For the final-- just imagine these guys being rabbi's ... with toupee's.
Dance Pencil Test from Jess Klein on Vimeo.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Inside the Wolf
Inside the Wolf from Jess Klein on Vimeo.
From the first day of shooting on the set of Little Red.
This is the scene when Red and the Grandma are eaten up by the wolf.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Final Title Sequence
I can't remember if I posted this, but here is a little project that I did in Flash. It is a title sequence for my life. I still need to clean up the pacing, but I thought I'd just get this up here to remind myself where I came from on this project. The whole process for this piece was nice- illustrations, animatics, and this, which is actually more of an enhanced animatic, but if I had more time I would fix up little movements here and there.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Notes on Sound from Film Art Reading
- elusiveness accounts for part of the power of sound effect
- strong effects yet unnoticeable
sound effects: speech, music, noise
pitch: high and low of sound vibrations
rhythm: the beat pulse, tempo or pace (includes speech)
Timbre: the colour or tone quality f sound
sound mixing: used to guide the viewers attention
ex. ping pong game
dialogue overlap masks edit
external diegetic sound: sound outside of the character
internal diegetic sound: only from the mind of character (music or dialogue)
mickey mousing
- strong effects yet unnoticeable
sound effects: speech, music, noise
pitch: high and low of sound vibrations
rhythm: the beat pulse, tempo or pace (includes speech)
Timbre: the colour or tone quality f sound
sound mixing: used to guide the viewers attention
ex. ping pong game
dialogue overlap masks edit
external diegetic sound: sound outside of the character
internal diegetic sound: only from the mind of character (music or dialogue)
mickey mousing
Monday, March 30, 2009
Crabs
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Bladerunner- response paper
At first glance I was interested in how this movie was an exploration on how the world is dealing with the humanizing of technology and that particular topic was very intriguing to me because it made me consider all of these abstract thoughts about how far will technology be allowed to venture in terms of emotional and intellectual cloning, artificial intelligence, abnormal psychology, interconnectivity and reproductive rights. All of these topics are extremely interesting and the film creates such a unique backdrop for all of these social concepts by having at its core, a compelling story about a bounty hunter who becomes empathetic for his targets and in turn lives in an isolated ‘outsider’ world where he casually interacts with every party involved. Slowly I became really mesmerized by how the film’s stylistic elements played into the thematic messages and narrative. While the film is clearly set in the future, the world that we see is a dark, densely textured, overpopulated and dirty place. I felt that the world that we are presented evoked feelings of nostalgia despite the fact that this is the future- modernity and so that contradiction informed my entire viewing of the film in that I felt like the problem of identifying and
“retiring” genetically engineered humans was an ongoing concern. Every scene was oversaturated with people, text, and sound. This juxtaposition of elements that are extremely contrasting allowed the viewer to realize that the entire film was about contradictions and sorting out who is the “other” by the deductive process of comparison. I found myself question what makes someone human because in the film every character looked, acted and bled like a human. The film suggested that emotions and feelings is what makes someone a human. So then, if emotional capacity is what makes someone a human, and throughout the movie the bounty hunter is killing these “replicants”- these computers with evolving emotions, what is really being said? Is this a conversation about cloning? Or about corporate corruption? Mortality? (this was beautifully suggested in the scene where a replicant plays a human in chess). I’m not so sure, maybe it is a conversation about everything. I feel like the central theme of this film is to question humanity via empathy. That theme is then underscored by all of these micro-themes that build this tapestry of interesting and complicated characters. The characters visually look like they came right out of a 1940 pulp fiction novel. The women are delicate but vixens, the men are physical yet softspoken. But again, we are in the future! So why was that choice made? Was it made because the viewer would recognize these tropes and empathize with every character and then in turn see that the line between what is initially presented as the truth in the film is blurred? I believe so, I think that in the same way that some characters are the makers of “puppets,” “toys” and “replicants”, other characters are the puppets, toys and replicants and if anything, the film allows the viewer to ask questions about the world around them that is created for them and in turn, what role, abilities and power they have to influence that world. On a personal note, I love how the style of the film took the narrative to a completely higher level. I really would like to be able to play with unexpected style choices in my work. So often I feel like my work deals with getting a specific message across that I lose my focus on how it’s done. I know that at the core, a strong concept is important, but I am really becoming more interested in how I communicate my message. Bladerunner was surprisingly beautiful and I think those elements of the movie moved me to question the larger social issues that much more.
“retiring” genetically engineered humans was an ongoing concern. Every scene was oversaturated with people, text, and sound. This juxtaposition of elements that are extremely contrasting allowed the viewer to realize that the entire film was about contradictions and sorting out who is the “other” by the deductive process of comparison. I found myself question what makes someone human because in the film every character looked, acted and bled like a human. The film suggested that emotions and feelings is what makes someone a human. So then, if emotional capacity is what makes someone a human, and throughout the movie the bounty hunter is killing these “replicants”- these computers with evolving emotions, what is really being said? Is this a conversation about cloning? Or about corporate corruption? Mortality? (this was beautifully suggested in the scene where a replicant plays a human in chess). I’m not so sure, maybe it is a conversation about everything. I feel like the central theme of this film is to question humanity via empathy. That theme is then underscored by all of these micro-themes that build this tapestry of interesting and complicated characters. The characters visually look like they came right out of a 1940 pulp fiction novel. The women are delicate but vixens, the men are physical yet softspoken. But again, we are in the future! So why was that choice made? Was it made because the viewer would recognize these tropes and empathize with every character and then in turn see that the line between what is initially presented as the truth in the film is blurred? I believe so, I think that in the same way that some characters are the makers of “puppets,” “toys” and “replicants”, other characters are the puppets, toys and replicants and if anything, the film allows the viewer to ask questions about the world around them that is created for them and in turn, what role, abilities and power they have to influence that world. On a personal note, I love how the style of the film took the narrative to a completely higher level. I really would like to be able to play with unexpected style choices in my work. So often I feel like my work deals with getting a specific message across that I lose my focus on how it’s done. I know that at the core, a strong concept is important, but I am really becoming more interested in how I communicate my message. Bladerunner was surprisingly beautiful and I think those elements of the movie moved me to question the larger social issues that much more.
Monday, March 2, 2009
It's really snowing out here in Queens!
Some NY Street Art
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Expression and Movement





















Characters:
a)age young-adult/young-adult
b)sex male/female
c)type of movement to mimic: penguin/snake/penguin/snake
d)adjective adventurous/timid
e)backstory:
1. whats going on in the characters mind? life is boring/ life is great
2. whats going on while they are interacting with the ball? this is awesome/we are gonna die
3. whats going on after they interacting with the ball? well that was fun/ thank god its gone.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Reaction to Experimental Films
In class we watched a bunch of experimental films including a few by Brakhage. Although I can understand from all of the readings and class discussions the interesting structural elements that help to construct these pieces as well as the unique visual components of the work, I really struggle when it comes to purely enjoying the films from the perspective of a viewer. Out of all of the pieces, I enjoyed the one that Brakhage did during the time that he was living with his in-laws, having a new child and struggling with money. The film was a struggle to watch and I can understand the visual friction that he created when I think about the work in terms of his life. I guess that if I think about these films not as films but more as art objects, I can feel more comfortable talking about them. I almost feel like this is some sort of flaw with me. In college, as an art history major, everyone who I was in class with really enjoyed these films and to me, I just drew a blank. As I said, I got them conceptually but when I just watched them I felt a void. Maybe that this struggle I feel with the disharmony between what I see and what I know is a part of the experience. Maybe with time I will have an A-ha! moment.
Amelie
The character development and narrative of Amélie is structured through an elaborate rhythmic system of lists. The film opens with a narration that is declarative while demonstrating the cadence of a sporting announcement. Each line that is spoken to in the introduction sounds like a shopping list of things that happened on a particular day. The technique is so interesting because it allows the narrator to communicate to the audience who the character of Amélie is in terms of her background, what the setting of the film is, who the supporting cast of characters are and begins to build the viewer’s curiosity about what kind of journey this character will be taking in her life. In addition to the verbal lists that are established at the onset of the film, the director has beautifully crafted visual as well as audible lists for the viewer. Every frame of the film seems to have a strong base color of red or green and then subtle colors pop out in front of those colors, like a layered palette, forcing the viewer to take in each element of the scene individually. The importance of each visual element becomes apparent through this system. You see a scene flooded with every kind of green, from the water to the trees, to the bridge (almost like a Monet painting) and then, strongly sitting on the bridge in the foreground is Amélie skipping stones in her red dress. It’s a strongly composed image, but also quite compelling and focusing. To top off this already emotionally charged set up, the director added the list- like element of the sound. Each individual sound is layered upon the other, in the same way that the colors are revealed. In the scene where Amélie sees her love interest for the first time, you hear her footsteps approaching him, then you hear the action of what he is doing (scrapping under a photo booth), you hear the counter sound of her breath being taken away from her and then you hear her footsteps moving away into the distance with speed. The sounds remind me of how when you play a xylophone you bang onto each key and the let the sound resonate until a new key is hit. All of the individual notes are heard clearly, but the resonance and juxtaposition of the notes creates a song. The dialogue of the film continues in this list- like structure. When characters tell stories about their lives to each other, they list events and anecdotes but in a very rhythmic manner. Although the film does have a very strong narrative and progression, I am reminded of the reading that we did on experimental film and how a director can successfully evoke a mood or emotion by emphasizing a sound or rhythm via repetition. In the film, even the quirky book of photobooth pictures which are an obsessive collection act as a sort of list or compilation of items that serve as both an activity within the story as an extension of the love interest’s character. While Amélie is a love story and a personal journey, I feel that the reason that the story is so successful is that feelings of love, uncertainty and hope are established to the point that they resonate with the viewer. The movie ultimately becomes about representing a feeling. I find myself personally very connected to the film because I can relate to the protagonist. I am a list maker. I am sometimes looked at as neurotic and I think that I use lists as a tool to organize myself and shield myself from the unpredictability of life. I think that the story uses lists in a similar way. The parts of the film that slow down and are almost silent are the areas where Amélie truly develops as a character and the story moves forward. This is because it is a moment to breathe and let things happen as they are- with out manipulation or structuring systems. I guess that this balance between the “list-like” moments and breaths of air would be considered themes and variations. The end result is an intensely layered network of sounds, words, colors and textures.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







