An amazing anti-review by Piotr MS

Piotr saw our film Beings from a post on the facebook group of the  artfilm site and wrote a great commentary on the yourube page of the film, then a beautiful serie of comments on the facebook post with my work. After a short time he deleted them, but fortunately they were all sent to my in the mail by fb and yt.
These commentaries on my films are utter against what I do but all of what he writes is true if we are aware of the essential difference in worldview between him and me. Everything that he sais no, and sais is bad, I see as good and affirmative.
So having that in mind I post here bellow the first of his commentaries. And at the end a link towards the more complex general art essay instigated by my films.

Do you know this long amazing scene from Greenaways “Baby of Macon”, which presents us with the alegory of an idiot – a naked man on a trapeze in a spasmatic inability to articulate, moaning and barking in a language-like manner, trapped in his disability, pitiful, grotesque, ugly, sublime, and ridiculous? This is the image of so called director of this movie I have in my mind. A dilletante, ignorant, oblivious, trapped in some kind of pop-nihilistic belief. A man impotent, clueless, without a vision, without a language, without any emotional depth, senseless, principial. His work, a piece of canonic kitch, ridicules the presumably raised topics into brainless mush. This cinema is anti-social and anti-human. Being independent does not mean being non-critical.

Continue reading “An amazing anti-review by Piotr MS”

A 2016 interview for PunkCinema blog Pink8manifesto

I found a short interview I gave in 2016 for a Punk Cinema Blog

What does your film express about today’s generation?
My movies talk about our amazing direction towards non duality. Towards a very sincere spirituality without too much preciousness. A generation of amazing understanding and tolerance.
What social circumstances lead you to make your new film?
I made Beings in a totally new society from my own. With people that were all in an open underground lifestyle. I ran away from my social life to make my films. Ive always looked for outsiders for my projects. Mostly because my films deal with exploring outside unknown things.
What do you think about the PINK8 Manifesto & Punk Cinema?
All punk art movements have been such great forces forward, so I love that you’ve made it as a manifesto with great power and trottle 🙂
It will create great great vibes and who knows what will come out of it. Thats what I love about punk. Its purely open to all things that come its way. All repercussions and reactions.
Whats is next for you?
Next for me is an art-porn project. A collection of videos that are rooted in existential use of sexuality and body as metaphor. Our bodies are a sort of medium, as cinema is, they transform either matter either perceptions or consciousness in such an amazing complex way that I felt compelled to use it as a main theme and subject.

interview for #pink8manifesto

Nikola Gocic review for our film #Beings

today we received such a wonderful gift
and amazing insightful review by Nikola Gocić
for our film shoot in Berlin in 2015
its such an amazing feeling when you find in another the magic understanding of Nikola towards your work
that seldom people have courage to feel and go with to the end
thank you soo soo much Nikola
you should see his blog, he has some amazing reviews

Philippe Grandrieux meets Šarūnas Bartas under a leaden sky in Andrei Stefanescu’s sophomore feature – a lyrical, genre-defying meditation on love, guilt, distress, solitude, friendship, madness and the irreversible loss of oneself during the unstoppable decent into nothingness.

A spiritual sequel to an off-kilter, nihilistic, (anti)romantic ‘drama’ Sleep Awake (Dormi Trezeste-te), #Beings is a highly unconventional piece of (no-budget) cinema; an almost wordless, unapologetically gloomy poem which plunges you into the innermost depths of human soul.

It focuses on three young people who seem to have been stripped of their very essence and turned into somnambulists, completely unaware of the unforgiving reality. Teo (Catalin Jugravu) is a photographer who is so enamored with his job, he barely notices his girlfriend Eva (Doro Höhn) and their mutual friend Ana (Andrea Christina Furrer). They look for affection, yet they ostracize each other in times of need, isolating themselves in the suffocating cocoons of despair.

Although we know nothing about them, their pain is almost tangible, materialized in the air surrounding both them and us, the viewers. It is hardly a pleasant experience, but it is deeply felt, especially if you are prone to fits of melancholy. And the moody atmosphere – supported by ominous humming and occasionally bordering psychological horror – is so thick you can taste its bitterness.

In order to capture the protagonists’ tortured mental and emotional states reflected on their faces – in subtle microexpressions and/or eyes gazing into foggy distance – Stefanescu mostly employs close-ups and mid-shots to great effect. His portraiture is simultaneously intimate and cold, his film immersive and alienating, set in the world of eternal grays.

There is not even a glimmer of hope on the horizon, which is aptly emphasized by the poignant, disturbingly calm finale playing out against the backdrop of sunset over Teufelsberg…

A Art Essay based on my artfilms by Piotr MS

I never thought about film and spirit. I was asked to do it for theatre.
I would probably start to think about it in terms of genetics. If the enormous diversity of spirit was destroyed during war, if we are living frankensteins monsters after all, patched from the remains of our ancestors, weak and easily industrialised to the cores of our beings, it is perhaps time to become the mad scientist of Jurassic Park, and try to revive the old strange spirits, to crossbreed them with the modern man, to hybridize. Film has this power, it cuts and glues the frames like you cut and glue the genetic code. After all the best post-modern art did just that. But it’s the hardest of all tasks. I don’t think anyone ever succeeded, no, sorry, Greenaway is perhaps the only exception I can think of, obviously he can not be mentioned without Sacha Vierny, those two are like a single being. The reason I don’t give you more examples is that I’m not that fluent in cinema, there are certainly a few more, I’m sure. In this metaphor of film as a spiritual genetic code, what we should not forget is the biology of that code, the epigenetics – how to make a true living code, not just a mash-up of your favourite music and image, with a bit of snobism, that will become a lifeless mutant incapable of breathing and breeding on its own. If someone was to really conjure spirits on film I’d say he should start with understanding how the machine of spiritual reproduction works. I would then notice, that as in genetics, it would be safe to introduce a single gene, a single important mutation, rather then trying to spawn into totality some ancient, or new form.
Our minds work on the basis of analogy, and therfore the art of counterpoint is the true transformative art. It is not the writing, the stupid “stram of consciousness” that evokes the spiritual. It is a constant tension, a situation between two or more streams, which can recreate the actuality of spirit. A back and forth metaphore (like in the root meaning metaphoros – to transfer something, to put from one vessel to the other and back). To do that we need at least two peaks, two focal points. The art would then be to contrast such views, perspectives, in such way that they still remain in dialogue, despite being of different origin, even matter.
So the one advice I would give to you about looking into the depth of human spirit – don’t look inside, look in between, study the baroque counterpoint, the romantic counterpoint, so eqsquisite in Chopin, the Beckettian counterpoint, Bernhardian counterpoint, this is how the spirit emerges in text and in music – in the space between lines, in the dialogue between melodies. It can not be totalised or simplified in a symbolic form. It can not be shown, only evoked, as a space, as a community of voices, objects, gestures, etc. As the tension between the actor and his mask. As the tension between a voice and the body. Think of it.
And for christ sake, grow a heart Stefanescu, you nihilist piece of shit.
(my answer comes in paragraphs but it’s a single text, the fucking facebook don’t accept large text) The direction you chose, that of experimental independent filmmaking is very dear to me, and out of this love grows the hate towards dilletantism. I wish you all the best with your projects, but above all I wish you educate yourself. I don’t know how. Greatest education comes from profound life experiences. You can not conjure them yourself. I wish you encounter your transformation along the way and grow into a strong cinematic individual, that can support a big and important project. I’m a philosopher and if there was a single speech of advice I could give you – is to tell you about the psychological interior. It is a very unfortunate term, that describes psychology (the life of soul) as a separate space to supposed externality of life. This is a ridiculous romantic division, and grave misconception. The depth of a soul is in complexity of the surface of beings. Think about holograms and the mirage of depth they produce – this is the correct metaphor. Human nature does not distinguish human behaviour from acting, from the natural perspective they are the same. The whole concept of theatre and then film is to create a mask – a representation of one self, with which you can SAFELY play as with an object. Objectification of human being in theatre must be done carefully, consciously, thoughtfully. In the independent young cinema this burden falls on the director, since the actors are usually not experienced. You can hurt people by asking them to “enter their emotional depth”. There is no such thing. Emotions are all performances. The problem is some of those performances constitute us as individuals and construct our psychology, and some are in front of us, as a mask in our hand to be controlled consciously and acted in the literal sense – as an art. If you ask a normal person to be himself in front of the camera you risk psychological desintegration of your “actor”, because you ask them to cut off their own being, their own psychology and turn it into an object of art (a mask). This destroys them as humans, cuts a vital connection between their being and their actions and creates a pathological awareness of the emptyness which is the emptyness of hologram when you remove the image. You can not do it, it is a spiritual crime. That is why a genuine director gives to their actor a line of text, a line o guidance, a form, an external thought or object to play with – so that they don’t focus on their own being. Art is an art of playing with objects. For a dancer his body becomes an instrument which he masters, for actor it is mainly his voice. I’m a great admirer of the pure voice theatre, of Beckett for example. Beckett is all about the voice driving the body. But he does not leave his actors in vacuum. You must learn to respect nature in order not to be in your experiments a pathologist who kills his object in order to examine it. This won’t reveal anything to you, but the mundane obviousness of decomposition of a dead body. There is a world around you governed by natual laws. If you don’t know those laws, don’t play with them, because the forces can hurt you, and most importantly the actor, let alone the spectator, like myself, exposed to this horrific practice.
Just because you discovered the void where you expected the spirit to be located (the interior) does not mean the spirit does not exist. It means you are looking in the wrong place, with the wrong tools, without understanding. You have the wrong idea about what the spirit is. And this false idea precisely was introduced in history to destroy the spirit, to erase it, as many terms in our culture. You must learn to see past the popular deffinitions of things. The rule is they are wrong. They may be occasionally right, but stick to the rule and you’ll see. Most definitions in our culture are created to hide the reality, not to describe it. Especially when we talk about spiritualism, the official church doctrine, the romantic panpsychism, thay are all totalitarian tools, tools of feudalism, of unificatory violence that seeks to erase the individual, and create a standard. They are tools of spiritual globalisation.
While I was looking at your work I thought about a phrase – spiritual snuff movies. The problem I have with you is that you are so uncivilised and debased that probably you will love the term and roll with it – you are probably a criminal. Why? I know growing in Romania (I come from catholic Poland) can turn a man into a vcious destructive being. The horrors of war, the pogroms, nazi occupation, they are all around us. The buildings were raised back, but the human souls, our cultures, were ruined. We live in ruined nations, ruined spirits. That was after all the nazi plan, above all, to destroy the individual culture of each nation. You must understand IIWW was a first major act of globalisation. Modern european human spirit has a destroyed genetic code, everything that was specific, local, was erased, first by the nazis, then by Stalinism. We are left with the more-less universal aspects of our spirituality. But the true life of spirit in its individual and local, in it’s particular is destroyed.
I’m a devoted communist, but I believe it should be focused on the economy, of resource management, and shoud stay away from culture. There is no need to introduce the same species of apple to the entire europe to make it easier to manage the apple economy. This is a basic lie of EU, which pretends to be socialist, but really it’s a feudalism in disguise, big companies, banks, etc. impose their power – the power of capitalism. Money is just a means of civilising political violence, and accumulation of force. And those who have most money are the true governers in EU.
Realise now that in your thinking about human spirit you are like a totalitarian regime. Obviously you will find no spirit if the method of searching for it is to kill everything in the line of your sight. That’s the problem I have with you. It’s not a discovery to kill someone and discover he is not alive. This is what you did in #beings. You killed the spirit and observed the void that’s left. Ok, there are no visible signs of afterlife – what a surprise. Do you get the absurdity of that situation? You are like a little child that does not understand what it observes is the direct consequence of the actions it performed, not the nature of the thing it took in its hands. You are trapped in your own vicious circle of destruction. It’s a cinema of greed and hunger. You eat and decompose meanings, but there is no energy out of it apart maybe that which supplies your egotism, certainly it’s not present on screen, it’s not transferred to the spectator. You suck life out of the people in front of your camera and that’s it. Grat mistery of vampirism. No, it’s not a mystery, it’s the most trivial act of mindless consumption. So you consumed your actors, your spaces, why do you ask me to look at it? It is spiritual snuff, as I said before.
To experience spirit, to evoke it in film, you have to understand it’s nature. As mentioned before, spirit is the life of natural mask, the natural surface. You can not detach that mask from the human, you can not expose it, reflect upon it, because it kills it. You can only observe it with your human senses in real life (i suppose you have few of those left) and then re-create it in art, as an object, as a mask. This is not a caprice, not a baseless dogmatism, that the theatrical tradition insists on “development of the role”, on putting on the mask, the costume, in creating an artifice. This is the only way to move those spiritual forms in the space of theatre, and film. I imagine film to be infinitly harder art form, when it comes to conjuring spirits, or in other words – the destructive aspect of film, the killing instinct of the cinematic machine is thousand times greater then the thatrical machine. To really show life on screen, to really reflect on spirit is to my mind almost impossible.
Why? because precisely film is a stream, not a situation, not a totality. It is closer to writing, then to theatre. It is linear. You even used this in your explanatory video to Linear A, which I understood in 70% percent (because of the language barrier, not the logic). A stream of consciousness is an oxymoron, created by postmodernism, as the ultimate textual artifice. Mind is in no way a stream, a text, a chain. It is a situation – orientation in space, movement in space (in relation to each aspect at once), but it’s also not an interior, unless by interior you mean the entire cosmos that surrounds us. Consciousness is like gravity – the constitutive force of the world of “I”. It glues everything from the furthest stars to the grains of sand on your shoe. It works constantly in parallel totality of the single moment and the entire world, entire cosmos contributes to that moment. It is upon this moment we take a pen and compose the score, but the score, the melody, it is a text, it is artificial, it is the movement of a hand, an object out of consciousness, it is this consciousness moving that object, that mask, drawing a line. This line is not consciousness, it was drawn by consciousness. That’s the fundamnetal difference. So by saying we have stream of consciousness we mistake the writing for the writer, and suddenly all the stupidity that arises from this mistakes, all the nihilistic misconceptions become obvious
Culture is full of those mistakes, because culture, as Thomas Bernhard reminds us in his brilliant “Old masters” is a culture sponsored by state, a totalitarian project. Even counter-culture, which positions itself as a reaction to this totalitarian culture is still forced by the official narrative. The true act of freedom is to approach culture as a mistake, and counter culture as reactionary inversion of those mistakes (and therfore still mistake). The sooner you begin to see that the sooner you will be able to understand the paradoxes, the idiocy of pop-nihilism, and that beyond it still there is a space of natural positivity. Obviously, because this behemoth of official culture must drink some real blood after all. There is life. Grow some eyes and look at it.
The basic idiocy is that absence of the true causality allows introduction of the fake reversed causality. For example there are directors who will break the rules of decency, and yet their actors will give a performance. Then the general understanding is that BECAUSE they broke the rule, there was a performence. But usually it is DESPITE they broke the rules, the actor gave performence, and the true work was done by the invisible force of culture that supported the actor while he was viciously attacked. The director likes to feed his ego with those claims about being the orchestrator of his movies, but sometimes all it takes is a good actor, text, and editing, and the director is just a symbolic binder. Those are however rare occasions. You can not say that a man who takes an apple from a tree produced that apple and took part in it’s development. He was just at the right place at the right time, and he took something from someone. But the fact he is celebrated as an creator, maybe even inventor, of that apple, is just the specifique of our feudalist culture, which mistakes stealing for creating. You come across as one who would not only see nothing wrong with it, but quite contrary embrace it. All I’m saying is there is a choice here, and that choice defines you as a human being.

My films are whispers to the soul, interview for Detur La Preciziei

After a superb review on my latest film, #Beings, here, the film critic Maria Mantaluta asked me a few beautiful questions about filmmaking and my work.

M.M.: I’m not sure how well, or even if, our readers know you (even after the review for one of your films, #Beings), so why don’t we start with a short introduction.
P.S.: Amateur filmmaker

M.M.: That was very short indeed, so I’ll just add that Paul Stefanescu is a passionate filmmaker (not sure about the amateur part, but so be it), who’s not only making films (…and other arts) but also hosted film screenings in Bucharestand is a breathing, moving performer. Personally, I always felt that your social media accounts are more like an on going virtual performance. But it’s not me speaking here, so let’s get back to our questions.
What can you tell us about your older projects?
P.S.: #Beings and Sleep-Awake, two “exorcism” films, as someone once described them. 
If that doesn’t make our readers curious, I don’t know what will.

M.M.: How did you start making films? What’s your relationship with film schools?
 P.S.: It’s a bit more complicated. My first encounter with film was in UNATC ( the National University of Theatrical and Cinematographic Arts “Ion Luca Caragiale Bucharest), but it took me like 10 years to find my own direction in film, and in the way of making it, in which to truly believe. Making film is hard, and you need deep beliefs, to be able to “sacrifice” your whole life for a few film scenes. It took me a long time to grasp a meaning of art and to discover what is art in me. And what in me would matter to others. A never ending search for truth.
In what concerns film schools, my only contact was with UNATC, a good place to form a network and to develop a sort of passion for film. Even so, I do not advise anyone willing to learn film to follow a Romanian film school. For us, in Romania,  school seems to be, still, a poetical act.

 M.M.: What do you aim for when you’re making films, what are your expectations? From yourself, from the “final cut”, from the public?
 P.S.: It’s a classical route in art, first, you have a revelation – an understanding of something that is beyond linguistic discourse, especially if you are “a visual creature”. And then, you try to bring what you’ve understood, which is circumstantially dependent on a narrative and dramatic context, to an existential form.
It’s an emotional, intuitive and deep process. Of course, if you choose this creative path. What interests me the most is rediscovering the essences and being aware of them – that’s at the core of my stories.
I try to be totally honest. It’s really hard. And during the making of a film, being honest with your story, with yourself and with the essence you want to depict, all shape a different world. A world that pays for the effort, the pain, and the fight of keeping oneself open to it. And not only to the story, but it’s really important to stay open and true with the people you’re working with, and observe their own way of relating to the story. It’s a magical process. For me. For the people, I work with. For the public.
I, like Claire Denis, wish for the public to watch my films in the most open intimacy. Not collectively in a hall. My films are whispers to the soul. That’s why only a few can accept them, decipher them and connect with them. It’s hard nowadays to be totally open in this world.

 M.M: I know your interest goes beyond film, and covers other visual arts as well, or better said, your interest is in Visual Arts. What place does film have in this scheme?
 P.S.: Film isn’t film anymore for me. It stopped being a label, a definition of an artistic product. Film is simply a medium, like words. Normally, film means a complex process of production and distribution. The rest is art. Continue reading “My films are whispers to the soul, interview for Detur La Preciziei”

CASTING pentru CAMERAMICA nobudget lung metraj

#CASTING pentru proiectul microbudget Camera Mica – un proiect de film underground de lung metraj produs de Qualiafilm scris si regizat de Paul Stefanescu
15zile de filmare la inceputul lunii Iulie in Bucuresti

Camera Mica este proiectul care dintre cele multele pe care am incercat sa le promovez si-a gasit un minunat co-producator care aduce intreg echipamentul, locatiile, masinile din film si multe obiecte necesare din scenografie si chiar ceva fonduri si ajutor pe partea de postproductie.
Si desigur, chiar cu tot acest minunat ajutor, tot avem nevoie de ajutorul si suportul vostru pe partea de promovare si distributie/promovare mai apoi.
Si acesta este si un apel catre toti cei cu care ne cunoastem si ca si pina acum din jena mea de a va intreba daca vreti sa veniti in proiect, astept cu mare mare draag mesajul vostru. <3

#Amala – 20s-30s – female, edgy, almost crazy all the time, intense – top only nudity
#Gloria – 14-16 yo female – daughter of Amala, morbid passive violent type.
#John – 30s – male English speaking, the British husband of Amala – reasonable polite patient
#Morven – 20s 30-s male, contemplative, spiritual passive man
#Vilho – 40s – male, contemporary art curator and mafioso
#Paul – late 20s – heroin junkie type, assistant to Vilho the mafioso
#Omny – 20s-30s – female, shy, skinny, sick looking – with a small baby if possible
#TaxiDriver – 30s – muscular gang looking compassionate and a family man

small roles – #Mother 55s, #Father 55s, #PoliceOfficer 30s
professional or non-professional actors or artists interested in our direction of filmmaking

assistant producer/organizer – with car
costume designer
makeup – special effects – knife wounds, blood wounds, wild dirty
sound recording team

[all cast and crew must be interested in body metaphor and the poetics of intimacy]
[the script is free to read, either here or on my blog]
[please be sure to check our past projects before applying. it would be so nice to know something about my direction as film and art before wanting to join this project]

Interviu Andrei Stefanescu de Codruta Corocea

Codruta m-a intrebat citeva lucruri despre ce fac eu prin filmele pe care le fac, intr-un interviu pentru revista scolii ei.
Pe Codruta o gasesti cel mai bine pe instagram si facebook si ea un artist vizual implicata in alternative fashion si tot ce inseamna alternative culture.

Spune-mi te rog puțin despre temele majore care razbat în filmele tale,
Nu prea ma pricep la teme. Acestea ar fi frumos de gasit de oameni cu o pregatire mai intelectuala decit mine. Sint citeva cronici facute la filmele mele, probabil pe acolo sa se intuiasca la ceva teme. Habar n-am. Eu sint cumva pozitionat la celalat capat al vederii unui film.

Tu ce obsesii ai? Se manifestă ele în vreun fel în ceea ce faci?
Toate filmele si videourile mele vin cumva din obsesii interioare precognitive. Ma intereseaza mult nu sa enuntez idei, cit sa explorez zone umane foarte intime si secrete din om si dintre om si om. Cele mai multe sint nespuse inca. De aceea filmele mele sint un fel de cheie care deschide zone neexistente inca, si am tot primit acest mesaj de la oameni, cit de ciudat si de neinteles este experienta de a vedea un film, dar cit de revealing intr-un fel inca neprelucrat.

Ce lucruri îți plac și ce lucruri te sperie?
Imi plac foarte mult oamenii de nouageneratie care nu au acea osoasa suspiciune fata de tot si toate. Pentru ca fara sinceritatea si incredere in ceilalti este imposibil sa sapam in noi insine si sa exploram umanitati si naturi umane.
Cel mai mult ma sperie cind imi mai aduc aminte ca am trait o perioada intr-o lume in care totul era minciuna si adevarul era si el instantaneu transformat intr-o aluzie, intr-un sens alterat, intr-un instrument de abuz. O sufocare paranoiaca la nivel de intreaga societate. Ma bucur mult ca am reusit sa ies si si mai si sa imi pot exprima complet adinca sinceritate. Atit cit este ea la fiecare moment din timp.

Spune-mi despre cum e să faci film fără un buget propriu-zis și fără profit,
Exista o minunata libertate si sinceritatea din partea celor implicati, atunci cind faci un film numai si numai din placerea si credinta in acele idei si emotii. Si de aceea echipele sint foarte strinse iar experienta este foarte des una magica si minunata.
Dar pentru a stringe o echipa potrivita in jurul unui proiect nobudget este foarte foarte greu, si nu totdeauna un succes. Este un act mult prea spiritual pentru multi si de aceea nu se implica.
Iar atunci cind intervine plata, si circularea banilor, daca nu exista un sistem deja fluid, cum este acela cultural festivalier, finantat de un stat si noprofit, nu prea se poate face film, cumparind oameni si lucruri.
Continue reading “Interviu Andrei Stefanescu de Codruta Corocea”

Beings, review by Maria Mantaluta

I’ve asked Maria Mantaluta to write a small text about our 2015, Beings. And she was kind enough to see the film and wrote this amazing text. Its so wonderful to find people that understand and open to ones work. Thank you so much Maria for your kind and beautiful words.

you can find the whole text on her film blog

you can see the full movie at

Some films you follow, some films follow you. #Beings can easily fall in the second category of films which end up by following you for a while after watching it. It’s neither beautiful nor narrative. It is not everybody’s cup of tea; for some might be a whole kettle, while for others less than a cup. It might actually not even be a cup of tea. A dark atmospheric underground no-budget production, which proves once again that a film is more than polished visuals, special effects, and Hollywood stars, it is firstly a feeling, an experience, meaning exactly what lingers when narrative is erased from memory and images fade into colours.

Starting from a Eva, the film brings together a tormented love triangle, struggling with their own inner beings in an amalgam of guilt, love, lust, grief, loneliness, friendship, madness and absurdity which contours the human existence. Looking for and banishing each other at the same time, while looking for themselves, every character falls into its own interior world, trying to hide and escape their own anxieties. There is an uneasiness, a claustrophobic feeling of suffocation, an impossibility of breaking free. The film attracts its viewers and estranges them at the same time and with the same means. An hour of slow drowning, of diving into the most obscure and meaningless fears, an hour of industrial sound followed by crushing silence, which takes its passive viewers from Marie Claire to the desolate outskirts of Berlin.

Eva (Doro Hohn), Teo (Cătălin Jugravu), Ana (Andrea Christina Furrer) are just names in a hurricane of desperation and helplessness, each one enduring the guilt of the others’ suffering. No reason, no logic, no desire of going back to a once lost normality, probably; and love is not the solution as it usually is in a cliché of a world, but the trigger of irrationality itself. As I consider Andrzej Zulawski’s Cosmos (2015) to have a world of its own, which does not wait to be deciphered by its viewers, so does #Beings; the film does not try to explain itself, and it does not need to. The characters live in their own world, a world with no map, no directions.

#Beings gives no glimpses of a so-called normality, no light, no warmth, and once you start watching it you find yourself caught in a foggy loop as strange as it is familiar, through the clew of emotions and expressions it depicts, and which are nevertheless deeply and indisputable human. A poem of greyish images, the 53 minutes are a route from tense trepidation to quiet stillness. All the quick shots in the beginning, the long takes of the human body, Ana’s burdened gaze, and Eva’s cries for help melt into the static image of the sun setting over the industrial remains of something which was long forgotten.

Monthly Donation

Thank you so much for supporting and being together with us in our films and videos.
Helping us is your amazing love gift that connects us together and out of it creates all this stories and art that opens another world, an inner world where all is open and free. Your gift is love. Your gift is understanding for what we do and what we struggle to do in a world that has forgotten or lost among lies, the exercise of pure heart.I made a monthly donation of 2 /10 /25 euros choices below in the drop down menu. Sometimes it is easier to help with very very small regular amounts.

For more about our philosophy and work see ABOUT and THEORY and VIDEOS
for our social see facebook instagram vimeo
Thank you.

also you can use our one time donation link – paypal



Now for everybody out there that wanted to see what I do in filmmaking today I’ve made a small showreel that recaps some of the films and videos I’ve made since 2008.

Thank you all soo soo much for all your help, belief and sacrifice for these films to be made and screened in Romania and all over the world. Thank you my amazing romanian and german crews, thank you sooo soo much you amazing souls that you are dear dear actors, thank you beautiful reviewers, critics and viewers from all over the world that opened your souls and minds and feelings in front of these little films.
It was and it still is an amazing journey in film and I am the luckiest human to have met you and shared with you at least a small part of real and direct soul.
Thank you soo soo much to all.
And lets keep telling stories about our amazing sacred human experience.

Image is mirror, what we feel and see in it shows us more than the ones in the mirror.
Image/story is an intuitive language that can empathize with others outside ideas. Outside concepts, languages.

My films are about the difficult process that we need to undergo so that we can come back to life, or to understand it. Not to enjoy it, not to be happy, but just merely to experience it. Happiness has nothing to do with Truth, with direct touch of life.
So no Beauty. But as much truth and wake up moments as possible. As much angles feelings reactions and objects upon reality so that our all being can transcend it even for a very brief moment.

The reel contains pieces from the films
Interior Skies
No Man’s Land
Silence Series
Sleep Awake 2012
Earth Eye
#Beings 2015