A FEW WORDS

Nightlab was shot in 2004 during a three month deadline period for a short film contest initiated by the British Film Council in Athens Greece. Its initial duration was 3 min, a limitation imposed by the Festival. One year later I reworked its form and reshaped it into a much stronger 13 min structure.

This first short film is my early attempt to create moving images which concern me up to this date. Visual ideas revolving around various existential, fantastical & mechanical elements, that I try to perceive through the concept of Man in a much broader, metaphysical sense. This could be one of my main driving points. Abstract Forms and Mythical Conceptions of  different kinds.

I preserve the function of a logical storyline as I am attracted by the dynamics of the naration in the classical sense. Taking this into consideration, Nightlab could be viewed as a mix between Experimental and Narrative Cinema. Furtermore the film’s ultra low budget limitations imposed to me a number of options that I had to follow, liberating me in a way where I was more open to new ideas from preproduction to final cut.

JONATHAN LEES: what's interesting here is that it can be interpreted in many different ways... which the best experimental films achieve. however, unlike many other experimental
movies, yours goes beyond structural warping and exhibits a strong sense of story through atmosphere and pacing. Let's talk about the pacing...was this something you outlined
ahead of time or did the slowdown, strobing and flickering come to you in post...and please explain your interest in working with infrared video.

ANTONIOS PAPANTONIOU: The exploration of the narrative device as a vehicle was always in my mind from the beginning. I was interested in telling a "story" in moving images.
I wanted to do that as a test for my filmmaking abilities. Could I narrate something as a "storyteller". But then of course, the mechanisms of the story itself were not very important
for me. So the roots of the pacing were born out of that need. Then the aesthetics factor was a puzzling one for me to choose, because I was not sure of the kind of photographic
quality I was going to have. Even though I outlined as much as I could ahead of time with storyboards and overall views, the initial shooting was going to take place during the day.
The texture of the video form was proven to be a growingly negative factor for the main idea, since it trapped everything under the plastic surface of video, a thing I highly disliked.
Choosing infrared nightshot was eventually born as a necessity on my part to shoot something which had the prospect of an exciting photographic quality. The strobing technique
was  generated during the actual shooting, from an inbred digital feature of my handheld camera. Thus the concept of day shooting changed to Night. But, as a general thought I
am indeed very appealed by the whole notion of infrared cinematography, which I find extremely exciting and mesmerising.

JONATHAN LEES: me too! It's amazing to me that infrared and nighttime setting came later in the development since they seem so natural to this movie's existence...and this is one
of the few projects that champions the use of video in order of progressing a medium. Do you feel this project exists due to the nature of handheld video technology or would you
have preferred film? Personally, I feel the video adds to the nature of the surveillance style stalking and inherent creepiness of its "live capturing" feel...

ANTONIOS PAPANTONIOU: Again, it is very interesting you're refering to the connection between Film and Video. As a finished work - after the fact - its special aesthetic interest lies
and is probably examined under that perspective, that you are refering to. I am very happy as it is, in that specific kind of form. As an exporation of the video form. As I would like to
believe, there is a succesful feeling in capturing infrared images with Video but transpoting them to Film-like dimension.

JONATHAN LEES: since the video vs. film debate rages on in the independent world, I think it is relevant for me to note that when viewing submissions for the festival, more often than
not, moviemakers are choosing video strictly as an afterthought of budgetary concern where your movie feels natural in this environment...I hope that anyone who reads this will
think twice before choosing video for that reason and then call themselves filmmakers. I have been guilty of this in the past as well though a lot of my work derives from the video
format. What do you hope to explore in future cinematic endeavors? In a technological sense...

ANTONIOS PAPANTONIOU: Well, it is true that the selection of video as a final shooting format has growingly become the primary choice for us filmmakers due to economics concern.
Again, the argument of giving great value to the pure dramatics of the Film - as far as story, characters and the main drama is concerned - is absolutely understandable and highly
important. But video tends to be the easy solution to every project and its artificial texture has become a form and norm all of its own. It really depends on how you use it. I wish we
all could have tons of film to shoot, but that's not feasible. As far, as my future projects, I hope to learn more from the actual process of writing and shooting, working with actors,
exploring the collaborative concept of filmaking and find new ways to tell "stories". Even though my second short explores some visual ideas through Super 8 and Mini-Dv again
with this kind of experimental feeling behind it.