Interview with a filmmaker: Chas Whatmore

The 2012 First Light Awards, held at the British Film Institute on London’s Southbank on March 5th, celebrated the innovative talent of up and coming filmmakers in the UK - some as young as eight. I attended the ceremony for Top10Films.co.uk, interviewing the winners and presenters with the rest of the press.

The winner of Best Film by Under-11s, Granny Mac’s Meringues, was produced by 66 youngsters from Burntisland Primary School in Scotland. I caught up with Chas Whatmore, a filmmaker who helped the children to complete their award-winning film, after the event, for a more in-depth interview.

Chas, who has been making films for over five years, graduated from Abertay University in Computer Arts in 2008 and has since worked on documentaries, dramas and conference films. He completed a Masters Degree in Electronic Imaging in 2010, while working alongside his mother, Liz Whatmore, for the past four years. The mother-son duo helped the children of Burntisland create Granny Mac’s Meringues, which tells the tale of a milliner mixing up a cake box and a hat box just before the Royal Wedding, with disastrously hilarious results.

I spoke to Chas about the filmmaking process and how he came to be involved with First Light. You can read the interview below, and find my full write-up of the ceremony, including interviews with Naomie Harris (Pirates of the Caribbean, Skyfall), John Boyega (Attack the Block) and Ralf Little (The Royle Family), at Top10Films.co.uk.

How does it feel to have won this prestigious award?

We are all thrilled to have won. It’s the third time lucky for Liz, but it’s so good for the kids’ confidence.

How did you get involved with First Light?

Liz made her first film with First Light in 2004, titled Un Mystere dans le Jardin, which was shortlisted for Best Under-12s. We were looking for funding, and a local media centre in Glenrothes suggested First Light.

Who or what inspired you to create this film?

A class project on the environment sparked ideas, which developed and morphed into Granny Mac’s Meringues.

How did you find the filmmaking process?

The filmmaking process is always exciting, especially with children; from developing the initial idea to the creation of characters with personalities and everything between. Working with children is never a dull moment! We were getting the kids to develop their skills, from storyboarding to voiceovers, via animation. It was a great team-building tool!

Where do you see yourself in future?

As Liz is nearing retirement, she is trying to inspire others to take up the baton. She would love to be involved with another project along similar lines.

So will you go on to create more projects with the kids?

Funding is the main issue. First Light have only just secured some funding for this year, which is a bit late for this year’s classes. The general economic gloom makes funding from other sources difficult.

How important do you think events like this are for young filmmakers in the UK?

Showcasing young folks' creative talents is wonderful for boosting their self-confidence. The First Light Awards are a great way of celebrating filmmaking by young people across the UK.

Do you have any advice for young people who want to get involved in the film industry?

Don’t give up! It’s also very important that they have facilities to express their creative talents.

Hit play below to see Granny Mac's Meringues for yourself. You can find the rest of the award-winners on the First Light website.



You can also find Chas on Twitter at @ChasWhatmore, and see more of his work at Vimeo. Photo supplied by Chas Whatmore.

Read More

Poll Results: Who's the best Bond?

Well, the results are in. It was a close call, but, according to you, the reader, the best 007 of the past 50 years is none other than… Pierce Brosnan.

While not my first choice, that’s the point of polls; to see what everyone else thinks. Good old reliable Pierce pipped Craig and Connery to the post by just one and two votes respectively, with George Lazenby, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton bringing up the rear with two, four and six votes of a total 48.

In all honesty, the results have been pretty predictable. The overwhelming turnout has obviously been for the more recent incarnations, as a younger film audience is more likely to have seen their efforts. Then there’s the vote for the original; the staple classic, Sean Connery.

Perhaps most surprising were the six votes for Timothy Dalton - having starred in just two films, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill, Dalton’s is perhaps not the face that instantly springs to mind with the classic line: “Bond. James Bond.” Perhaps it’s a testament to his legacy, then, that he managed to gain 12% of the vote off the back of two films.

Conversely, George Lazenby, who took up the 007 mantle for just a singular outing with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, drew a measly two votes - 4% of the overall turnout. So not quite the impact he’d hoped to have. Though he does have some defenders - Edward Wilkinson, 21, said: “I think it's ridiculous how underappreciated Dalton and Lazenby are. They were both a class act.”

With new Bond film Skyfall due for release towards the end of 2012, perhaps Craig can turn around the disappointment felt after Quantum of Solace and edge out a win over Brosnan in a future poll. After all, where Pierce had a good four films to establish himself in the role, Daniel’s only had two. Plenty of time left to prove himself - though, with 25% of the vote, he’s clearly gone some way towards that goal already.

Skyfall is due in cinemas on 26^th October 2012. Until then, you’ve got a whole 22 Bond films to plough through. It’s Britain’s biggest spy film franchise, and it’s about to turn 50…

Photo: Pop Culture

Read More

Why the Oscars are a shambles

As you’ll undoubtedly know by now, what with the internet going ablaze over the event, the 84^th Academy Awards happened last week. I stayed up 'till 5am to watch, but as you’ll notice, I haven’t bothered writing a lengthy post about how fabulous the winners were and how terrible it was for the losers but how delightfully sportsmanlike they were anyway and how all the ladies looked glamorous and how Angeline Jolie’s leg made more headlines than The Artist winning five awards.

Mainly because none of that matters.

Why doesn’t it matter? Because, dear reader, the Oscars are a farce. If you know me at all, you’re perfectly entitled to bellow cries of “J’accuse!” and complain I’m just bitter that Drive didn’t win anything. Because I am. But my argument isn’t completely ungrounded. Recently I’ve been reading Mark Kermode’s latest book, entitled ‘The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex’, in which he makes some very good points on this very topic. Mr Kermode describes the Oscar nomination process as follows…

The Academy, comprised largely of Americans, decide it isn’t worth watching every film, so only watch a handful, and wait for the Golden Globes shortlist to decide the rest. The Golden Globes selection process entails, as Kermode puts it, “90-odd Pharisiac hacks [getting together] once a year to draw up a list of famous people they really want to meet and hang out with. They then proceed to invite these famous people to what is essentially their annual work knees-up, by nominating their crap films for Golden Globe awards.”

Thus, the very nomination process for the Oscars is skewed; let alone who actually wins the awards - which is another matter entirely. I find further fault with ‘Oscar season’, as it’s come to be known among cineastes and cinephiles, for its horrible banality to focus only on recently released films. While a handful of films released throughout 2011 were nominated, the majority of winners were films released towards the end of the year (or early 2012).

Take the evening’s major winner: The Artist. Premiering at Cannes in May 2011, the film saw wide cinematic release just in time for the Oscars (how convenient!), from December 2011 to February 2012 around the world. In fact, almost all the major winners at this year’s Oscars were released in the last quarter of 2011 or later in the UK (Hugo won five Oscars and was released 2^nd December 2011, The Descendants took one after being released 27^th January 2012, and David Fincher’s remake The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo also won a single award after a release date of 26^th December 2011).

The major films of 2011 released before this period could be counted on your fingers, and those that actually won awards on one hand. For an award ceremony celebrating a year of film, the focus of the Oscars seems conveniently focused on what’s just come out recently - perhaps because the Academy do indeed have an average age of a hundred and seven, as Kermode laments, and can’t remember what they saw past last week.

Hence why I haven’t reported the Oscar winners. Aside from the fact that there’s a thousand other avenues to find out the information, and I’d simply be wasting my breath (fingers?), the very process of the ceremony doesn’t accurately reflect the state of modern cinema. And what use is a film awards ceremony that doesn’t care about film?

Photo: Babble

Read More

The Woman in Black [Review]

I’m going to preface this review by saying that a couple of weeks before seeing the film, I read Susan Hill’s 1983 novel, The Woman in Black, for preparation. It was an astounding read, full of sheer horror, tension and dread. Sure, it was riddled with typical horror clichés and conventions, but these were pieced together so well, with such startling results, that it didn’t matter. But this isn’t a site for book reviews. So why am I telling you all this? Because director James Watkins’ interpretation of the novel left me underwhelmed and disappointed - in part due to its lack of adherence to its source.

The original plot has been adapted rather loosely; this was, admittedly, difficult to avoid, considering the slow pace of the book and the relative lack of anything actually happening. The film follows young solicitor Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) as he travels to Crythin Gifford to handle the estate of recently deceased Alice Drablow. Of course, things are never as easy as they appear, and ghostly goings-on begin to plague Kipps, whose four-year-old son Joseph is due to meet him in a few days - a plot point with more connection to the spooky locale of Eel Marsh House and Crythin Gifford than may first be apparent.

As horror films go, The Woman in Black falls neither side of the scare spectrum; rather, it sits wistfully on the fence, wondering whether to all-out terrify or just hope Radcliffe’s acting will suffice. Scares are limited to a few odd instances of Watkins practically shouting ‘BOO!’ at the camera with his titular antagonist; the director is too eager to show too much of everything and leaves little to the imagination. As a result, we’re left with a horror film that does nothing to insinuate a sense of fear or dread; where the book slowly built tension, the film instead thrusts everything at its audience to the point where a burning child might as well be a leprechaun dancing in rainbows - such is its tendency to frighten or leave any kind of lasting impression.

It must be said that that earlier jibe at Radcliffe might be a tad unfair - the problem isn’t that his acting is terrible, just that it’s eclipsed by almost all of his comrades’ efforts. Ciarán Hinds in particular, as Kipps’ only friend Samuel Daily, is marvellous, delivering with conviction. In a further variation from the source, Daily spends much of the film caring for wife Elizabeth (Janet McTeer in an equally brilliant performance), who is often driven mad by longing, in more ways than one, for her late son. Radcliffe improves as the film goes on (he’s completely unconvincing as it opens - Harry Potter can’t be a father, he’s only 12), and seems to do more with less lines. I suppose he would have made for one of silent cinema’s finest actors. It’s just a shame he can’t handle speech too well. 

On the whole, though, the acting standard is rather remarkable. It’s just a shame that Watkins lets the film down with his revelations that come too early; his scares that come too quickly - he seems to think little of his audience’s capability to use their imagination (though in the 21st Century that might be a somewhat fair presupposition of many) and leaves nothing to them. As such, The Woman in Black makes for a finely acted, finely photographed work of film, but as a horror piece falls far too short of the mark.

✰✰✰

See also: The Wicker Man (1973)

Dir: James Watkins

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer

Hammer Film Productions, 95 mins, 10/02/12

Synopsis: A young solicitor travels to Crythin Gifford to handle the estate of Mrs Alice Drablow at Eel Marsh House. But why do the locals fear the place? Why do the marshes scream at night? And who is that mysterious woman, dressed all in black?

Read More

Poll: Who's your favourite Bond?

2012 marks 50 years since the release of the first James Bond film, Dr. No, directed by Terence Young and with Sean Connery in the starring role.

Connery was to carry on as 007 for another 9 or 21 years (depending on whether you count Never Say Never Again), and since then a whole host of rugged but suave (or if you'd rather, shaken not stirred) actors have taken on the role of Britain's most famous spy.

So Cryteria asks: who's your favourite Bond? Do you revel in the nostalgia of Sean Connery and Roger Moore? Or are you all about the here and now; is Daniel Craig the man to get the series back on track after the disappointing Quantum of Solace, or should someone else take over?

Well, maybe that's a question for another poll. But for now, have a glance to the right of this page and cast your vote for your favourite Bond. The poll closes on March 8th at 5pm, and the winner will be announced the following day.

Read More