I understand where you're coming from, Matador, but that argument has some holes in it. First, let's take a look at Orson Welles. He had no formal education in filmmaking, yet he made "Citizen Kane," "The Lady From Shanghai," & "Touch Of Evil" to name just a few films. Kane is considered to be one of the best films of all time. John Cassavetes got his first work as an actor, then decided to make his own films. He used the money he made off of staring in "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Dirty Dozen" to finace movies such as "Faces," "A Woman Under The Influence," and "Shadows," all very well done, emotionally charged film. Scorsese has said many times how spending time at the movies and in front of the television showing films since he had extremely bad asthma and couldn't spend too much time outside has influenced him. That being said, you can't learn about life and loss in a classroom. That is what all these film teachers, at least some of the ones I have had, are trying to do. This is where Tarantino stood out, especially at the time when the Cannes buzz started about "Pulp Fiction." The festival was full of pretentious crap made by film school students, exploring themselves in the way that only film professors and Andy Warhol (who I like) enjoy. Then "Pulp Fiction" debuted and all hell broke loose. Obviously Tarantino got a big head, the news outlets flaunted his lack of a formal education and now everyone is going into film schools saying, "I want to make a film that starts with the long tracking shot at the begining of 'Touch Of Evil', has a lot of steady-cam like 'Mean Streets' and ends with a stand of like in 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly'." The backlash being all style and no substance. The thing is, "Pulp Fiction" was loaded with substance. Under the flashy exterior of derivitive shots are stories about redemption, self sacrifice, self discovery, good versus bad, and so much more. The same goes with "Reservoir Dogs" and "Jackie Brown," although Jackie Brown was from a novel so all the substance was already there. "Kill Bill Vol. 1" was all style and no substance, IMO. However, it is made up in Vol. 2, as I have already stated. I don't admire Tarantino's lack of a formal film education, I just think it was refreshing to see someone make a film because the grew up truely loving the medium, not just because they see it as a good medium to explore themselves in. I was rasied in the "Boring Suburban Life" you mentioned, which is probably why I want to make films. I fell in love with movies and the way they made me feel, the good and the bad. I still get the same feelings of excitement that I had when I was a kid when I go to a movie today. It was that boring lifestyle I wanted to get away from. I didn't want to be an engineer or a CPA or a teacher or whatever else the majority of the kids in high school wanted to be. I don't think that my lack of living as a gypsy, living on the streets, or whatever is not a boring suburban life has hindered my expansion as a person. I've experienced many good times and a lot of bad times, and I've had many connections to people. Somehow I think I may have somethings to express in my films. A young boy from the small town of Kenosha, Wisconsin named Orson Welles had quite a few things to express and look what he did.