BIGLENS Issue 4.1 by Big Lens

THE STATE OF OUR ART

BRITISH FILM

PLUS DAVE MCKEAN INTERVIEWED HAMMER HORROR DO THE BAFTAS MATTER? AND MORE

BIGLENS THE KENT FILM MAGAZINE | VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 | WINTER 2007

COVER: CLIVE OWEN | CONDÉ NAST PUBLICATIONS

EDITORIAL

This is BIGLENS. This is the best magazine produced on campus. Even if there were other magazines we would still seem relatively good. This is the film magazine of the University of Kent Film Society, it is written by people who love film for people who love film. If you’re familiar with BIGLENS, you’ll know that we have enjoyed several years of publishing quality film writing, and Nia and I are determined to perpetuate that success. We have taken over the reigns at a strong time for the magazine. Last year’s Editor, Dan Cooper, left the magazine in very good shape and we are lucky enough to continue our work with returning designer Euan Monaghan. But, our solid history is only part of securing a widely-read future; it’s the writers that count, after all this is their magazine. And as I hope you’ll discover in this first issue, our future is looking as strong as our past. This magazine endeavours to provide a balance of entertainment and informative journalism in a timeless format. We’re not high-brow, we’re not low-brow. We simply write about what interests us and what we hope interests you. The University of Kent has a somewhat illustrious film connection, and it is our aim to maintain the connections between the words ‘Kent’ ‘Film’ and ‘Quality’. I am very pleased with this first issue, and present it to you as the prelude to a year of great film writing.

This issue is exclusively dedicated to good old British Cinema. British Cinema is constantly eclipsed by Hollywood and even other World Cinema, and very rarely does anyone give time to appreciate the gems that British Cinema knocks out time and time again. I suppose we will never really know why this is, but this issue, fresh after a not so hot, but very British summer, should hopefully try to shed some light on why this is, as well as taking time to pay our respects to the veterans and the newbies of British cinema. So for all you out there that love film, we are here, flying the flag for Britain to show you that there is still much love for the cinema of Great Britain. So sit back, do what ever it takes to relax, why not have a nice cup of tea and a scone? And enjoy this oh-soBritish BIGLENS. Nia Childs

SMALLPRINT Edited by Nia Childs and Paul Ockelford Designed by Euan Monaghan If you have a passion for film and would like to contribute to BIGLENS, please email pto5 or come along to one of our weekly meetings which are held in the Shirley Barlow room in Eliot on Mondays at seven. BIGLENS is produced with the support of Kent Film, a society of the University of Kent Students Union. | All information is provided in good faith. | Articles are not necessarily the opinions of the editors of BIGLENS, of the Kent Film Society or of Kent Union. | Everything that is already copyrighted, is theirs. | Everything not, is the intellectual property of the individual writer, so no thieving.

Paul Ockelford

Check out the Kent Film society hub at www.kentfilm.net for society news, BIGLENS movie reviews and all that good stuff.

BUT IS IT BRITISH? - TOM BROWN SO HERE’S A big, fat, lovely issue of BIGLENS expounding British film, but what do we actually mean when we label a film as British? In this increasingly transnational business, and, indeed, world, can anything really be a unique product of one specific country? Take Children Of Men, for example (this article having been brought into existence purely for this mention). It’s an absolutely incredible piece of film (my opinion here should be taken as fact), based on a book by British author P.D. James, set in England, starring predominantly English actors, directed by a Mexican... oh, hang on. Surely the presence of a foreign director, the omnipotent creative force behind the work, means we can’t call this a wholly British film? And yet, no-one would call Children Of Men a Mexican film. A similar example can be made looking at the newest Bond film: Casino Royale. The quintessence of Englishness, you’d imagine we could confidently claim this as a British film. Well, yes, you could, if you think that it’s still a British film if the screenplay is co-written by an American and it’s directed by a New Zealander. And don’t even get me started on the funding. Okay, you got me started. The most famous and profitable ‘British’ films of recent times are the Harry Potter franchise. British cast, British writer, filmed in the UK... Yet a huge bulk of the budget comes from across the pond from the deep pockets of Warner Bros. In our capitalist society, does not money denote ownership? Logically, then, the Harry Potter films and countless others should be considered American and not British. But this doesn’t seem right. Most of you will no doubt want to argue that creative input is as big a factor in determining a film’s nationality as money is. Yet even so, the first three Harry Potter films are directed by an American (Christopher Columbus) and a Mexican (Alfonso Cuarón again). But the books are written by a Brit! It must be British! Such desperate cries reverberate around the nationalists, but this does not stand up. Le Serpent is a new critically acclaimed (what a wonderful knock-about phrase) French film, but the story is taken from a book by British author Ted Lewis. Yet we wouldn’t dream about trying to claim this as an English film. Well, maybe a bunch of film students on the sixth leg of a pub crawl might... and have. But all hope is not lost! Don’t commit film suicide and lose all faith in British film and humanity by watching Sex Lives of

the Potato Men. There are examples of films that are (confirmed by a very brief search in the IMDb) wholly British. The most notable proponent of this is DNA Films, a UK production company set up by Andrew Macdonald and Duncan Kenworthy, who have produced films such as 28 Days Later, The History Boys, and Notes on a Scandal. The aim is to allow smaller British films to receive the vital funding that they otherwise lack in trying to make their vision transfer to the big screen. This being said, it seems that nothing in this world is entirely inclusive: one of their latest films, 28 Weeks Later... is directed by a Spaniard. But really...honestly...does it actually matter? Just because we

CHILDREN OF MEN | UNIVERSAL PICTURES

label a film as ‘British’, or any other nationality for that matter, it does not necessitate that the film will be any better or any worse. Even genres are ultimately unreliable. There may well be a certain prestige with British gangster films being high quality, but look at Gangster No. 1. The only totally reliable genre is Lithuanian animal porn, which you just know is going to be intrinsically bad. Although a film being ‘British’ may influence us in respect to being more (or less) likely to watch it, it doesn’t mean the film will be any better or any worse than if it was labelled ‘American’. Ultimately, most people are going to go and see a film because it is directed by Christopher Nolan, not because the major proportion of funding has come from the UK Film Council. As long as there are British actors, directors, boom operators, producers and everyone else that contributes to the creation of a film, then we should be satisfied. We don’t need ‘British’ films to triumph as our own; we need British directors who can convey something important, British actors that we can be proud of. The nationality of a film is neither here nor there; as long as there are Brits making films, be it in Hollywood or their own back gardens, then the future of our industry is assured.

DAVE McKEAN INTERVIEW EUAN MONAGHAN Dave McKean’s résumé must be several volumes long. A successful artist, illustrator and sculptor best known for the stunning comic book art he creates, either on his own or more often with collaborators such as the writer Neil Gaiman, he has designed record covers for Tori Amos and Alice Cooper, and is a skilled jazz musician and founder of the Feral Records label. Recently – perhaps during a spare five minutes in his schedule – he decided to turn his hand to filmmaking. After testing the water with a number of short films and music videos, MirrorMask (scripted by Gaiman but written as a collaboration between the two) was released in 2005. BIGLENS talked to him about the process of making his debut film as director, the issue of being a British film being funded by American money, and, of course, about old master paintings that on closer inspection reveal themselves to be Miss Piggy on a swing.

How would you describe MirrorMask to someone who hasn’t seen it? It’s a family fantasy film. It follows Helena a fifteen year old circus performer, who retreats to a dream world of black/white good/evil simplicity as a way of dealing with the life threatening illness of mother, the guilt she feels for precipitating it, and the complete loss of control of her own life. The Jim Henson Company approached you with the idea of doing a project. What was the brief? The brief was the budget, $4M. They wanted another fantasy film for a family audience in the spirit of, though not necesarily related to, Labyrinth and Dark Crystal; two expensive films at the time, involving huge sets, life size muppets and costumes, and David Bowie’s hair extensions. Lisa Henson was developing Neverwhere with Neil [Gaiman - screenwriter] at the time. She had seen my short films, especially The Week Before which was made for nothing, and a music video I made for Izzy, an opera singer, which was entirely shot against blue, with Izzy singing in a huge impossible CG cathedral. She thought I might be able to take the same approach on a film of that budget. You have worked with Neil on various comic projects for years, was this your first attempt at creating a film together? Yes. And also the first time we have tried to write together. I wanted to be around when Neil was writing, just to make sure I understood everything, because I would have to explain clearly to the cast and crew what they were doing, and also to make sure that Neil was writing material that we could actually complete on such a tight budget, and therefore schedule. Was the way you collaborated on MirrorMask very different to the way you would go about the creation of a graphic novel? Yes. Neil can write anything for a comic, because I can visualize anything on a page. I may not relish the idea of drawing armies of thousands of men, but I could do it, but to shoot such a scene in a film this scale would be implausible. Also, for the books we have created, our roles have been demarcated. Neil writes, I draw. And we have final say over our respective areas. Also, the script of a comic may be only half the final product, but it is half. The script is accurately represented in a comic. The script of a film, is

“WE HAD BEEN BLE OR MAYB

usually (not always, but usually) just a blueprint for the final thing. By the time it has met the day to day practicalities of shooting, the compromises needed to complete the day, the actors voices, and how they read and understand and rework the words, the way it’s edited, the way music and sound and everything else effects the words - by the end of it all, the script bares only a general resemblance to the finished experience.

were flagging at the end of the second week, local boys Terry Gilliam and Tony Grisoni came round to take us out to lunch. By that stage, we had a single large sheet of paper with all the events in the film notated down a central timeline. Terry looked at it for a few seconds and said, “that looks like a movie”. We had been blessed by the big Python finger of God. Or maybe it was the huge cupid’s foot, I don’t know. PHOTO BY DENNIS MCGOVERN | COURTESY COMIXEXPERIENCE.COM

You spent a number of days writing in Jim Henson’s house; that must have been quite an experience. It’s a great house in Hampstead. Surrounded by muppets and kermits and old master paintings that, on closer inspection, reveal themselves to be Miss Piggy on a swing. There was a grand piano so I could play every day. There were several stacks of interesting production vhs tapes, including a 4 hour working cut of Labyrinth, with none of the FX shots, and puppeteers voices instead of ADR actors voices. There was a complete wall of Muppet Show beta tapes, catalogued by guest names - I’d completely forgotten about some of the guests. And when we

How did the live action shoot go? You managed to get through a huge number of set-ups a day, especially as this was your first feature. We had to get a move on. We had two weeks to shoot the live action. The crew were very slick, but we missed shots every day. Four days into the shoot we were half a day behind already. So I split the unit into two, so we could set up twice as many scenes on the fifth day, that got us back on track. The bluescreen days were easier as there was a simple, easily controlled room to work in. But the ‘sound-proofing’ was awful, and we still had to crack through 40-50 shots a day. There is a tradition of opening champagne every 100th. slate. We had to let it go, we would have blown our budget on booze. On reflection, and at the time, I think we all felt it was rushed, and mistakes were made. There are so many things I’ve learned on and after this film, to make the next one a more pleasant and creative experience, rather than just a slog. I recently made another short film, and shot everything with two cameras. This made a huge difference to the quality of the material, the amount of time I could take shooting each scene, capturing moments, and it made the edit a real pleasure, with

ESSED BY THE BIG PYTHON FINGER OF GOD. BE IT WAS THE HUGE CUPID’S FOOT, I DON’T KNOW.” so much material to work with. It is more expensive, but in many ways is a real economy. How did you find the experience of working with actors? Great. The four leads were all very different, from different disciplines and backgrounds. Stephanie was a joy to have around all the time. She nailed everything perfectly, often surprising us, and she really believed, and made us believe, all the crazy things that were happening to her. Gina was the most experienced, although she had never done a bluescreen film before. She taught me a lot about the process of developing a scene. We had no time to play really, and next time that is something I would like to correct. Jason Barry had done a string of grim roles, so enjoyed being big and silly. He became much more physical, and the character of Valentine worked much better as a big theatrical shape, rather than when he did all the little verbal bits we had written. And Rob Brydon. What can you say; king of deadpan, wild man of improv, car enthusiast (I bought him a car hoover on his last day’s shooting, I think he liked it), and one of the great ‘put-upon’ faces. Pity we didn’t have a funnier role for him really. You set up your own digital effects studio to handle all the post-production work that was required; was that purely for budgetary reasons or as an artist was the greater degree of control an attraction? Both. We no other financially plausible option. I had made all the short films in a room in London shared with Max Macmullin who was the FX Supervisor on the film. I like that hands-on approach, and

not having to deal with chains of command. I like to have an improvisational approach to computer work, and that’s best done face to face with the animators. It also means I can see first hand where the money goes. What takes a long time, and where we can save time and money. I can quickly catch mistakes and wrong directions. Plus I can get a feel for how other people are feeling about their work, the film as a whole and how I can improve both. What did Henson think of the finished film? I think they were happy. Certainly for a little direct-to-video, research-and-development project it’s had a nice life. It was accepted into Sundance, got promoted to a small theatrical release, won several awards around the world, and though it clearly has it’s problems, has won it’s fare share of enthusiastic reviews and fans. Plus it’s sold 600,000 DVDs in America alone to date, so I think Sony are happy as well. I’m glad we did it, although I wish I was happier with the final film. I learned a lot, I think I have a much clearer idea of what to do next time. As British as MirrorMask is, and it really is, it was funded by an American production company. Was there any pressure to make it, well, less British? Not really. Jason had to tone back a couple of over-Oirish pronunciations, but that’s all really. Our deal was, we could make it for the money, but we had to do it our way. There were always notes from Columbia and Henson, but they were all about how they were reading the film in it’s current state, no demands, just observations, and the odd suggestion. What’s next for you on the film front? There are rumblings of an adaptation of the Signal to Noise comic that you created for The Face with Neil at the end of the 80s. Yes, we’ve been slowly setting it up over the last year. I’ve written the script which is a huge expansion on the original book. Hopefully we get it going this year. Are there plans to release some of your earlier short films and music videos on DVD? Yes, all five shorts, plus a bunch of other moving picture bits and pieces, will be out on a DVD called KEANOSHOW this year. In the US the label is New Video. I’m hoping onedotzero will release it over here.

SOME OF OUR FINEST... MAGGIE SMITH - JESSIE HALL

When considering suitable candidates for the title ‘a prominent player in British film’, Dame Maggie Smith was not even mentioned, and yet why not? She is undeniably one of the ‘royal three’, those infallible women who are the irrefutable class of the British film genre. I am referring of course, to Dame Maggie Smith, her close friend; Dame Judi Dench and Dame Helen Mirren. Voted the 10th greatest British film actress in the 2001 Orange film survey, and with five BAFTAs to her name, Smith certainly appears to have influenced British cinema greatly in recent decades. Predictably, Smith’s filmography reads like a list of British gems spanning the past five decades: Death on the Nile (1978), The Secret Garden (1993), Gosford Park (2001), Richard III (1995). Add to this her notable performance as Professor McGonagall in the biggest British franchise since James Bond - the Harry Potter films - and she emerges not only as a prominent player, but a staple of the British cinematic legacy. Smith’s great talent lies not only in the dry witty quality she brings to each character, but her ability to vary and transform herself over fifty years worth of dramatic roles. These span from a witch in Harry Potter, a queen in All the King’s Men , and a housekeeper in The Secret Garden, to a Lady in Becoming Jane, The Last September and Tea with Mussolini (to name but a few). Smith too, is an engaging personality. Her familiar on-screen demeanour of being both gentle but stern is endearing, and she possesses a “Britishness” which never fails to draw a smile. An irreplaceable addition to the British film genre, at 73 years of age Smith surpasses almost all in her capability to portray a role with expertise and deliver outstanding performances every time. It seems doubtful that she will be stopping anytime soon.

ALFRED HICHCOCK - PAUL WALLIS

There are many mysteries surrounding Alfred Hitchcock. Everyone recognises that bulging silhouette, but does anyone know who he truly was? The first big mystery about Hitchcock’s films is how he manages to make them so suspenseful. The scene in Psycho (1960) when Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh, is repeatedly stabbed to those instantly recognisable jabs of violins may be the most iconic scene in the film, but one must remember that perhaps the most suspense comes just before- when we see the silhouette of Norman Bates holding a knife behind the shower curtain, coming closer, with Marion showering leisurely, with no idea of her impending, flinch-inducing death. One of the most interesting collaborations Hitchcock had was with James Stewart. In Rope (1948), Vertigo (1958) and Rear Window (1954), Hitchcock transformed Stewart’s all-American goody-goody image with dark, twisted and sexually desirous characters. In Vertigo, Stewart plays a man with a fear of heights who becomes involved in a mind-bending mystery of a beautiful woman who falls to her death. In Rear Window, he plays a bedbound man who witnesses what he thinks is a murder from the window of his apartment. Another big mystery surrounding Hitchcock is why he was so obsessed with blonde women. There’s certainly no doubt that he was. Vertigo sees Stewart obsessively forcing Kim Novak to dye her hair blonde. Hitchcock claimed that his use of blondes was unrelated to any kind of sexual attraction to them, but there is much evidence to the contrary. In the three films Hitchcock made with Grace Kelly, Dial M for Murder (1954), Rear Window and To Catch a Thief (1955), Grace’s sensual sexuality is always a key feature. Hitchcock also became slightly obsessed with Grace’s real-life relationships but whether this was lust-driven and voyeuristic or simply an intellectual analysis of her sexuality remains yet another mysterious aspect of the man. There are many mysteries about Alfred Hitchcock. But perhaps the question of which of these mysteries best defines this master of filmmaking is the greatest mystery of all. 11

THE WELCOME RETURN OF THE BRITISH HORROR EAMON PHILIPS

THE HANDS WERE sweaty, the heart was thumping and the eyes could not tear away from the screen for a second as one of the most frightening films seen in recent years came at us no holds barred. It was amazingly shocking, disturbing, and had suspense that introduced me to the edge of my seat. More amazing was that this was no big budget American blockbuster, this was a really intense frightening British film called 28 Days Later. It was a film that beat Hollywood at their own game. Since the turn of the Millennium, the American horror genre has had nowhere to go, becoming a series of daft teen slasher pictures that seem to forget that Scream even existed. Or they have become films sans suspense and terror and focus primarily on sustained torture scenes on people who aren’t all that bad to begin with (Yes I’m referring to you, Saw and Hostel) or even more excruciating, awful remakes of horror classics such as The Hitcher (groan) and The Wicker Man (bigger groan) and finally 12

“THE BRITISH CONTINGENT HAS FINALLY EMERGED FROM THE FOGGY WILDERNESS.”

28 DAYS LATER | DNA FILMS

the last straw with Halloween (make it stop!) Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, classy director Danny Boyle, disillusioned by his big budget Hollywood film The Beach, decided to return to Britain and make a small budget affair that reignited the horror genre. This film was a true original, shot on digital video and making good use of handheld cameras, and had a cast of very sympathetic likeable characters who weren’t simply there to be zombie (sorry, infected) chowder. Once the film became a hit, Hollywood smelt money and started

releasing zombie films. Along came the big budget Dawn of the Dead remake and suddenly the man who started it all, Mr George Romero, came out of exile to make the underrated Land of the Dead. Millions had been spent, all prompted by one small British film. What people seem to forget is that the majority of British films released in America have not been period dramas or social realism films, but Hammer Horror, The Amicus anthologies and little cult films such as Death Line and The Wicker Man. American directors such as John Landis and Tim Burton talk endlessly of how Hammer influenced their films. The British contingent was always there and after many years it’s finally emerged from the foggy wilderness. But the best was yet to come, building on the potential of Dog Soldiers; Neil Marshall came up with The Descent, not a particularly original plot or story but a goddamned frightening film. Taking a page out of Boyle’s book, Marshall remembered that a slow build up, interesting characters and ‘what you don’t see’ works best, and created another film to rival the Hollywood horror genre. Is it merely coincidental that Hollywood quickly released a film called The Cave with nearly exactly the same idea? I think not! It’s ironic that 28 Days Later borrowed its plot and general idea from Hollywood horror and sci-fi films such as The Omega Man and Dawn of the Dead, yet Hollywood tried to borrow from the current trend of British horror films rather than realising than the inspiration came from movies of their own past. Hollywood has still not learned its lesson, this year has already seen the release of a wave of gorno or torture-porn flicks that at the minute prove to be successful, but by this time next year will be totally forgotten (looking directly at you, Paradise Lost and Captivity). Hollywood’s next big horror picture this month is the inevitable Saw 4 but also 30 Days of Night which sounds a lot like The Descent; dark place, gruesome monsters with sharp teeth, pickaxes as weapons, etc. This is clearly going to happen for another few years to come. In 2007, British horror has been particularly innovative: defying all expectations by making a sequel which sounds like a very cheap cash-in actually turned out to be a film that matched the original in terms of suspense while it upped the high octane action. This was not in the vein of Hostel Part 2, The Hills Have Eyes 2 or any other that were made so quickly afterward that no rational thought could have been employed besides the studio seeing dollar signs. This film was 28 Weeks Later. It was also more successful than any of the torture porn films released this year. Hollywood treats its audience with infuriating contempt, audiences can tell the difference between a cheap cash in and a genuine film. Again the British Horror film triumphed. A diamond in the rough. The British Horror film has come home again. With innovative films such as 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead, The Descent and Sunshine that are making a change in the horror genre, it proves that the British Horror Film is alive and kicking and is the most exciting genre around today. Just don’t mention Severance! 13

BRITAIN VS. HOLLYWOOD - DAMIAN WRIGLEY

CHINA HAS THE largest army in the entire world, a staggering 2.4 million men strong. Russia maintains some 800,000, America 512,000 and the British can muster some 90,000. Which then, is the best? If you are of the opinion that the biggest is the best, you’d pick the Chinese, but you’d be wrong. Russia has underinvested in its armed forces for so long that they aren’t really much of a threat to anyone outside their borders, so that’s them out. America has more money then anybody else, next year it will splash out $700 billion furnishing its armed forces, not to mention the $194 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This gives them the best kit and certainly the ability to pack the biggest punch, but they aren’t the best because they tend not to think beyond the next explosion. This brings me to the conclusion that the British are the best in the world. This isn’t me being patriotic, this is hard fact; we set the benchmarks for others to follow and despite its somewhat modest size, we are an extremely capable force. As allies, we often work with the Americans in military ventures – see Iraq for details – and as such are constantly compared; strategy, troop numbers, equipment, the list is almost endless. We may do things slightly differently, but our ultimate aim in any military venture we undertake is the same – victory. The same is true of our relative film industries, we both set out to entertain people, but our methods in doing so are defined by our resources and methods. So then, let’s take a look and see if we can find out who comes out on top. The film industry is dominated by one name – Hollywood. Although Bollywood may churn out more than double its number of films, no one else can produce films the Hollywood way – big, brash and chocked full of special effects. Hollywood knows how to deliver the goods. Who else could pull off financing movies which cost $300 million to make and market? No one. It’s not as if such extravagant expenditure is a one off thing either – Hollywood spends so much making its movies, and us watching them – we have just seen the $4 billion summer at the American box office – that if donated, we could wipe out a sizable part of the third world debt. Interesting, yes, but having more money then anyone else doesn’t mean that you are making the best 14

“THIS ISN’T TO SAY THAT GOOD OLD UNCLE SAM JUST DISHES OUT A LOAD OF OLD ARSE...”

stuff. Apple computers are a million times better then their Microsoft rivals, yet despite this, 90% of the world’s computers run Windows. When it comes to finding a true quality in a film, you have to look past the number of explosions the movie has, or how airbrushed the starlet is. You need that extra something, and Hollywood films usually lack that joie de vivre. To find the best of the best, you have to look elsewhere. Here then, we happily arrive at the British Film Industry. Over the years, we’ve been rather good to the world, giving such gems as James Bond, Lock Stock, and Kes to name but a few, and I could hardly write about the British Film Industry without mentioning Alfred Hitchcock. The man has crafted more masterpieces then Picasso. This isn’t to say that good old Uncle Sam just dishes out a load of old arse, whose only audience can be found in a chip-shop car park on a Friday night drinking warm Stella. Far from it – Steven Spielberg is one of the greatest directors ever to have lived, and there is a true plethora of terrific actors – Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert de Niro for instance, all of whom have more presence than an aircraft carrier. We’re not as in your face as our transatlantic partners, but we’re still capable. Hollywood just has infinitely more resources then we do, and it really is hard for plucky little England to keep up with the big boy in a purely materialistic way. But, the British film industry, and wider British entertainment industry, are utterly fantastic at their jobs. Let’s look at some nice ego boosting examples – Friends is absolutely one of the best comedy programmes ever, it’s warm and comforting for those low moments, but it’s no where near as good as The Office. Friends dished out nearly 200 episodes, The Office won international acclaim with just 14 – it just might be the perfect comedy, and that show is more British than the Queen herself. Pixar is world

renowned for its quality work, you simply sit back in awe at what they are able to produce – but it’s no where near as impressive as Aardman Animations, who spend four or five years crafting stop-motion animation movies – such as the quintessentially British Wallace & Gromit. Can we really discern from this who is better at making movies? No. Absolutely, 100% not. America has more resources then we do – always has, always will. Britain will continue to make its mark on the world, doing lots of things here and there, overall most people simply won’t notice. But, once in a while, we do something and the whole world sits up, takes notice, and basks in our brilliance. The truth is then, that it really isn’t size that matters – it’s what you do with it. 15

THE CANTERBURY ANIMATION FESTIVAL

The first ever Canterbury Animation Festival took place in and around the Gulbenkian Cinema on Saturday the 3rd of November. The day was packed with workshops and events, but it was the film screenings that everyone had come to see, and these got off to a flying start with a showing of British director Suzie Templeton’s take on Sergei Prokofiev’s classic Peter and the Wolf. Templeton popped up again in an industry ‘Talking Heads’ panel later in the day, along with animators Robert Bradbrook and Graham Ralph, who took a break from directing the new series of the Magic Roundabout to join the panel and answer questions from the audience. Films shown during the the various sessions ranged from a series made by local high school students to those entered into full competition at the festival, and the standard was very high.

PHOTOS BY PETER FRY | PETERFRYPHOTOGRAPHY.CO.UK

Only one film could beat the others to the thousand pound Grand Prize though, and on the day that was animator Trevor Hardy for the wonderful claymation short ‘Pushkin’ (which incidently is online and well worth a watch, just Google ‘Foolhardy Films’).

SOME OF OUR FINEST... CHAPLIN - CLÉMENT PICHOT DE CHAMPFLEURY Charlie Chaplin was born into a poor family; he grew up in a disreputable district in London (similar to the place where his picture Happy Street takes place). He started his career by playing for a theatre. Then, he moved to Hollywood, where he had the opportunity to reveal his gift for film making. In his pictures, he manages to denounce social issues in a comical way, keeping in mind that Hollywood’s first aim is to entertain, which is perhaps why Chaplin’s pictures are so modern. In Monsieur Verdoux, he plays the part of a French gentleman who has to kill the wealthy ladies he marries in order to maintain his disabled wife and his son. In The Great Dictator, his most famous film, he even makes fun of Hitler during the Second World War, denouncing the concentration camps and the growing antiSemitism in Europe. But most of all, Chaplin is The Tramp: an absent-minded vagrant, dressed like a gentleman, who does not fit in the modern world. Always in trouble, like in The Modern Times, he embodies the issues brought about by the social crisis of the 1930s. Chaplin is also one of the few film makers who successfully made both non-talking and talking pictures. Even if he despised talking pictures, like most of the Hollywood directors of the early nineteenth century, he reconciled his non-talking world with talking pictures. Indeed, he enclosed in his speaking movies a situation comedy, which enabled him to make the most of his theatrical experience and give relief to his pictures. He created famous gags, like the horse shoe hidden in the boxing gloves which has been reused many times, in many different formats, proving that Chaplin remains a source of inspiration for numerous artists.

SHANE MEADOWS - NICOLA MARCHANT Although it seems as though Shane Meadows has just arrived on the scene with his acclaimed, This is England, the truth is that he‘s been a British player in the industry for quite some time. Before the snowballing success of that most recent film came Dead Man’s Shoes, Twenty Four Seven, and Once upon a time in the Midlands - to name a few. Perhaps it has just taken us too long to recognise the talent that we have churned out of our country - or perhaps This Is England, in itself, was just too damn hard hitting to go unnoticed. You may not be able to call his style completely original - it echoes the kitchen sink realism of our ‘60s filmmakers: Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, and John Schlesinger. If, as a rule of thumb, British films fit into two categories - the slushy, Hugh Grant populated romantic comedy at Christmas time, or the hard as nails Ritchie-sequel antics of a group of gangsters, ‘hard as fuck’, dominating the gritty backstreets of London Most of Meadow’s work would most definitely nest comfortably in the latter.

However, his work has been labelled as having a ‘post-modern twist’. If you were to take This Is England at face value - you could say it just conforms to that formulaic ‘gangsters and grit’ routine, but really Meadows is so much more. He doesn’t need action and controversy to make it work, those are just a bonus. His sharp writing, his complex characters, his realism - all work to make this man something else. He doesn’t use the cream of British acting talent, guns and obvious wit. Instead most of his films are his own life stories. His humour is subtle and dark. He tells the actors to ad lib their lines because it makes it that much more real. He shows the same type of gritty charm that got us where we were in the ‘60s, but revamped to the point of cool and just so much more intense. This is England doesn’t just show us England, but shows us that, in a film world dominated by Americanised stereotypes of our nation, this is really what England needs.

THE BAFTAS. VALUABLE INSTITUTION OR DATED NON EVENT? BOTH ACTUALLY. - LUKE O’NEILL

AWARD CEREMONIES SEEM to be events that people either take extremely seriously or look upon with a level of contempt. I probably fall into that second category. With so many award shows populating our screens these days it’s easy to become apathetic. Award shows such as the BAFTAS generally fall into a routine of back slapping and jarringly emotional speeches that leave little room for entertainment. It could be said that awards shows provide an arena for the film industry to be celebrated and indeed congratulated for their efforts. That said, how many more times do we need to see Meryl Streep and Judi Dench battle it out for best actress in a leading role. At least the BAFTAS are voted for by a panel of generally worthy judges and here enters ITV’s latest award show The National Movie Awards. This new series of awards is decided by the public. This basically means that ITV make vast amounts of cash on the now common place phone vote and good old advertising. Shows like these essentially just promote the years block busters and in no way expose up and coming talent. The commendable aspect of the BAFTAS, and in the US, the Academy Awards is that they encompass all areas of film making. From makeup to editing there are categories for all aspects of the process. It is a shame then that many of these awards are edited down or not aired at all. These shows are marathon in length even with editing and I generally switch off before they are through. It is telling that the most talked about aspects in retrospect are generally any badly delivered acceptance speeches or general faux pas’. It is after all more entertaining to watch an actor or actress deliver a drunken speech than a straight laced list of thanks. Entertainment is what it all comes down too. There is a balance of producing something entertaining whilst also retaining as much credibility as possible (ITV take note). My possibly controversial opinion is the only awards show worth watching is the MTV Movie awards. For these, at least, there is a healthy dose of humour injected into the proceedings. I personally will remember Gollum’s acceptance speech for best virtual performance more than I will remember Richard King picking up his academy award for best sound editing on Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in the same year (had to look that one up). I say if you are going to cater for the 20

populists you might as well go all out and make it genuinely funny. MTV don’t take their show seriously and as a result neither do the winners. This makes for a far more relaxed and entertaining spectacle than the conformity and rigour of the BAFTAS, in my eyes anyway. What of the actors themselves? To a relatively unknown actor or actress a prestigious award can be a god send. It may lead to more parts being offered, higher salaries and general exposure. Yet the focus on high grossing films means that most coverage goes to established actors, actresses and directors. For an actress or actor at the top of their game, possibly with previous awards under their belt, how significant can another award be, in the words of

Gollum,”If you think a sh**** little tub of gold popcorn is going to remotely make up for everything WE’ve suffered, you’re sadly f****** mistaken!” Long running award shows such as the BAFTAS have a timeless quality to them and there is a certain level of nostalgia and familiarity attached to them. In essence fairly harmless and they certainly have as many fans as detractors. You might very well say what is the harm? It just might be more beneficial to rethink the process and look past the tradition. It would be great to see some sketches and parodies added to the awards. The more entertaining the show the more people will watch. Also a greater emphasis on independent cinema would be far more beneficial to the British film industry than congratulating the same individuals time and time again. With a little thought and some influence from newer award shows The BAFTAS could become a much more interesting proposition.

WHO KILLED HAMMER HORROR? - TOM GIFFIN

HAMMER HORROR. GOOD old Hammer Horror. Those kitsch, slightly camp, Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee filled gems. At one time, Hammer Horror was the crowning jewel in British filming for an era spanning over twenty years. Now it is little more than various rumours and half-hopes found deep in the murky pages of the internet. I would not try to claim that every Hammer Horror release was a classic but several films from their canon do hold special places in many a film lover’s heart. Although Hammer’s Dracula series was most popular, the Frankenstein and Quatermass series hold many of Hammer’s finest films and television serials. Although the Hammer production company was around since 1935, they only produced four films before they went bankrupt due to a slump in the film industry. At this time it was owned by a man called William Hinds. After the war, William’s son, Anthony Hinds and another man called James Carreras resurrected the production company and started to produce films cheaply by renting mansions rather than filming on sound stages, this later would become a big part of the Hammer image. In the Early 1950’s, Hammer production made several small science fiction and crime dramas including The Last Page, directed by Terence Fisher, who would become very influential during the dramatic rise of horror in the 1950’s. In 1955 however, Hammer production hired American actor Brian Donlevy and he was cast as the lead in the television serial The Quatermass Experiment, but to cash in with the brand new ‘X’ certificate for horror film they cunningly renamed it The Quatermass Xperiment. The film, directed by Val Guest was an unexpected hit which led to a successful sequel two years later with Quatermass 2. During Hammer’s production of Quatermass 2, the company started to look for an American partner to invest and promote a new product. The company they did agree to work with was Associated Artist Pictures who recently had a script of Frankenstein put before them which they turned down because of the script-writers inexperience at directing. They did forward the script to Hammer productions but Anthony Hinds was initially reluctant to take it because Universal studios already had a successful Frankenstein franchise and he was worried about potential copyright issues with the larger company. However,

LEFT: INGRID PITT IN VAMPIRE LOVERS, RIGHT: PETER CUSHING

after several revisions and a swift renaming to The Curse of Frankenstein, the film was ready to be made. Hinds submitted the script to the BBFC who replied by saying that the film was far more violent and gruesome than even an X rated film and may not be released. Terence Fisher directed again, Peter Cushing played Baron Victor Frankenstein whilst Christopher Lee went into heavy make-up as the role of the monster. With a small budget of £65,000 the film looked far better than people would’ve anticipated. Hammer’s first gothic horror film went into production in colour which encouraged an unseen level of gore because films before Curse of Frankenstein never showed blood in the graphic way. The film was a fantastic success both in the UK, the USA and in Europe (especially Italy). Hammer Horror as we know it was born. After the success of Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer consolidated it was a series of successful sequels including The Revenge of Frankenstein. Hammer was also keen to tap into other characters including Dracula, The Mummy and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In all, there were six sequels to The Curse of Frankenstein and eight sequels for the Dracula series. Although Hammer also made several other Mummy films, none of them were considered actual sequels. In 1968, Roman Polanski released a subtly horrific, artfully directed film called Rosemary’s Baby. It would turn out to signal the change in audiences worldwide from vivid, colourful gothic horror fare to more sophisticated films. As well as the increase in sophistication, audiences were now able to see much more gore and violent content than before in films such as The Wild Bunch. For a production company that made a name for itself in violent and sexual content this was the deadly blow. The company tried to keep up with

the times, they hired new writers to alter the characters in the Dracula and Frankenstein series however they couldn’t outdo the gore and characters of new American productions. However, they still had one trick up their sleeve: lesbian vampires. In a last ditch effort to keep hold of a niche in the horror market, Hammer horror created a trilogy of films called The Karnstein Trilogy. Showing some of the most explicit lesbian scenes seen in English mainstream cinema and the three films were released from 1970 to 1972. The responses to the films varied greatly and Hammer Horror productions started to release fewer and fewer films further into the 70s. The final film they made was a remake of Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes, the film was a failure and all but bankrupted the company. Despite eventually being overwhelmed by changes in attitude and the audiences, Hammer Horror productions still enjoy over twenty years of being a peak of not only British horror but all over the world for their visual style, the direction especially of Terence Fisher, the atmosphere of the films and the camp appeal which meant they were never taken too seriously and always remained fun.