All language subtitles for asky00005.track_4608

Ever since his debut in 1969,
Italian director Dario Argento

keeps on terrorizing millions
of viewers all over the world.

The themes of his films
deal with violence, terror,

emotions, anguish,
and nightmares.

Nightmare in its
most absolute form.

Why do I keep making these
haunting, brutal films?

That's something I get asked,
and ask myself, all the time.

It's not like my imagination
can't focus on anything else.

I mean, I love music and I
enjoy having a good laugh.

Why do I make these films, then?

I don't know, I guess
it's due to my dark half.

Maybe the monster inside
me resurfaces pretty often,

overcoming my regular,
more relaxed lifestyle.

I often find myself scared
by my weird, creepy thoughts.

They're coming from
deep inside my being.

After traveling the weirdest
paths of one's imagination,

coming back to
earth is a challenge.

People ask me how I choose
the stories for my projects.

I can't give you a proper
answer, truth be told.

I never know when I'll decide
what my next film will be.

Sometimes, when I
think a story is good,

it feels like a virus or a fever
running through my body.

When this feeling
isn't strong enough,

it means I still have
to work on the idea.

I do so by merely strolling
around, looking at things.

Loneliness is a pivotal
element in all of my projects;

it's the only thing that
allows me to focus

and step into that strange,
cruel, and perverse universe.

Watching an Argento film at the cinema
is a bit of a ritualistic experience.

Sitting down in a room
engulfed in darkness,

the audience can't avert
their eyes from the screen

as they witness a haunting
story of blood and violence,

the kind of story which, should
they witness in their everyday life,

would make them shiver
and recoil in disgust for real.

It sounds almost like a
collective, liberating ritual,

with the whole audience merging into a
single soul as they watch these movies.

That's one of the interpretations behind
the success Argento and his ilk

have been enjoying
in recent years.

These films couldn't
be further from

a pastime for alienated kooks
that some people make them out to be.

They have a complex,
deeper significance.

Aside from being an
amusing source of escapism,

they also deal with
deeper themes,

which often revolve around
our daily lives and consciences.

They often revolve around our
relationship with fear and death,

as well as many other
unfathomable mysteries.

However, Dario Argento isn't only known
for the shocking plots of his films,

but also because of his experimentation
with new shooting techniques.

A director can achieve a personal
style by joining story with technique.

I mean, almost everyone owns
a camera or even a camcorder,

and we all know we could
move or point it in any direction.

A panning shot is one way
to tell a story, for instance.

Yet, we could experiment with the
camera in order to achieve some,

dare I say, acrobatic
performances.

As I said, it's almost like getting
a show out of the camera itself.

This exercise is not
an end in itself, though.

There are countless ways to
tell a story through a camera.

You can move it very high
or very low, put it in a hole,

make it pass through a human
hand, place it inside a mouth, and so on.

Having technical skills is important,
but that's not all there is to it.

I've made plenty of use of
these so-called acrobatic,

complex sequences
throughout my career.

In my opinion, the stories I've
wanted to tell called for

such daring and
complicated sequences.

I often say my camera
movements are "psychological,"

as if they portray an idea of what a
scene, or even the whole film, is about.

I could give many examples,

such as a shot from TENEBRAE,
a couple from OPERA,

a few from SUSPIRIA, or even from THE
BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE.

Here is an example of the type of
shot mentioned by Dario Argento.

This scene is from TENEBRAE.

It consists of a remarkably long and
breathtaking camera movement that

creates tension by exploring
almost the entirety of an apartment,

inside and out, thanks to a
complex telescopic mechanism

mounted on a
remote-controlled arm.

Another example of Dario Argentds
- eeeformidable techfiicahmasterym

This solution gives an
even more shocking effect

to the sequence you're about
to see. The film is, again, OPERA.

Notice how Argento
makes use of the music,

how he underlines
these small visual details.

Notice also the tilted framing he
intentionally gives these shots.

Argento makes the most out of his technical
skills. It has become his signature style.

The overhead, circular motion of the camera
in this scene is yet another example.

Shooting the final sequence of
OPERA was another arduous task,

for which Argento had a
huge mechanical crane built

in order to perfectly replicate
the point of view of a flying crow.

And here's how the scene
appears in the finished film.

Betty!

- Got him!
- Great plan, Marc!

Here I come!

Almost there...

Almost...

There.

See, this is the embodiment
of a special effects sequence.

I risked falling down and
painting those walls with myself,

as well as almost drowning in
that pool of water down below.

Filthy, slimy water, who knows
how many germs it carries.

This is an example of a
dangerous situation in a film.

As a matter of fact, it's also an
example of what special effects can do.

I mean, you don't see actors
getting killed for real in a film.

It's a trick, a special effect.

Even this dangerous
setting is a special effect.

I'm a little out of breath
right now but, well,

this skit served as an introduction
to our segment about special effects.

Hope you'll enjoy it.

Sorry for this goofy goodbye,
people, but I can't risk falling down! Bye!

The scene we have just
seen is a perfect example

Try to blink! Go!

Give me some fast blinking!

Keep them open! Open!

Keep them open
and try screaming, "No!"

He got stabbed! His
body is at your feet!

He's right here, at your feet.

The special effects team,
led by Rosario Prestopino,

puts great care and attention
"irfrfin nrlrlinn cnrno rnr§rjn_r\|c>'I-r|-i|c_
IIILU uuklllls JUIIIC lllUl C UULUITD

a scene where the make-up and special
effects artists really gave their best.

Yeah, all right. I'm coming.

This scene depicting the death
of Daria Nicolodfs character

involves the entire make-up
and special effects teams.

The main part of this task was
obviously played by the make-up team,

who had to first create the eye
wound to apply on the actress' face.

The make-up team has prepared
a fake exit wound for the bullet,

which will be now applied
to the nape of the actress' neck.

The fake wound has
been filled with artificial blood.

A small squib, placed
under a fake layer of hair,

was then detonated during
shooting at Dario Argentds command.

That's how the director managed to simulate
the devastating effect of a bullet.

As always, Dario
Argento himself applied

the final touches to
the make-up team's work.

The bullet through the keyhole effect was
created by filming an enlarged bullet prop,

which was done with a high speed camera
normally used for scientific testing.

And here, from the film OPERA,
is the final result of all this work.

I'm a creator of
special effects.

I mostly work for Dario Argento.

I usually do mechanical
effects for him.

For instance, Dario needed some
mechanical crows for the film OPERA,

because a real bird would not
have been as effective as a fake one.

We couldn't have done the scene with the
crows attacking the killer using real ones.

I faced a similar
situation in DEMONS 2,

as well as in the last film Dario
produced, THE SECT,

which has scenes with fantasy
versions of birds and rabbits.

The situation is the same
when a film features a monster,

because, when I get involved, it's
often for monstrous creations that

have internal mechanisms to
make them move independently.

There are many creatures
in THE CHURCH, as well.

In the film you can see,
usually in dream sequences,

a few monstrous beings.

The most complicated one
to create was the goat demon.

It was accomplished
using a combination of

make-up and mechanics.

It was a high quality foam
latex suit worn by an actor,

processed through
quite complex procedures.

This suit was worn by an actor,

but the movements of the
goat's face were controlled

by various electrical and
electronic mechanisms.

Therefore, it was both a suit worn by an
actor as well as an animatronic creature,

whose facial expressions
were remote-controlled.

There were other
special effects in the film,

such as the monster
coming out of holy water.

Dario's films feature more than
just make-up and optical special effects.

There are also other
kinds of special effects,

including stop-motion and
other optical techniques.

For example, there is a scene where
an insect enters an actress' nose.

Of course, we could not
use the actress' real head,

and we also had to figure out how
to get the insect inside a fake nose.

We were able to solve the
situation by using a blend

of make-up and
optical special effects,

creating a cast of the actress'
head and a pseudo animation

to show the insect
getting into the nose.

I also do optical
effects, as I was saying,

which are often useful for dealing
with apparently simpler issues,

such as the lunar
eclipse in THE SECT.

It's obviously not possible to delay
production to wait for the next eclipse.

They needed an ad hoc effect,
and that's exactly what I did.

These kinds of effects are often achieved
through the use of an optical printer.

Shots can be manipulated and effects
inserted by using filters or images.

Any kind of fantasy elements
can be added or recreated.

In this case, we actually added a
realistic element, a lunar eclipse.

My writing partnership with Argento
began with FGUi? FLiES 0N” GREY VELVET.

Normal movie cameras
usually reach 24 fps.

Argento is constantly pushing
his technical skills to the limit,

and the same goes for
the special effects he uses.

That's the reason I find working
with him so exciting and intriguing.

Nothing is ever
good enough for him.

He always strives to find
new ideas and solutions.

He always tries to take routes
no one has explored before.

I remember our
collaboration on PHENOMENA.

An interesting experience, as I
also had to use macro photography

to take extreme
close-ups of insects.

I showed these insects
almost as if they were actors,

because that was
what Argento wanted.

I think it was the first film to use
this kind of cinematic technique.

Stivaletti and I also realized another
unusual effect Argento used in the film,

with the swarm of flies
covering the school.

Those girls trapped
inside the school,

with millions of insects swarming outside
the windows, was a terrifying sight.

We created the swarm
using an optical effect.

First, we did a normal
shot of the school,

then we simulated the swarm by
immersing some ground coffee in water,

thus achieving a convincing
illusion through the fluctuating coffee.

We superimposed the two shots, and
there you have the scene in the film.

Argento also insists on the very highest
quality of his films' sound effects.

Nice one.

- Good.
- Okay.

Give me another nice slash.

Try now.

- All ready?
- Yes.

Louden

- All right, that's it.
- Again?

- Yeah, carry on.
- All right.

- All good.
- Okay.

- Hit it hard.
- Okay.

- Harder.
- Yes.

Good one.

Beautiful.

- Hit the fleshier bit.
- Hold on. Ready.

Easy, be careful.

You crazy?!

Argentds personal touch with music
often goes along with sound effects.

Music has always been an
important element in film.

Even during the silent era,

artists like Chaplin had
special sheets of music

that would have been played
in theaters to accompany the films.

With the advent of sound,
music retained its importance.

Personally, I think it reached its
zenith with some American musicals,

and in general during
the last twenty years.

Music in films can be
used in many different ways.

A score can be composed
well before a film is finished,

but the two processes
can also be complementary.

Other times, it can be composed
once shooting has wrapped,

with the director handing the
film off to the composer to score it.

The end result is
different either way,

just as the impact of music
on a film is always different.

If the score is composed
before the film,

then the music basically oversees the
impact the images will have on the screen,

as if it's become the main
element of the whole film.

Most of the time, the music is composed
before the actual film is born.

When the music is composed
during the filming process,

well, in this case, music goes
hand in hand with the images,

which are born with a
sort of, let's say, musicality.

Musicality influences images.

The final result can
be rather interesting.

When the score is
created after the film,

the composer is basically making
something to accompany the picture,

or to underline the emotional
impact of some sequences.

In this case, music becomes the
final touch to an already existing picture.

Again, all three options
are different from each other.

Personally, I've always
chosen to follow the first two.

My films' music has been composed either
before or during the filming process.

The score of SUSPIRIA
was created before the film,

during a trip I made to Greece.

I fell in love with the bouzouki, a
traditional Greek musical instrument.

I loved its deep, metallic sound, so
I bought one to bring back to Rome.

I think it also inspired me to create some
of the film's most important sequences.

Argento always places great
importance on the sound of his films.

Music has a key role
in most of his films.

The score I did for TWO EVIL EYES played a
lesser role, as the film was so fast-paced.

THE SECT makes
more use of its music,

and it's actually more reminiscent of
the way Argento used Goblin's music.

Dario Argento is
not just a director.

He also works as a producer.

In this role, he often produces
films helmed by other directors.

For instance, George
Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD,

Lamberto Bava's
DEMONS and DEMONS 2,

and Michele Soavfs THE
CHURCH and THE SECT.

But does a difference exist between the
films he directs and the ones he produces?

I reckon there's a substantial
difference between

the films I produce and write and
the ones I produce and also direct.

The first obvious difference is
that, concerning the ones I direct,

I'm personally involved in
every phase of the process.

The ones I just produce
have the more personal style

and touch of the different
people directing them.

The soul of these films belong
to those who directed them.

I'm talking about the likes of
Lamberto Bava with DEMONS,

Michele Soavi with THE SECT and THE CHURCH,
or George Romero with DAWN OF THE DEAD.