I’m in the middle of applications for USC and UCLA, where I hope to get an MFA in screenwriting.

Any tips on writing the ultimate statement of purpose? Also, what kind of references play well? Should I get industry types or not – I have a couple of contacts in L.A.

I notice you went to USC. Was it very expensive?

--Matt

Last question first: yes. Film school is and was expensive. In my case, it was definitely worth it, but for every film school grad who’s making a living at it, there are probably three who aren’t. It’s certainly not like an MBA, where you’re pretty much guaranteed to get some kind of decent job at the end.

I was tempted to dig back through the archives (which are probably on floppy disk) to find my original application letter for the Peter Stark Producing Program at USC. Laziness trumped temptation, and I didn’t. But here’s my recollection of my “statement of purpose":

"I want to learn about the film industry in a comprehensive way, everything from loading a camera to analyzing a marketing plan. In specific, I’m curious to learn how the industry learns from its successes and failures, both critically and commercially."

My letters of recommendation came from a journalism professor and a marketing professor at Drake, and a film instructor I’d had for a summer program at Stanford. I think if you have a film-related reference, use it. But make sure at least one of your references is someone who knows you well and can really speak to your unique strengths with specific examples. To me, there’s nothing worse than a hollow, generic letter of recommendation from someone who seems to be a near-stranger.

For USC requirements, I also had to take the GRE exam. Apparently, the Stark program doesn’t really care about the scores, but I’ll gloat and say I did well. I really miss standardized tests.

The Stark program didn’t ask for a writing sample, so I didn’t need to send in anything for that. What’s weird to realize is that back then, I really didn’t know what screenwriting was.

For the past several years I've noticed what I call the "MTVization" of movies. This includes odd camera angles, fast (micro second) editing, and my least favorite the "360" pan used to the point of making one dizzy. The use of these techniques is distracting and interfeares with the flow of the story. Am I alone? I feel that the artists in Hollywood spend too much time pleasing one another and failing to create a product that should entertaining instead of stressfull.

--Gary

The “MTVization” of movies began happening very shortly after MTV was launched in 1981, and the impact has been steady and relentless. Some enjoy the cross-pollinization, although others, like you apparently, find it distracting and even offensive. If we were to try and name a factor that is most responsible, it might be that the studios started hiring music video directors and commercial directors to direct narrative pictures. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. An obvious example of success with the turn toward these directors is the work of music video director David Fincher. I won’t mention the failures, but they are quite obvious and quite numerous. Certain genres are more suited to the nano-second editing and the whacky pans and angles, and obviously some are not.

An unfortunate circumstance is when style tries to replace content. Someone once said that every story has been told (which I personally don’t believe). However, given that premise, I think some filmmakers might try to use innovative visual styles to tell the same old story and then fool themselves into thinking that they came up with something original. I don’t mean to put down innovative film techniques, but I do mean to stress the importance of storytelling and our obligation as filmmakers to actually say something.

Life changes every day, every minute, therefore there are always new stories. We are evolving (some would say de-volving) and so there must be new, fresh, insightful stories about the human condition to be told. I always say, you have to find the right Christmas tree before you hang the decorations on it. Same for filmmaking: find a substantial subject matter and then put the decorations on it, or MTV-ize it. A prime example of doing it all right is Tarnation, a wonderful, incredibly low-budget movie with profoundly important and personal subject matter that is executed in a visual way that you’ve never seen before. The goal to is make movies that tell a fresh, original story in a fresh, original visual style. Easier said than done.

I'm currently studying a BA honours degree in film, radio and television studies with fine art. I have a great passion for light and form, and have recently been questioning why cinematographers do not get more recognition for their artistic vision? Do you think it is possible for a cinematographer to be recognized as an auteur? And if so, then which cinematographer would you say fits this ambiguous title?

-Danielle

The thing to remember about cinematography is that it is a collaboration. Without the script, the actors, the director, the designer, there is no cinematography. The term "auteur" means “author”, so whilst you could say that the cinematographer is the author of the light and sometimes the framing, the term does not make much sense for the job as a whole.

I too am puzzled about the lack of recognition of the job. It sometimes rates a line from a critic usually involving the word “burnished” or “painterly” if they like it: I’ve only been mentioned once in a negative way which was for An Unfinished Life where one critic called the cinematography “static” which seemed strange in a film where the camera is constantly moving.

One thing for sure is that critics have no idea of the role of the cinematographer. I think most people relate it to something they understand like photography: so the job is “taking photos”. It’s a job that as many different demands as the films that you shoot. It also has many different personalities from the flamboyant to those who say very little. The craft service lady said to me yesterday “What is blocking?”. Well in a way blocking is the very heart of the film where all the decisions get made about what images are made and in what way: there is only the director and cinematographer (and sometimes the operator) who are involved with this. So when a critic talks about “fluid direction”, that may or may not be the work of the cinematographer. The worst is when they attribute the lighting to the director, which shows a complete ignorance of the way that most films are made.

There are very few cinematographers who leave an indelible mark on the medium. I would name Vittorio Storraro, Gordon Willis and Robert Richardson as three who have a definite influence on what can and can’t be done. There are many others of course, but those three come first to mind.

John August's screenwriting credits include Go, Big Fish, Titan A.E. and both Charlie's Angels movies. His current projects include Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Tarzan, and Corpse Bride. He also maintains a screenwriting-oriented website at johnaugust.com.

Born and raised in Boulder, Colorado, John earned a degree in journalism from Drake University in Iowa, and an MFA in film production from the Peter Stark program at the University of Southern California. He lives in Los Angeles.

Got a question about screenwriting? Send it to Ask a Writer.

Got a question about directing? Send it to Ask a Director.

If you are considering working in the movie industry, Oliver Stapleton has written a brief guide available at www.cineman.co.uk.

Got a question about cinematography? Send it to Ask a Cinematographer.