This is a deeply disturbing mediation on creation, god and the life of creations.
The film is the story of a scuplture that is created and comes to life and finds itself on a work bench with the remnants of the other creations that went before.
This is a visceral gut punch that is going to leave you bothered. As both a straight up horror film and something deeper concerning the nature of the universe it is deeply troubling and will leave you bothered for hours afterward - even if you try and see something after it to clear your head.
One of the best films at this year's Tribeca it is an absolute must see.
---
After I saw the short I reached out to the PR people handling the film and asked if there was anyway for me to talk to the director Matteo Burani. They said they would ask. The answer came back that if I could send some questions producer Arianna Gheller and director Matteo Burani would supply answers.
What follows are my questions and their answers.
I want to thank Shaimaa Khan at London Flair for arranging this and I want to thank Ms. Gheller and Mr Burani for taking the time to answer my questions.
STEVE: The film boggles the mind when you consider that the film is stop motion. There are so many layers to the images with figures in front and back of each other all moving. Were the figures animated in one shot or put together in compositing?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: Very few elements in this film were achieved through compositing. We really tried to keep everything as much as possible in camera, embracing the physicality of stop motion.
Some shots required animating up to 30 puppets at the same time, which was extremely challenging but also essential to create that sense of depth and presence. We wanted the audience to feel that all the figures truly coexist in the same space, reacting to each other in real time.
STEVE: How much did you use the computer and what was its role in the film?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: The computer’s role in the film was very minimal and mainly focused on clean-up work during post-production.
We used digital tools primarily to remove rigging, especially in scenes where it was physically impossible to hide the supports on set and to apply a few masks here and there to fix flickering caused by accidental bumps to the set during animation. We didn’t use green screen at all, except for one specific shot: the scene where the Sculptor bends down in front of the sculpture seen from behind. In that case, the sculpture was shot separately on green screen so we could split the animation process and avoid forcing the pixelation actor to hold an uncomfortable squat for hours.
STEVE: How long did it take to shoot the film and how many animators did you employ?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: The animation process for Playing God took 15 months of intense, non-stop work. All completed by a single animator, Arianna Gheller, who was also the producer of the film.
The main reason for having just one animator was that, during the production, Arianna developed a deep specialization in this very refined and demanding technique of clay animation. Her sculptural sensitivity and growing emotional connection with the characters allowed her to bring out a unique expressiveness, blending sculpting skills with frame-by-frame animation in a truly original way.
We all felt it was the best decision, both emotionally and artistically, to have her animate the entire film in order to maintain a strong and coherent creative vision throughout.
STEVE: The film is very much an examination of a creator giving life to his creation. Do you think the things that you have made have their own life/existence once made? Do you regret abandoning them? Do you think the things you abandon you forgive you for doing so?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: I believe that every piece of art carries within it the DNA of its creator, it’s an echo, a frozen memory in time that even after years or centuries, still speaks of who you were and the era you lived in.
I’ve learned to love every drawing, sculpture, and piece I’ve made, from childhood to now, because they remind me of who I was, and who I am in this moment. Even the imperfect or abandoned ones are part of that journey. I don’t see them as mistakes, but as necessary steps in the evolution of my voice as an human been.
STEVE: Since the film references the spiritual in the title, I was wondering what your beliefs are and does the film reflect your views?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: While the title Playing God certainly evokes spiritual or divine themes, the film doesn’t aim to represent a specific religious belief. Rather, it reflects a deeply personal and emotional exploration of creation, judgment, and self-worth.
For me, the idea of “Playing God” is more about the inner dynamics we all face, that harsh inner voice that judges what we do, what we are, what we create. It’s about the fragile relationship we have with ourselves, and the desire to be accepted, understood, and valued.
If anything, my beliefs lean toward a kind of emotional spirituality, a belief in the human need for meaning, connection, and transformation. The film uses metaphor and visual symbolism to reflect this tension between creator and creation, perfection and failure, acceptance and rejection.
So yes, in its own way, the film does mirror my worldview not in religious terms, but in how we deal with identity, vulnerability, and the longing for grace in a world that often feels indifferent.
STEVE: Since the film is heavily with philosophical implications I was wondering if you think a film should reflect the beliefs of the director?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: I think a film doesn’t necessarily have to reflect the director’s beliefs but it inevitably reflects something about how the director sees or questions the world.
In my case, I don't see filmmaking as a way to declare truths or certainties, but rather to explore questions that don’t have simple answers. Playing God is full of philosophical implications, but it's not a manifesto. It’s a space where I processed vulnerability, perfectionism, rejection, themes that haunted me personally and creatively.
So yes, in that sense, the film does reflect a part of who I am and how I think. But I believe a film can also contradict its author, surprise them, or even reveal things they weren’t fully conscious of. Sometimes, cinema is less about expressing what we believeand more about discovering what we feel.
STEVE: Who are the artists that influenced you personally and which ones influenced the film?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: There’s a long list of artists who have influenced me, both personally and in the making of Playing God. On a personal level, I’ve always been deeply inspired by artists who explore the human condition through the body, psychology, and surrealism. David Cronenberg had a strong impact on my approach to transformation and vulnerability, particularly through his concept of the “New Flesh” where physical mutation becomes a metaphor for identity crisis and alienation. Lars von Trier also influenced me, especially in his exploration of inner chaos and emotional rawness in films like Melancholia and Breaking the Waves.
As for Playing God specifically, Jan Švankmajer was fundamental. His surreal stop-motion work and his tactile use of materials helped me embrace clay as something organic, alive, even flesh-like. Artistically, I was also deeply shaped by the Italian sculptural tradition. Nicolò dell’Arca’s Compianto sul Cristo Morto, with its raw emotion in terracotta, was a direct inspiration. I tried to give my clay figures that same tension and vulnerability. Michelangelo’s monumental approach to the human form and Caravaggio’s dramatic use of light and shadow also influenced the visual language of the film.
And lastly, Francisco Goya, especially his Black Paintings and Caprichos, gave me the courage to explore the grotesque and the emotional fractures of the human experience. These artists, each in their own way, helped shape the tone, the look, and the soul of Playing God.
STEVE: This is a deeply disturbing film.. How have audiences reacted to the film? Were the reactions what you hoped or expected?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: The reactions to Playing God have been incredibly moving and sometimes surprising. It’s definitely a disturbing film.. emotionally raw, visually intense and I was prepared for it to divide audiences. But what’s been amazing is how deeply people have connected with it. Many viewers have told me they saw themselves in the clay creature, in that feeling of rejection, of not being enough. Others were fascinated by the textures, the visceral aesthetic, or the surreal atmosphere.
Over the past few months, Playing God has been selected in over 90 festivals worldwide, picking up 47 awards along the way. It premiered at the Venice Film Festival (Settimana della Critica), then screened at Clermont-Ferrand, Short Shorts in Tokyo, Tribeca, and 12 Oscar-qualifying festivals so far. People are genuinely excited to see a story like this told through such an unusual medium, clay animation treated almost like flesh. There’s something both nostalgic and strangely new about it.
So yes, I hoped for an emotional response, but I didn’t expect this level of resonance or recognition. It’s been overwhelming in the best way.
STEVE: The film bothers me. It's been a while since I saw it and it always gives me the same troubled feeling when I think about it. What films that you’ve seen trouble you and stay in your head for better or worse as you wrestled with them over days and weeks?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: I think the films that truly stay with us, for better or worse, are the ones that don’t give easy answers. They disturb something inside, like a splinter under the skin. For me, one of those films is Antichrist by Lars von Trier. It was an incredibly difficult film to watch, but it resonated in ways I couldn’t fully articulate at the time. The rawness of grief, the violence, the descent into chaos, it all lingers and forces you to confront something uncomfortable about human nature and pain.
Another film that haunted me is Come and See by Elem Klimov. It's visually and emotionally devastating. I remember feeling physically drained after watching it. It’s not just a war film, it’s a descent into madness through the eyes of a child, and it reshapes the way you see violence, innocence, and trauma.
Even The Mirror by Tarkovsky in a very different way, stayed with me for weeks. It's elusive, poetic, and refuses to be "understood" in a traditional sense. And yet, emotionally, it strikes deep. It’s like dreaming someone else’s memories.
I think these kinds of films are important. They unsettle you, and that discomfort opens a space for reflection, which is something I strive for in my own work. If Playing Godleaves people with a sense of unease or unresolved emotion, then maybe it’s doing its job.
STEVE: I know the film is out on the festival circuit but do you have another project lined up? Is it something lighter?
ADRIANNA & MATTEO: Light? I don’t know. I think as artists, we don't really get to choose what’s “light” or “dark” we just try to be honest. My next project will be another attempt at that honesty. It might not be easier. But it will be real: another point of view on the world, one that speaks to the truest version of ourselves, the one that emerges when we finally let go of others’ expectations.
And yes, there is already a project in development — and it’s precisely about that :)
No comments:
Post a Comment