Jameson C. Goldner

I appreciated Jim Goldner. I did think SFSU could give him better (and more) equipment to work with. For those who felt his class was too technical, I can say that it was somewhat difficult for me too; but I wouldn't fault Jim for that. He summed up that issue for us brilliantly: when a student could only remember half of the f-stops on a test, he said: "this is where you'll tell your cinematographer, 'sorry, I only learned half of the f-stops in school.'" So it really is sort of necessary, I think. I worked in Hollywood for several years at the studios, and they're really brutal down there if you don't know your jargon. Cruel but true. So instead of feeling that he was hazing us, I felt that he was a very caring teacher. Touchy-feely as that sounds ("who cares? my grandma's caring!"), I think that's the single most important thing about a teacher.

Okay, I took 202 with Goldner and I was really intmidated. His lectures were confusing and his tests were hard. and to be honest I really did not understand much more about filmmaking than when I started. However, this is not entirely Goldner's fault (the department is severly underfunded and understaffed) and the class does its purpose of weeding out people who are not serious about being a cinema major. If you are having trouble give him a chance. He is always willing to talk to students outside of class, and he is an incredible resource of knowledge. I later took 310/Workshop in Prodution with him and it was a brillant class.

Wow I'm surprised at how nice these reviews are. Lemme give it to you straight: This was the most difficult class I have ever taken in the history of my educational career -- including Trigonometry in High School! Now your probably thinking, "What is he/she/it complaining about? I mean you got an A right?" Right. But that A was the hardest A I've ever had to work for. Our grade this semester was determined by 2 tests (a midterm and a final -- although we did have one study-quiz that didn't count). Goldner does not know how to write tests. I'm surprised that a man who used to teach screenwriting has such a poor grasp of the english language. The questions on tests are mostly fill-in-the blank and you are tested on the most tedious little details. Listen. I don't want to brag, but I'm a good student. I can usually Ace a class with very little studying. I take good notes and am rarely absent. But I was majorly stressing about this class. The first quiz, I read the book twice and took exstensive notes and FAILED the study-quiz mostly because of the confusing way the questions were worded or that he only accepted the most picky answers. I Aced the midterm only because I studied 24-7 and did all but memorize the book. The content of this class is extremely technical. A lot of the students appeared to have already had experience making films. I have no filmmaking experience aside from running my family's video camcorder. Goldner seemed to treat the class like he thought we all knew what F-stops and apertures were. I have fooled around with amature photography, developed my own film, and even won a few trophies still a lot of this stuff was over my head. If you are like me and not experienced with Filmmkaing then I recommend taking a basic photography class offered at SFSU before taking CINE 202. Or better yet, see if you can get credit for CINE 202 at another institution or in a section not taught by Goldner. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and I don't have anything against him. But he's not good at teaching -- especially teaching Cinema newbies like myself.

Goldner is funny, no doubt, but he tends to stray off the subject often. Most of the time class is spent trying to figure out what he is talking about and where it came from. Tests are basically easy if you keep up with the reading and go to class but it takes serious concentration to keep up with the lectures. The book is the driest, most boring cinema book I have come across so far. This is my 3rd introductory cinema class(thanks to ridiculous CSU rules that don't acknowledge community college cinema courses) and although I did learn some new things most of it was tedious...somewhat like reading a manual without the equipment in front of you. The cinema department seems to be fast becoming a joke. Goldner is great in that he discusses this with his students and suggests we do something about it. He has respect for his students but can't quite get his points across all of the time. This may also be due to the extremely large class sizes for beginning cinema classes. There are no papers-a definite plus-and about 3 quizzes, a midterm and a final. Not too bad as far as workload goes. Tests are corrected in class by the students and it's the most grueling task of the class. Make sure you are awake enough to endure this class for 3 hours once a week.

When I had first gone into this class, I'll admit I was scared shitless. I was a beginning Cinema major surrounded by older students who had obviously taken this class (and failed it) before, and my first thought was "oh crap, I'm gonna flunk!" But I soon realized that Mr. Goldner's a really nice guy who wants his students to get a thorough and comprehensive understanding of important Cinema basics. Unfortunately, he's given crappy books and a terribly-funded department, so I could totally understand his frustration at trying to teach the class. Let me warn you-- the class is not easy. You really need to read the book, and take careful notes. This is not a class to skip every other week. What you WILL get, however, is a brain full of more film knowledge and vocabulary than you came in with. I sure did. Goldner wants people to succeed, and he's more firendly and willing to help than his first impression might suggest. If you get confused in this class, it is IMPERITIVE that you go to him to straighten out any questions you have. There aren't many tests, but each test is worth a LOT, so if you screw up too much, that's it. Still, he wanted to help us out, so he had offered us a paper to do at the end of the semester (a type of shooting script) to boost our grades (something that seriously saved my ass). I'm appreciative of his help. DON'T take this class if you are not a cinema major. You will only go through a semester of hardship (not to mention prevent REAL cinema majors from being able to satisfy their prerequisite) if you do.

Goldner's pissed. The university is screwing the cinema department and he doesn't like it. Unfortunately, this class is the bastard child of that act. Goldner obviously doesn't want to teach this class, and who can blame him. This is the type of information that is very difficult to learn without direct, hands-on experience, but Golner plugs on. His lectures are difficult to follow if you're unfamiliar with many basic concepts and he spends too much time meandering around many questions before answering them. If you want to be a cinema major, this class is required. It's difficult, but a B or better is very manageable. Just show up and get your ass in a study group if you have to.

Goldner is funny guy. If you are not a cinema student you can try an take this class but it will be hard to get into. If you can, take a class with him. The grading is bit hard because the administration is trying to limit enrollment to this major. It worth a try if your heart is with Cinema. He has a wealth of knowledge that makes the class so interesting. Sometimes one will ask a question and he will take sometimes 20 mins to answer going though about 5 different subjects (some unrelated) but he does answer the question in the end. Good job

I took Jim Goldner's introductory production class as well as his documentary class several years ago. I think the structure of those classes may have changed since then, so I will comment more on his teaching style. Jim's single greatest attribute as an instructor is that he conveys enthusiasm about the medium to his students. He also seeks to demystify the filmmaking process, which is great. Almost everyone else in the world will make filmmaking seem almost impossible, which it's not. His documentary studies class was a basic introduction to the form. The films we watched were interesting and the tests (I thought) were easy. I don't remember writing any papers, and I think he added everyone who physically fit in the room. Some people were exasperated by his lecture style, which is rambling, but is worth following because it's really rewarding to comprehend a point that he started early in the class and finally finished after six digressions. I like his politics, his treatment of women and women's issues in film, and his open-mindedness. He has the rare ability to bring students together, sometimes at his own expense (he tells really corny jokes). Also, he has endless patience for struggling students.