Monica Bellucci by Tim Burton for Vogue Italia

[phantasmas 9,811]

Anyone who saw Beetlejuice Beetlejuice was startled by the entrance of Monica Bellucci, who for Tim becomes a “ corpse bride ” but remains the diva, the icon that she is. It is the collision of two worlds, it is a human encounter and a beautiful artistic moment, she told me on the red carpet in Venice. It is difficult to put into words what this encounter means , and perhaps this is the most beautiful thing, he confides to me now. Whether it is for a film or a shoot, working together has something extremely natural, an excitement that is always easy, “comfortable”. Monica is a powerful collaborator, with her you can do everything very quickly but with a very strong creative connection. I immediately felt this bond with her. Maybe because, like me, she also wants to experiment with new, different things, she has this great passion for everything that links art to psychology, to feelings. Therefore, even in these photos, the horror imagery becomes something emotional that she manages to interpret perfectly.

Story: https://www.vogue.it/article/tim-burton-vogue-italia-cover-monica-bellucci-foto-disegni

Edited 10 hours ago by phantasmas

[phantasmas 9,811]

Edited 10 hours ago by phantasmas

[Ladymars 2,491]

Pure art! 

[princedeeblebleble 285]

Ugh I'd literally sell what's left of my vital organs and soul to be menthored by Burton and work for/with him And this is such a cool concept for an editorial. And she looks divine 🫠 I didn't watch any trailors and was gagged when she was randomly in it!

[Scri 807]

For those wondering, the place is the Sacred Grove (but we call it Parco dei mostri, Park of the Monsters), a XVIth-Century garden in Bomarzo (VT), Italy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Bomarzo

Edited 11 hours ago by Scri

[Robert 206]

She is one of the most beautiful women in the world. Tim Burton is lucky 

[Quentin 5,101]

For those of you that haven't seen her as Cleopatra (in 2002)

Spoiler

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Quentin

[Sneaky Oliver 20,945]

Wow this is so amazing, unique and inspired!! 

[Killa 15,183]

Well Sorry but these photos aren't very good at all. With e scenary model and clothes...what a waste

[OliviaRodrigoStan 3,119]

She should've been Morticia instead of Catherine Zeta-Jones, IMO. 

[BUtterfield 8 40,393]

5 hours ago, princedeeblebleble said:

Ugh I'd literally sell what's left of my vital organs and soul to be menthored by Burton and work for/with him And this is such a cool concept for an editorial. And she looks divine 🫠 I didn't watch any trailors and was gagged when she was randomly in it!

Aren’t they together tho romantically?

you gonna have to **** him 

[Hennycomb 2,513]

27 minutes ago, Killa said:

Well Sorry but these photos aren't very good at all. With e scenary model and clothes...what a waste

One thing my boyfriend told me (that changed everything for me) about when you consume a piece of art or when critics will review something is that you have to consume it with the "tools" the creator gave you. In this case, what makes it all work is the quirkyness of those little 3D creatures, and the roughness and texture of the stone in the statues, that's what makes the lack of field depth, the wide shots and the weird angles of her head work. That's why, for example, I never entered the hate train on Juergen Teller, because you can see that those are the aesthetic "tools" he's giving you to consume that specific work. I don't know if it makes sense, but it's like, you can't review a horror movie using criteria for musicals. Kinda like that. If these photos didn't have those monsters and those statues, it would indeed be just bad photos. That's the idea.

Edited 6 hours ago by Hennycomb

[phantasmas 9,811]

33 minutes ago, Hennycomb said:

One thing my boyfriend told me (that changed everything for me) about when you consume a piece of art or when critics will review something is that you have to consume it with the "tools" the creator gave you. In this case, what makes it all work is the quirkyness of those little 3D creatures, and the roughness and texture of the stone in the statues, that's what makes the lack of field depth, the wide shots and the weird angles of her head work. That's why, for example, I never entered the hate train on Juergen Teller, because you can see that those are the aesthetic "tools" he's giving you to consume that specific work. I don't know if it makes sense, but it's like, you can't review a horror movie using criteria for musicals. Kinda like that. If these photos didn't have those monsters and those statues, it would indeed be just bad photos. That's the idea.

yaaass *finger snaps*

[Jill 25,902]

2 hours ago, Killa said:

Well Sorry but these photos aren't very good at all. With e scenary model and clothes...what a waste

 

2 hours ago, Hennycomb said:

One thing my boyfriend told me (that changed everything for me) about when you consume a piece of art or when critics will review something is that you have to consume it with the "tools" the creator gave you. In this case, what makes it all work is the quirkyness of those little 3D creatures, and the roughness and texture of the stone in the statues, that's what makes the lack of field depth, the wide shots and the weird angles of her head work. That's why, for example, I never entered the hate train on Juergen Teller, because you can see that those are the aesthetic "tools" he's giving you to consume that specific work. I don't know if it makes sense, but it's like, you can't review a horror movie using criteria for musicals. Kinda like that. If these photos didn't have those monsters and those statues, it would indeed be just bad photos. That's the idea.

I like them precisely because they seem made for Instagram and not for Vogue. That, in itself, can be considered a concept worthy of Vogue. And it's something I find very interesting, the way Tim Burton was able to play with that and combine it with the concept of those creatures that (also) don't seem, at least from afar, to have a professional quality. It's all very amateur, but it's professionally amateur, and it reminds me of Tim Burton's projects like Frankenweenie or Vincent, audiovisual works that, in their simplicity, find a complexity that fills you, because it makes you say, "I could have done that", but in an empowering and creatively gratifying way that doesn't insult Burton's job but, on the contrary, amplifies it.

When I see these photos, I think I could have taken them, and that somehow empowers my artistic side, making me see that I have things in common with Tim Burton that, perhaps, I hadn't noticed before. And in that way, it forces me to connect with him, his photos, and Monica. I think it's a very interesting and unique concept that can't be analyzed solely by the standard of a classic Vogue photoshoot. This is different from a Vogue photoshoot, and that's what makes it an authentic and Vogue-worthy photoshoot, no matter how contradictory that may sound.

[Killa 15,183]

39 minutes ago, Jill said:

 

I like them precisely because they seem made for Instagram and not for Vogue. That, in itself, can be considered a concept worthy of Vogue. And it's something I find very interesting, the way Tim Burton was able to play with that and combine it with the concept of those creatures that (also) don't seem, at least from afar, to have a professional quality. It's all very amateur, but it's professionally amateur, and it reminds me of Tim Burton's projects like Frankenweenie or Vincent, audiovisual works that, in their simplicity, find a complexity that fills you, because it makes you say, "I could have done that", but in an empowering and creatively gratifying way that doesn't insult Burton's job but, on the contrary, amplifies it.

When I see these photos, I think I could have taken them, and that somehow empowers my artistic side, making me see that I have things in common with Tim Burton that, perhaps, I hadn't noticed before. And in that way, it forces me to connect with him, his photos, and Monica. I think it's a very interesting and unique concept that can't be analyzed solely by the standard of a classic Vogue photoshoot. This is different from a Vogue photoshoot, and that's what makes it an authentic and Vogue-worthy photoshoot, no matter how contradictory that may sound.

I sort of understand your points but for example the last picture works really well. Tim didnt made justice for her body, cause i can't make her silhouette in these large angles, nor there's definition to distinguish her, nor i feel anything particular from the creatures. I doesn't feel like a couple having fun playing fantasy and looking purposely amateurishly nor it looks like there's a distinct point of view. It looks like he tried to make something, with an iphone and didn't exactly know how to. 

I say this, cause i feel exactly the opposite of what you're saying, the lack of technique and the ability, in my opinion, to use this as an advantage, doesn't make me connect to the photos at all. sorry if i'm being obtuse