Search
FellowsStaff

News Clippings

Curriculum Planning and Review Committee Meeting: 5/6/09

05/18/09

AFI Conservatory
Curriculum Planning and Review Committee

Wednesday, May 6, 2009
4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Ahmanson Room, Mayer Library

Attending: Michael Berger, Carolyn Brooks, Donn Cambern, Marie Cantin, Neil Canton, Gill Dennis, Joe Garrity, Pat Hanson, Stephen Lighthill, Phil Linson, Bob Mandel, Lynn Mazzucchi, Jim McBride, Michael McGuire, Joe Petricca, Betsy Pollock, Tom Rickman, Barry Sabath, Karin Tucker

AGENDA

I.    Announcements and Calendar
Executive Vice Dean Joe Petricca and Dean Robert Mandel welcomed the CPRC members.

-    Intro Vice Dean, Fellow Affairs
Petricca introduced AFI’s new Vice Dean, Fellow Affairs Carolyn Brooks adding that she had been a Producing Fellow in 1995 and went on to get a Masters in School Counseling. She worked as a Counselor at a High School and teaches counseling to graduates at Loyola Marymount University.

-    Second Round of Thesis Script Submission
Petricca announced that the deadline for the second round of thesis script submissions was today and that committees should all have received their packages. 

Petricca noted the following important dates:
Continuation Meeting – May 27, 2009
Thesis Presentations – June 8 and 9, 2009
Commencement – June 10, 2009

-    Thesis Showcase
Petricca said that the Thesis Showcase at the Landmark had been a great success and that a good number of agents and industry professionals had attended. He said that the Fellows were being asked for DVDs and taking meetings, etc.

-    Production Design Showcase – June 8, 2009
PRO DES discipline head Joe Garrity said that there would be a reception that Monday evening and the showcase would remain on the soundstage through that week of Commencement.

-    35 MOS Showcase – May 21, 2009
CIN discipline head Stephen Lighthill announced that the first 35 MOS Showcase would be on May 21 at 7:00 pm in the MGSR with a reception following and said that invitees included corporate sponsors and AFI staff. He explained that Second Year Cinematographers had to submit MOS proposals replete with deadlines, budget etc., for approval, adding that they always involved other Fellows such as Producers, Editors, Directors, etc. He said that the shoots ran all year so the Showcase would not be comprehensive but included most of the films and though they had thought of making the Showcase competitive, they had ultimately decided to program an hour-long compilation with four of the best First Year16 MOS films included.

-    Scholarship Dinner – May 6, 2009
Petricca said that the annual Scholarship Dinner would take place at Morton’s that evening without the traditional participation of Amy Pasquale and SONY. He said that the event was an opportunity for Fellows to meet their donors directly.

-    DWW 2009
Petricca announced that DWW 2009 had begun Monday, May 4 and would continue through Friday, May 22 with the shoots taking place in June and July.

II.    Administrative
•    WASC/NASAD Visit Update
Petricca reported that the WASC/NASAD visit had taken pace at the end of March and that a draft of the final report would be received in the next two weeks after which they could submit edits to any inaccuracies. He read the list of commendations and recommendations issued by the visiting team adding that AFI’s accreditation was not in jeopardy. Petricca said that he, CEO and President Bob Gazzale or Dean Bob Mandel would attend the final commission meeting in San Francisco sometime in June and that once the document had been approved it would be 10 years before the next audit.

•    Fall Registration
Registrar Lynn Mazzucchi said that First Year would register August 20 and Second Year August 21, 2009.

III.    First and Second Year Fellow Update
First Year Representative Michael Berger thanked the Committee for a “great and unbelievable” year. Berger said that the primary issue the class wanted addressed was the thesis submission process and he asked whether the Committee was considering a revision of the process.

Mandel said that they were.

Berger asked if the Red Lit scripts were going to be reconsidered to which Senior Mentor Gill Dennis responded that he had read all of them and that only one script had been changed to a yellow light, and the team given one week to resubmit, but that the red-lit status of no other script was being changed.

Berger said that the Fellows would appreciate more a dialogue with the faculty and administration on their decision to review the process confirming that they also see it as problematic in its current form. He added that he would be willing to explain the Fellows’ frustrations with the system if needed.

Mandel responded that they were aware of the specific frustrations.

Dennis said that 75 – 85% of the scripts submitted would not be accepted.

Berger said that the Fellows would have been better prepared for Red Lights had they known that from the start.

Second Year Representative Michael McGuire thanked the Committee and said that he had no real curricular comments but some issues and requests on behalf of the Second Year class. He said that
Directors would like to see an HDCam deck added to the FBSR in order to screen thesis films. McGuire said that the lack of a strategic plan, highlighted by the recent accreditation visit, was evidenced in some of the facilities on campus such as the marked lack of parking, adding that the Fellows would like longer hours for the Library and SDAC. Finally he said the class in general was disappointed with the Internship Coordinator who appeared passive in the position adding that most internships were won independently by the Fellows themselves. McGuire said that there was real concern about job placement and that they would appreciate a more concerted effort to reach out to working alumni to connect them with recent graduates.

EDT discipline head and Vice Dean, Production & Post-Production Phil Linson said that this would be the third year in a row that the Pixar internship would go to an AFI Fellow.

IV.    Confidential Discussion
Mandel asked the Committee if they felt that the current Showcase should be changed, and whether limiting the films screened, and the length of the event – i.e., having it be one night only, would encourage better industry turnout and bolster the AFI brand. He said that there had been a high attrition rate during the intermission of the recent event. Mandel said that an announcement should be made at Continuation if they intended to make any changes and reminded the Committee that the language of the Handbook states that only a screening in the MGSR is assured while public screenings are a privilege of sorts.

Petricca asked if such a change would be initiated this next Showcase, or two years from now.

Mazzucchi said that because AFI had told WASC that the ArcLight screenings were part of the thesis review that we could not limit the screenings.

Mandel responded that we issue a guide for what we plan to do but do not need to adhere year after year.

Petricca added that the selection process for the Showcase would itself be a type of review.

Dennis said that the mentors should watch all of the finished thesis films and determine how many are going to be shown.

Mazzucchi and Linson both agreed on the merit of that idea and Lighthill suggested screening them all in one day.

Mandel said that the end goal should be to increase industry presence and that the more nights the Showcase covers, the higher the rate of attrition - citing agents’ penchant for competition. He suggested starting with one night only, of not more than 2 ½ hours (approximately 5 films) without an intermission, and adjusting as needed. Mandel said that despite reports, the Landmark was one third empty each night.

Linson asked if control would consequently return to AFI administration to which Petricca responded yes. Linson said that more emphasis and importance would need to be placed on the MGSR screenings as a result to ensure that all Fellows felt their work was valued by AFI.

Sabath asked what would happen next year and Mandel said that he did not want to “water down the AFI brand.”

Dennis said that changes should be made as quickly as possible.

Mazzucchi said that implementing a new evaluation system involved time.

Cantin asked if the expectation was that this year’s graduates would all screen in the Showcase.

Mandel said that they would “relieve” the Fellows of the programming “burden” and that the steering committee would take that on.

Linson said that the Fellows should be made aware of these changes.

SCR discipline head Tom Rickman said that the selection process should be written into the handbook and that the final selection committee should be made up of outside, independent individuals.

Dennis agreed and added that the mentors and faculty should select no more than 10 films to put forward.

Lighthill noted that AFI’s thesis film output was far greater than most schools.

Sabath said that changing the Showcase to a more selective event would revitalize and re-emphasize the MGSR screenings to which Mandel responded that such was in the fact the end goal.

Lighthill said that Directors who make more than one thesis film are spread too thin and that the team and film suffer as a result. He said that he would prefer a Cinematographer to do a “super” MOS rather than struggle in that situation.

Dennis said that in some cases the second thesis film is better.

Mandel said that raising money for their thesis films would be more difficult next year.

Associate Manager, First Year Production Betsy Pollock asked if Fellows who fail to team for thesis should be continued or assign equal but alternate work.

Linson noted that team dynamics are fluid and often change during production.

Pollock responded that she was speaking of Fellows who fail to team in the first place.

Linson said that it was difficult to determine why a Fellow was not picked.

Mandel said that the first six scripts in strong form should go out first, to which Dennis responded that accommodating the needs of the team may require a different timeline and added that sometimes even a very good script requires time.

Linson said that they’ve had both good and horrible films result from going out first.

Lighthill said that Fellows often “get it together” during the Second Year and that failing to continue them might be a disservice. He said that their two-week intensive workshop in the summer was instrumental and that it was important for them to start the year strong and prepared.

Linson said that he thought all of the disciplines could use a workshop over the summer to get the Fellows ready.

Cambern suggested an additional thesis orientation/workshop for those teams going out early.

The Committee agreed that this was a good idea.

Petricca and Mandel thanked the Committee members for attending and adjourned the meeting.

Email to a Friend


Site Map

Copyright 2010 American Film Institute. All Rights Reserved.