just like the Godard assignment before, I’m taking the same story, (”Babe in Paradise”), but this time employing the more weighted, paced style of Antonioni. Click here to watch
here we are…this is the right one lol (if confused see umbrella comments). good job. And I might as well post my thoughts on the goddard one here since I’m already raping your blog with comments. You really got the tone right on the money. for both of them. looks great and sounds fantastic. roys gonna love it
come one, are you serious? it’s just a guy who’s trying to get laid. and the chick doesn’t want to. this is not antonioni. not in a million years it isn’t. and that’s because antonioni has a story. antonioni creates situations.
what is your situation? hmm, let’s see: a woman in a man’s apartment, touching, caressing some wooden statues, a cd etc. the actress doesn’t have any idea why she’s doing that. probably the director told her to act that way but didn’t really offer an explanation: “you act like this because you fell sexually attracted to … that’s why you have to touch the monkeys”
then, ridiculously, she stares at herself in the mirror. she isn’t herself, the character ( i mean), in fact, its only the actress who doesn’t really like herself. she definitely doesn’t consider herself a beautiful woman (that sucks)
antonioni creates eroticism. when you look at thomas in blow-up, you feel how he radiates sexuality, only because he is so self-conscient of his power over women. he is irresistible.
do you think that the actor in this film is irresistible? do you feel that when you look at him? i think the actress doesn’t find him attractive at all, on the contrary he repulses her. at least that’s the way she acts it. it’s disgusting (esthetically speaking) the way he jumps all over her, kissing her loudly with a dry mouth. come on. that’s not how it happens in the movies, guys. especially not in an antonioni movie.
antonioni creates eroticism through tension. learn from him.
anyway, since you are able to make film, since you afford it, financially speaking (sadly, for many people that is quite a barrier in this art), do it properly. it’s a shame to waist it like that.
Sophie
p.s. i hope i didn’t upset you with my opinions. try to think clearly, past your egos and appreciate my sincerity. think about what i’ve said with no resentment. i don’t know who you are, what status you have, etc. I’m just a stranger who loves film and who wishes you good bye and good luck in the future.
I appreciate your criticism, however, it seems you assume too much and judge to quickly. This is not a story I wrote, it’s from a piece that was published in The New Yorker. This was an exercise for a class, to take a specific script and apply three different aesthetics. It was shot in half a day and didn’t cost a dime. These people are more figures than characters. They are hyperbolic and representative. Even in the opening of L’Eclisse, they are figures placed in an architectural setting and are part of the furniture, moving within a space as a representation of so much more. It is quite presumptuous of you to assume how I directed my actors based on your transparent interpretations, when in fact, that’s what the entire piece is about - individual interpretation. Blow-Up will always be a discussion piece on interpretation, as is the ending of L’Eclisse. You’re right, the actress doesn’t find herself beautiful, which is why I was so attracted to her, and the actor indeed finds himself attractive, as well as the character, when he’s actually so much weaker (emotionally) than she is. They are intended to have an ostensible transparency, like when you see the young painter seducing an older insecure woman in L’Avventura. Each of them seem so simple to analyze, but their heightened acting makes a statement. Cronenberg does the same thing, pushing violent imagery in the audience’s faces because he’s not trying to just show that men are murdering each other, but he’s making a statement about violence itself. This is making a myriad of statements about the falsities of intimacy. When he kisses her for so long, it should be disgusting, it should be unattractive, it absolutely should be unwatchable, but you keep watching. You’re right, it isn’t entirely Antonioni, but what would be the point of creating anything if my goal was merely to mirror a master without anything new to offer?
here we are…this is the right one lol (if confused see umbrella comments). good job. And I might as well post my thoughts on the goddard one here since I’m already raping your blog with comments. You really got the tone right on the money. for both of them. looks great and sounds fantastic. roys gonna love it
also, I would like a copy sometime in the future just because I’m trying to get my hands on everything I ever worked on
very well done. Good capture of closeness and distance creating each other.
come one, are you serious? it’s just a guy who’s trying to get laid. and the chick doesn’t want to. this is not antonioni. not in a million years it isn’t. and that’s because antonioni has a story. antonioni creates situations.
what is your situation? hmm, let’s see: a woman in a man’s apartment, touching, caressing some wooden statues, a cd etc. the actress doesn’t have any idea why she’s doing that. probably the director told her to act that way but didn’t really offer an explanation: “you act like this because you fell sexually attracted to … that’s why you have to touch the monkeys”
then, ridiculously, she stares at herself in the mirror. she isn’t herself, the character ( i mean), in fact, its only the actress who doesn’t really like herself. she definitely doesn’t consider herself a beautiful woman (that sucks)
antonioni creates eroticism. when you look at thomas in blow-up, you feel how he radiates sexuality, only because he is so self-conscient of his power over women. he is irresistible.
do you think that the actor in this film is irresistible? do you feel that when you look at him? i think the actress doesn’t find him attractive at all, on the contrary he repulses her. at least that’s the way she acts it. it’s disgusting (esthetically speaking) the way he jumps all over her, kissing her loudly with a dry mouth. come on. that’s not how it happens in the movies, guys. especially not in an antonioni movie.
antonioni creates eroticism through tension. learn from him.
anyway, since you are able to make film, since you afford it, financially speaking (sadly, for many people that is quite a barrier in this art), do it properly. it’s a shame to waist it like that.
Sophie
p.s. i hope i didn’t upset you with my opinions. try to think clearly, past your egos and appreciate my sincerity. think about what i’ve said with no resentment. i don’t know who you are, what status you have, etc. I’m just a stranger who loves film and who wishes you good bye and good luck in the future.
I appreciate your criticism, however, it seems you assume too much and judge to quickly. This is not a story I wrote, it’s from a piece that was published in The New Yorker. This was an exercise for a class, to take a specific script and apply three different aesthetics. It was shot in half a day and didn’t cost a dime. These people are more figures than characters. They are hyperbolic and representative. Even in the opening of L’Eclisse, they are figures placed in an architectural setting and are part of the furniture, moving within a space as a representation of so much more. It is quite presumptuous of you to assume how I directed my actors based on your transparent interpretations, when in fact, that’s what the entire piece is about - individual interpretation. Blow-Up will always be a discussion piece on interpretation, as is the ending of L’Eclisse. You’re right, the actress doesn’t find herself beautiful, which is why I was so attracted to her, and the actor indeed finds himself attractive, as well as the character, when he’s actually so much weaker (emotionally) than she is. They are intended to have an ostensible transparency, like when you see the young painter seducing an older insecure woman in L’Avventura. Each of them seem so simple to analyze, but their heightened acting makes a statement. Cronenberg does the same thing, pushing violent imagery in the audience’s faces because he’s not trying to just show that men are murdering each other, but he’s making a statement about violence itself. This is making a myriad of statements about the falsities of intimacy. When he kisses her for so long, it should be disgusting, it should be unattractive, it absolutely should be unwatchable, but you keep watching. You’re right, it isn’t entirely Antonioni, but what would be the point of creating anything if my goal was merely to mirror a master without anything new to offer?