Reflection: Short Film project

I feel that this project was a resounding success.
In terms of work, the effort split between Dennis and I was split fairly and evenly. We came up with the concept together. I wrote the initial script and Dennis drafted the storyboard. When it came to production, both Dennis and I worked behind the camera as well as in front of it. Because I wrote the script, I had more of the creative side of contribution to the process: with a cohesive plan for our narrative, I assumed general oversight of the story and its individual scenes. I established the look and plan for most of our shots and directed most of our scenes. Dennis, on the other hand, was meticulous and superlative in his technical contributions and attention to detail. Dennis was always on top of making sure our microphone and camera tracks were properly set up, and he proved to be an excellent technician in working the Nikon and the Zoom recorder.
Our partner dynamic was stellar. Whenever I had a creative idea for the film, Dennis used his inventiveness and drive to find a way to execute it. A few examples: in order to get a shot of the ball seemingly falling from a high-story window, Dennis climbed onto a ledge and lobbed the ball in a perfect arc so as seeming to fall vertically - while having to operate the camera simultaneously! When I said we should have a follow shot of the ball rolling down a hallway, Dennis came up on the spot with a brilliant method of moving the camera smoothly, involving dragging me (the cameraman) on a plastic sheet; and when the time came for foley, Dennis tiptoed in socks in order to silently follow the sound of a rolling ball. It was an ideal working dynamic between us and we never bumped heads. My creative contributions to the film would give it a cohesive and complete feel, but it would have all been for naught without Dennis' superlative dedication and attention to detail.
We ran into a couple of snags when it came to editing. We realize we had to shoot a scene again, so we did. Then I remembered that I was to be absent for the final day of editing, and we planned accordingly. When I was gone, we had a "missing file" scare, which we resolved through teamwork.
In general, I synched the A/V clips, laid out the order of shots for a "rough cut," and edited some of the music, using the first hours of the editing process. Dennis took the second half in my absence: he polished the clips and transitions, finished editing music into the film, corrected audio levels, corrected the color and chrominance of our shots, added credits, and published the film in two versions.
The project was enriching and informative. I would not only feel comfortable if I had to produce another short film again, I would be happy and feel prepared to do so.

A ball and its friend2 from Dennis Khrakovsky on Vimeo.

MOMI trip

The MOMI had some unexpectedly fascinating exhibits, but personally, the one that takes the cake would be the assemblage of makeup feats featured in film. Among the items exhibited were reconstructions of facial masks and makeup works such as Jim Carey's green face from The Mask, as well as the pre-human primate from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Prior to having studied makeup in an academic or museum setting, I thought of these types of alterations as masks for the actor, who, along with the viewer, relies on it to understand the character. These examples don't serve to alter or hide the actor, rather, they augment him or her. This was a revelation in visual media for me. It was an especially poignant lesson, perhaps, because of the choice to have the makeup exhibit located directly near the wall of film stars and famous faces, all natural and human, all colorless in black-and-white. You could tell this was intentional in the stark difference noted between the two subjects of exhibit, but also in their similarities. After taking one in right after the other, one realizes that even a huge amount of makeup only serves to augment the physical features of an actor, and their performance is still singular and important. The makeup only aids in creating a certain realism (in most cases) for the audience. The example I cite is my favorite item of the whole exhibit: the makeup worn by John Hurt in his performance as John Merrick in The Elephant Man. The additions of a severely deformed head and face are the mere surface of John Merrick's character, yet thanks to John Hurt, the audience has no trouble believing they are seeing a man both severely deformed and infinitely complex onscreen.