities here. The tale will revolve around a pre-teen boy who has drifted apart from his father. The son is introduced into this world of Sodor, a place his father visited as a child but can’t remember. There is a bonding experience.”

The article doesn’t say when the feature is slated to go into production.

Application Details Below:

1 – BACKGROUND

The Cannes Festival has created the Festival Residence Programme with the objective to help young filmmakers develop their first or second narrative feature film project.

Each year, the Résidence du Festival welcomes 12 young filmmakers from around the world in two distinct sessions lasting four and a half months: six candidates participate in the October-February session and six others participate in the February-July session.

The Residence’s next session will run from October 3rd 2011 to February 15th 2012.

Since its creation in 2000, the Résidence has welcomed more than seventy filmmakers from more than forty different countries. Nearly fifty previous participants have seen their films selected by international festivals and distributed in theatres.

The programme provides accommodation for the selected candidates at the Résidence located in Paris, a personalised programme accompanying the writing of their scripts, and a collective programme of forums with film industry professionals.

The residents equally benefit from:

• A €800 grant per month;
• Free access to a large number of Paris cinemas;
• French lessons (optional);
• The possibility of attending festivals during their stay.

The preliminary jury, that establishes the shortlist of potential candidates, comprises

at least 3 personalities from the world of film. The selection is based on the quality of

their already made shorts – or first feature film, as well as on the interest of the

feature film project in the course of being written, and on the candidates’ motivation.

2 – ELIGIBILITY

Candidates, who want to submit their application for the Résidence should:

• have directed one or several short films, or even a first feature film;
•  have a fiction feature film project in progress at the moment of application(screenplay or 10 pages minimum treatment) ;
•  have to commit themselves to living at the Residence for the complete duration of the session.

3 – REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

Applications must include:

•  copy of your registration slip you will get after validation of your online application;
•  DVD of the films already made – both short and features films – (do not send video clips or trailer) ;
•  feature film project in progress at the moment of application (screenplay or a 10 page minimum treatment) ;
•  synopsis;
• intention note (vision statement for the project) ;
• copy of your passport.

Applications need to be received at the following address no later than April 1st, 2011 (arrival date). Send applications to:

Résidence du Festival

3 rue Amélie

75007 Paris

France

Films made in a language other than French or English must be subtitled in French or English, or, at the very least, be accompanied by a list of dialogues in French or English.

Incomplete applications will not be examined by the jury.

You can complete your application here:

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en/cinefoundation/theResidence.html

Good luck!

I thought it would be a fun exercise to start doing this with friends and people I meet along my way to becoming a filmmaker. Here’s the first one, by my friend Dylan Murray, studying for his PhD in Philosophy at Berkeley.

 
“I guess it was one of the first, well, one of the only times I remember feeling genuinely scared.”