If making movies is an art then...

[batman1]

Why do people go to school to learn how to be a director? The best directors are just so creative they can't get that from school.

 

[Apollo]

I know Tim Burton went to art school.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Why do people go to school to learn how to be a director? The best directors are just so creative they can't get that from school.

The same reason writers and other artist go to school. To learn the tools of the trade.

 

[jnmx2000]

Mainly to make connections, that's where a lot of directors have met the people they form long term careers with. You meet cinematographers, editors, and producers who all share a passion and you forge connections and learn how to work with others without to much at stake besides a grade. That's where I met a lot of people I like to work with.

 

[Octoberist]

Technical aspects, making connections, learning how to manage a crew, and conducting business (though the latter is something is kinda iffy), etc.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Why do people go to school to learn how to be a director? The best directors are just so creative they can't get that from school.

There is a hell of a lot more to being an artist, director, photographer, etc than simply being creative. Like others have said, you learn all the tools and tricks of the trade. Using a director for example, you have to know identify and how to use countless types of cameras, lenses and film, how to create and use storyboards, how to use editing programs (as well as editing does and don'ts), various filming techniques, and be at the very least familiar with all aspects of shooting a scene (writing, acting, lighting, sound, etc). Getting contacts and learning how to work and collaborate with others is also very important. There is a TON that goes into shooting a movie that directors need to be able to do that merely being creativity won't cover.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Because content and technique are not the same thing. You still have to learn the actual technical aspects of film making. But... That kinda should be obvious.

 

[batman1]

There is a hell of a lot more to being an artist, director, photographer, etc than simply being creative. Like others have said, you learn all the tools and tricks of the trade. Using a director for example, you have to know identify and how to use countless types of cameras, lenses and film, how to create and use storyboards, how to use editing programs (as well as editing does and don'ts), various filming techniques, and be at the very least familiar with all aspects of shooting a scene (writing, acting, lighting, sound, etc). Getting contacts and learning how to work and collaborate with others is also very important. There is a TON that goes into shooting a movie that directors need to be able to do that merely being creativity won't cover.

I totally understand this. But then there are lots of people who learn the same things and make the same connections without going to school. I am not playing down film school but just trying to understand how others who make great movies can do the same thing.

 

[SuperFerret]

Some people are rich without having to work. Why do we need jobs?

 

[batman1]

Technical aspects, making connections, learning how to manage a crew, and conducting business (though the latter is something is kinda iffy), etc.

I get it. Just trying to see how folks like Taranteno can excel without formal training.

 

[Octoberist]

He's an anomaly along with Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez (though he shot tons of short films during college where he was an art major). It's due to the era..Like Rodriguez' memoir on how he broke into Hollywood is totally a thing of the past. (How he got into meeting with the Weinsteins, etc.)

Though Justin Lin and the dude who directed 'Blue Ruin' used up their credit cards, but had to sell their movies to film festivals.

 

[Pickleweasel]

To learn and get better. Same reason why people go to school for anything.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I totally understand this. But then there are lots of people who learn the same things and make the same connections without going to school. I am not playing down film school but just trying to understand how others who make great movies can do the same thing.

It's certainly possible to gain knowledge and experience on your own terms, but the success of doing so is limited in a lot of ways. Schooling (in theory - not all schools are created equal) gives you a better, more nuanced and definitive experience.

It's also important to note that on a film set, the director isn't responsible for every aspect of the film making; they delegate much of the work to other experts, so directors without training can rely on others.

Tarantino and Smith might not have gone to film school (well, Smith attended for a few months) and while they make mostly good films, their lack of formal training shows. Their strength lies in their writing, not necessarily their specific directing skills. Both directors aren't dynamic and visual storytellers; the vast majority of their films are little more than talking heads. That isn't an insult or meant to diminish their natural talents, but I think it is safe to assume that they would be much different and more technical directors with greater variety had they formally studied. Heck, Kevin Smith openly admits he's a terrible director and knows absolutely nothing about the aspects of filming outside of pointing a camera at actors and pushing Record.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It's certainly possible to gain knowledge and experience on your own terms, but the success of doing so is limited in a lot of ways. Schooling (in theory - not all schools are created equal) gives you a better, more nuanced and definitive experience.

It's also important to note that on a film set, the director isn't responsible for every aspect of the film making; they delegate much of the work to other experts, so directors without training can rely on others.

Tarantino and Smith might not have gone to film school (well, Smith attended for a few months) and while they make mostly good films, their lack of formal training shows. Their strength lies in their writing, not necessarily their specific directing skills. Both directors aren't dynamic and visual storytellers; the vast majority of their films are little more than talking heads. That isn't an insult or meant to diminish their natural talents, but I think it is safe to assume that they would be much different and more technical directors with greater variety had they formally studied. Heck, Kevin Smith openly admits he's a terrible director and knows absolutely nothing about the aspects of filming outside of pointing a camera at actors and pushing Record.

I would agree on your assessment of Smith, but I don't know what Tarantino films you have or haven't seen because, JESUS, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I would agree on your assessment of Smith, but I don't know what Tarantino films you have or haven't seen because, JESUS, you couldn't be more wrong.

I'll concede that I may not be giving Tarantino enough credit, but I really don't find him to be a dynamic and visually interesting director at all, which I was referring to. He is a master at writing and building tension through dialogue, though (that bar scene in Basterds, ohmygod). I don't count Kill Bill, as he did nothing but copy and paste from better Kung Fu films.

 

[batman1]

He's an anomaly along with Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez (though he shot tons of short films during college where he was an art major). It's due to the era..Like Rodriguez' memoir on how he broke into Hollywood is totally a thing of the past. (How he got into meeting with the Weinsteins, etc.)

Though Justin Lin and the dude who directed 'Blue Ruin' used up their credit cards, but had to sell their movies to film festivals.

Got it. Now that you pointed it out most did seem to go to school of some sort.

 

[Octoberist]

Well, i think the Hollywood structure was more lax back then. Like in the 70's, if you had a good idea, they'll beeping fund it, hence all those great movies back then. Then it slowly changed in the 80's, then the early 90's gave us the indie movie revolution, and now it's super corporate filled with non-creative middle management who are afraid of losing their jobs, dealing with the extremes. It's a miracle that movies like The Guest get made.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I'll concede that I may not be giving Tarantino enough credit, but I really don't find him to be a dynamic and visually interesting director at all, which I was referring to. He is a master at writing and building tension through dialogue, though (that bar scene in Basterds, ohmygod). I don't count Kill Bill, as he did nothing but copy and paste from better Kung Fu films.

[YT]xHO6nBc4YFU[/YT]

[YT]0xDeHaKZGGs[/YT]

[YT]C64ulH6lTAw[/YT]

And while you might be dismissive of KILL BILL... Well I find it simply undeniable as the kids say... [YT]pfJx04mWMMY[/YT]

[YT]kWY11o5Hnvw[/YT] (Yeah, yeah... Snowbird influenced O-Ren... We know.)

 

[Octoberist]

Tarentino, out of the three, is the BEST visualist.

 

[Spider-Who?]

[YT]xHO6nBc4YFU[/YT]

[YT]0xDeHaKZGGs[/YT]

[YT]C64ulH6lTAw[/YT]

And while you might be dismissive of KILL BILL... Well I find it simply undeniable as the kids say... [YT]pfJx04mWMMY[/YT]

[YT]kWY11o5Hnvw[/YT] (Yeah, yeah... Snowbird influenced O-Ren... We know.)

I guess I should be preparing for the pitch forks, huh?

I love Pulp Fiction for its story and characters, but it is nothing to write home about from a visual or technical level (yes there is far more to direction than that, but I originally brought those points up as they're the easiest to define and discuss). Same with Basterds, though it's his second best effort in that front. I think Django is the movie with his best overall direction on display.

I actually forgot about that first clip from Kill Bill, so thanks for that - it's certainly enjoyable

I still stand by my opinion though. Tarantino is great at creating tension through dialogue, but as a director he suffers from over-endulgence in exposition and swiping styles from other directors. Outside of his writing, I don't feel like he has a style and vision of his own, really, unless you count copying others his own. He relies on talking heads and the vision of others to counteract his weaknesses as a director. That's not a slam against him; every director has weaknesses and that doesn't make him a BAD director by any means - there's more to quality direction than that. His strength lies in writing dialouge and bringing out fantastic performances from his actors, which he absolutely nails and is absolutely the sign of a good director.

 

[Bobber]

I guess I should be preparing for the pitch forks, huh?

I love Pulp Fiction for its story and characters, but it is nothing to write home about from a visual or technical level (yes there is far more to direction than that, but I originally brought those points up as they're the easiest to define and discuss). Same with Basterds, though it's his second best effort in that front. I think Django is the movie with his best overall direction on display.

I actually forgot about that first clip from Kill Bill, so thanks for that - it's certainly enjoyable

I still stand by my opinion though. Tarantino is great at creating tension through dialogue, but as a director he suffers from over-endulgence in exposition and swiping styles from other directors. Outside of his writing, I don't feel like he has a style and vision of his own, really, unless you count copying others his own. He relies on talking heads and the vision of others to counteract his weaknesses as a director. That's not a slam against him; every director has weaknesses and that doesn't make him a BAD director by any means - there's more to quality direction than that. His strength lies in writing dialouge and bringing out fantastic performances from his actors, which he absolutely nails and is absolutely the sign of a good director.

Tarantino's grasp on creating tension, mood, tone, etc. are incredible. He's an insanely gifted storyteller, not just in his writing, but in his directing as well.

 

[batman1]

Some people just have the gift! And from what I've seen directors don't even have to know how to do everything. Just to communicate their vision precisely so others can do their job. Then he can say yes or no. That's directing.

 

[StarLord]

[YT]kWY11o5Hnvw[/YT] (Yeah, yeah... Snowbird influenced O-Ren... We know.)

You mean Snowblood.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Paul Thomas Anderson didn't go to film school either.

Is PTA a visually mundane director, Spider-who? I would love for you to make the claim.

 

[Marvin]

Why do people go to school to learn how to be a director? The best directors are just so creative they can't get that from school.

Start Here:
You probably need to ask yourself if any art is automatically disqualified as art if one can go to school for it.
Music(playing and reading etc..)
Literature
Figure skating

etc.