«At Den norske filmskolen og TV-skolen begge bruker kameraer, nevnes ofte for å understreke slektskapet vårt. Dette er en kortslutning og et
Tarjei is saying wise things about the future of the Norwegian Film School in an opinion piece in Montages. I don't have time to translate it, but maybe someone else will?
Some thoughts from the strike haze over the future of Den norske filmskolen
By Tarjei Sandvik Moe June 30, 2023
On 13 June, the bachelor students at Den norske filmskolen in Lillehammer chose to go on strike. The reason is that Høgskolen i Innlandet (HINN) wants to merge the film school with the TV- and game technology programs there.
You see Larry? You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?
– Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski
41 out of the 42 bachelor students at Den norske filmskolen are on strike. We’re on strike for the love of the school. A school I don't see our dean working for. A dean I have therefore lost trust in.
A dean (Eli Bø) who recommended a merger between DNF and AMEK (which includes the TV School and the Game Technology School), in a monotonous, simple report commissioned by Peer Jacob Svenkerud, the principal of Høgskolen i Innlandet. Svenkerud wants to make the faculties more efficient, save money, achieve university status for HINN, and thus appease those above him: The Board. (I can't be bothered to think about who is above the board, nor who is above them; the system behind Svenkerud seems endless, Kafkaesque.)
The consulting report does not reflect the students' views on the matter. Nor the teachers', according to the subject teachers themselves. In this opinion piece, I will explain my own point of view by exemplifying one of the many perspectives the report is blind to. The student body does not have an identical view of the merger, nor are we striking as a "merger protest". But we want to be heard, and here I will explain why.
Film school students know what it means to be film school students. During our intense student existence in Lillehammer, we’ve made multiple reflections on what kind of filmmakers and craftsmen we’d like to be trained to become and what direction the school should take to achieve this.
Why has management not been interested in listening to us? Why are our perspectives not included in the report? Is someone worried that the students' input doesn't fit like a glove with their predetermined conclusion?
The report states the following about the mission of DNF and AMEK's deans: "The mandate has been to investigate how DNF and AMEK can be organized as best as possible in order to meet the expectation of a closer cooperation". There was therefore an expressed expectation of a closer cooperation from headmaster Svenkerud. The deans then justify the merger proposal by saying that it is the best solution to bring about more collaboration. As if it is an established, indisputable truth that collaboration across schools is something both the film, TV and game technology schools need. Principal Svenkerud uses our dean as a merger puppet, and she herself accepts to act as one. But the film school's dean should work for the film school. And listen to it.
The students are also used as puppets. For example, when we are invited to meetings about the merger we are only allowed to make positive proposals. Subsequently, these meetings are mentioned, claiming that our input was listened to during the evaluation. As I see it, the strike is our attempt to cut across the lines to be able to participate in the debate as free voices. We no longer accept life as powerless students in a powerless institution, locked in HINN's prison. This also has relevance for the rest of the film field, which will develop in dangerous directions if it is shaped by preconceived decisions made by people without film qualifications. In the end, we might lose our grip on our own art form.
The report's professional justification for the merger is that the media industry is heading into a paradigm shift, which will make the distinctions between film, TV production and game technology less visible. In this context, the film school's dean has been kind enough to explain to us that the world is changing, and that we should change along with it, whether we like them or not.
A merger fits well within this fascinatingly adaptable outlook on life. A merger between a film school (with a focus on artistic fiction), a TV school (with a focus on, among other things, TV documentaries, reality, news broadcasts and game shows) and a game technology school. According to the report, the merger will provide the opportunity to create: "The strongest and most exciting audiovisual professional environment in the Nordics." Cool. But this claim is based on a premise that has never been up for discussion. Namely, whether DNF is going to educate braver, more progressive film artists, by becoming part of a large "audiovisual professional environment". This must be discussed before looking for opportunities for collaboration.
Because, is it really true that you should automatically change if the world around you changes? If my friends suddenly start fighting on the town every weekend, should I also be fighting on the town every weekend? Or should I examine my ethical view of fighting first, and potentially stay out of fighting? If I discover that the spa that the entire town's population uses is poisoned, should I just dive in? Or actively fight against the operation of this spa?
Adapting to the world around you, regardless of the consequences, is weak, foolhardy compliance. We cannot let the media reality frighten us into hasty choices for fear of not keeping up with the times - a fear that is strongest among gray-haired bureaucrats, not young artists who grew up in this era!
I do not doubt the quality of AMEK, I know there are very talented students there. But it is not necessarily the case that the qualities we want to develop in our respective schools will grow through a merger. For that, the subject areas must be sufficiently related (within what we want to define our subjects as), so that the exchange of expertise between the schools is fruitful both ways.
The fact that DNF and the TV school both use cameras is often mentioned to emphasize our kinship (the report states that: "There is a large degree of overlap in basic technology"). This is a short circuit and an example of oversimplified rhetoric. REMA 1000 also uses cameras to monitor if customers are shoplifting, everyone who makes TikTok videos uses mobile cameras, visual culture is everywhere - without necessarily having anything to do with film art.
When similarities between the faculties' disciplines are to be highlighted in the report, it is written that: "a common denominator is storytelling". But aren’t the vast majority of academic circles doing some form of "storytelling" in 2023? We must instead look at what kind of storytelling we’re talking about. If you go to the TV school's website, it says that: "Development of original content characterizes the studies at the TV school". Classy, that. Here's the problem: The films we are trained to create at DNF should not be viewed as content. That is the fundamental difference which means that merging can turn out to be a mistake for Norwegian films. DNF ought to perceive film on equal footing with other forms of art. A sculpture is not content. A play is not content. Neither is a movie. The school cannot let a unique art education drown in an audiovisual soup where the ingredients consist of market demands. It would be synonymous with saying that you no longer see film as art.
For a young filmmaker, the capitalist-driven content flora can be a tub of poison that they shouldn’t even dip their toe into. This is because an artist's personal voice should not be shaped according to algorithms supply and demand. At least not during education! If DNF has to be merged with a school, it should be a school with its main focus being art, which could create reflections across art forms. E.g. performing arts or photography. Which is not realistic as long as DNF is located in Lillehammer. If film as a distinctive art form is actually losing its position in society, DNF should take a stand and cultivate the film even more, sharpen it, elevate it, and through that keep the film alive in Norway.
We do this best as an autonomous film school. Not as the smallest part of a large media school.
We have a responsibility to let our film school be a flagship, which, by insisting on autonomy and graduating strong, thoughtful filmmakers, proves that film is an important art form that must be preserved in this country. After all, we are talking about one small school which graduates 6 students in each subject area every two years. If these students do not get an education that clearly focuses on professional competence and reflection on film art, then who will? Who will then keep the film alive? The private schools will (on a more obvious basis than DNF) want to match their media "zeitgeist". Also, these cost a young person an arm and a leg, too much for many people. New, important film voices will disappear.
Reflections like this – whether DNF will be able to fulfill its mandate to educate the filmmakers of tomorrow and keep Norwegian film's vitality alive if it becomes part of a so-called “audiovisual professional environment” – are not mentioned in the report.
But then I realized: The deans do not have this mandate. They only have a mandate based on a desired merger from principal Svenkerud and the board. And they operate thoughtlessly based on this order, with no real interest in what the merger will mean for future students and future film. Like two algorithmically programmed puppets.
It has therefore become the students' responsibility to act in Gritt's spirit:
“It's sort of about trying to break free. To make visible the inflammation that lies above us."
– Gritt by Itonje Søimer Guttormsen (former student at The Norwegian Film School, directing department, group 5)
