At Millennium University we are busy setting up a film school. We
are starting with a short course in professional videography, 8 weeks part
time. The idea is that it will develop into a full degree programme, but that
is going to take time.
While we are working on this programme I rethink a lot of my ideas
about teaching and learning and specifically on learning creative skills.
Learning creative skills is different from learning factual
information. Factual information can be transferred from the teacher to the
student via a wide range of media: lectures, books, articles, websites, video
demonstrations etc. But creative skills are different: the student needs to
learn to actively create information. In our case this is creating film. For
this the learning process is different, and that means the teaching process
needs to be different.
With factual information, you can build in a linear way:
You cannot understand C before you understand B, and you cannot
understand B before you understand A. So the learning process is linear:
With creative skills this works differently, everything is connected
to everything:
You cannot learn C before you understand B and A, but you cannot
learn B before you understand C and A, and you cannot understand A before you
understand B and C. In film making A could be script writing, B could be
shooting, and C could be editing.
You cannot write a good film script without understanding shooting:
for instance if the script writer is used to writing stories, he may write:
Little Kondwani thinks of the day a year ago, when his mother told
him to always respect his grandmother.
In a written story this can work. But if you give this as a script
to a director and cinematographer, they will be bewildered: should the Kondwani
actor look enigmatically into the camera, or should they create a flash back,
or should they have a voice over, or should the Kondwani actor talk straight
into the camera and break the fourth wall? They have no idea, and the script
does not give guidance. So the script writer needs to understand shooting and
editing as well as the cinematographer needs to understand the script, and the
editor needs to understand everything that has been done to create the raw
footage she is working with.
But if you cannot do A without knowing B and C, and all the other
ways around, you seem to be stuck. Fortunately some very clever people solved
this conundrum. You do a little of A, then a little of B and then a little of
C, and you go back to A to do the whole cycle again. Then you can apply what
you learned about C and B when you come back to A. This way the learning
process is not a linear one (A to B to C) but a circular one: A to B to C to A
to B to C to A to etc.
You write a little script, you shoot it, and you edit it. And then go
on to the next cycle.
Now in practice the circle becomes a bit longer: you start with
theory, then practice this theory, then evaluate on the outcome of the
practice. And you go back to the next bit of theory. This approach helps to
connect theory to practice. If you learn a huge amount of theory, and
demonstrate the learnt through an exam, before you move to practice, then the
risk is that the theory remains disconnected from the practice, and never
becomes an active part of the cinematography work. But if you take a bit of
theory and immediately put it into practice, it becomes an organic part of your
functioning as a film maker.
Then you get something like this:
This way the theory connects directly to practice and becomes an
active part of the film maker’s vocabulary. The maximum impact of theory on
creative skills is realised.
For instance:
In film history: we discuss Alfred Hitchcock, the master of
suspense. How did he create that suspense? Watch an example of a scene from one
of Hitchcock’s master pieces. One of the techniques he used to create suspense
was inductive editing.
Film theory: what is inductive editing, and how is it different from
deductive editing?
Then script writing: take a short scene and write a script in an
inductive way and in a deductive way.
Then shoot both, and note the difference.
Then edit both, so you have an inductive version and a deductive
version of your scene.
Then evaluate what the difference is in terms of filmic effect, and
how the audience will experience the different versions. Then decide in which
situation inductive editing is best and in which situation deductive editing is
best.
And on to the next cycle of theory > practice > evaluation.
Now with film making the practice splits up in script, shoot, edit.
Every time the film maker goes through this cycle her skills are
improved in all areas, and after each cycle she is ready to take on another
cycle at a higher level. The different areas develop concurrently, and the
connection between theory and practice is close. Theory becomes an active part
of the film maker’s skills. And that is what we are looking for.
