# data[].attributes.body
• What might be learned from the characteristics and attributes of your favourite makers?

I think what can be learned is what draws your eye as a maker - I think we tend to look for what we want to achieve in our own work, in order to learn from those who have done it well and to emulate it after. We also learn what is important to us, as we are drawn to things we care about in both our work and as individuals.

• Do you judge other makers in the same way that you judge your own successes?

I think so, in the way that by critically analysing the work I admire I can learn to critically analyse and improve my own work - however it sometimes can be hard to appreciate all the work that goes into producing what you actually see as the audience, so I find I can sometimes see my favourite makers as doing no wrong and working what may as well be miracles.

# data[].attributes.body
• How do you think the way you experience work affects your opinion of it?

Experiencing work that you find yourself has a more personal feel to it - I think the act of discovering something you like helps to create the sense that the work has been made for you, which elevates your opinion of it. Factors such as who was there when you first experienced a piece of work has a big impact on your opinion of it, as these factors should all been considered to be playing a role when deciding if a work overall is conceived to be successful or unsuccessful.

• Are you experiencing the work in the way it was intended by the maker?

I think I did experience the Wind in the Willows as it was intended to be experienced. At first as I watched it on Home video as a family, this is very true to the way it was originally broadcast and how it was intended to be interacted with.

• Do you think you are a good audience?

I think so - given that the movie had a relatively large impact on me and that I still not only remember but enjoy the film today and have been able to understand why I enjoy the film and it matters to me, I think I am a most faithful and dedicated audience to Cosgrove Hall.

• Does being a good audience help you as a maker?
Being able to understand what the audience is after in a creative work does help you as a maker - I think this because having this understanding allows you to create work that is more likely to connect with your audience on a deeper personal level, which will help keep it in notoriety and popularity for a long time. Having a wide variety of influences and references helps you as a maker to problem solve and understand what works by allowing you to look back into a bank of inspiration, meaning that you are not so likely to be trapped by an unexpected hurdle in the making process.

I think vice versa being a maker can tend to affect your ability to be a non-biased audience, as you are forever analysing - however maintaining a balance between the two roles can be greatly beneficial to them both at the same time.

# data[].attributes.body
✎ What are the different ways that you discover or are introduced to other makers work?
Social Media, Blogs/Articles, Advertising Campaigns, Galleries, Zine Fairs, Film Festivals, Word of Mouth, Prints, Clothing, Film, Billboards, Stickers, Family Members, Second Hand, Talks and Presentations, Editorials, Tutorials, Television Programmes

✎ How and where do you engage with other makers work? (both physical & digital platforms and spaces)
Social Media Platforms - Instagram, Pinterest, Adobe Behance, Artist Portfolios/ Websites, Film Festivals eg. Sundance, BFI, Cannes, Museums, Exhibitions and Galleries - The Tate, National Portrait Gallery, Zine Fairs and Pop up Exhibitions, London Comic Con, London Toy Fair, Articles and Editorials - It's Nice That, Cinema Spotlight Events, Channel 4 archives

✎ How do you show your appreciation for other makers work or respond to it with actions or feedback?
Support their businesses - Buy prints, products, spread the word, Twitter can be used to retweet popular makers and attract new audiences, Telling other people about artists you like and films you have watched - Writing reviews, blogs, Creating your own work inspired by the maker that you like, gaining an understanding for how a work has been produced, reading around the final product, attending Q&As, engaging with the maker's other works, making connections with the makers that have inspired them to understand their influences

# data[].attributes.headline
✎ What is the biggest factor in judging whether you think a maker is successful?

# data[].attributes.subject
✎ What is the biggest factor in judging whether you think a maker is successful?

# data[].attributes.body
I think what ultimately makes a Maker successful is being able to look at their work from a distance and knowing that it belongs to them - for example, being able to recognise a Wes Anderson movie or an Aardman Character (or, when the maker has been falsely ripped off and reproduced.) I think this demonstrates the point where a maker has made it - anything they do can be added to their portfolio, but maintains the charm, stylistic features and characteristics that makes it theirs, and is integral to it.

# data[].attributes.body
✎ Write a question that you would like to ask the maker?

What happened to the set pieces after the film was made, and the series was finished?
How do you think Kenneth Grahame would have responded to your film?

✎ Write one reason why you think the maker is successful?

The film follows the aesthetic of the book well - everything comes together to create a harmonious piece that would have fit well with other films/popular works/adaptations being made at the time, that would guarantee success with their intended audiences.

✎ Write one thing about the makers work that you think could be improved?

I think some people may have the opinion that the characters look a bit scary/ rough around the edges - however with the advances in stop motion animation some of the characters could be reworked to look more natural, but maintain their animal charm without looking scary? I think there's a difficult balance to get right here, however - as I would say that Mole and Toad, for example, look perfect (they are convincingly real animals, and do not fall into the trap of looking cartoony and fake, but they are also sweet and personable; I would compare this to Ratty, who looks real but the way his mouth grates me the wrong way a little bit, and he can seem a little bit like he's going through the motions. But like I say, I think it's hard to get right, and I would rather have the characters the way they are designed than to have something plastic or unnatural, or whatever monstrosities they created in Cats (2020), for example.

✎ Do you like all of the work they make? Why / Why not?

I am not familiar with any of the studio's work beyond The Wind in the Willows - or I do not believe I am, however with further research I think they were responsible for a lot of late 80's early 90's children's shows, which I am more than likely to have some affinity with. As I have said, I think some of the puppets can look a little strange, but for its time I think it served it's purpose, and was delightful and joyful to watch.

NB. I have done some research; they are a brilliant film studio and they have certainly done no wrong in my eyes. I do love the work they make, and like I say it looks a bit strange in places but hey, it was the eighties.

# data[].attributes.body
• Did your description change?

My reflection did change - I think this was because after I unpicked the work, I came to see that my appreciation was not just for the story (which largely could be attributed to Grahame himself, although a screenplay had been adapted for this production). Upon closer inspection, and by looking at this work in particular in its context of being a stop motion cinematic adaptation, I came to realise what I liked about this film was the amount of work that had evidently been put into it, the overall design that evoked the feelings of nostalgia, the character design that brought some of my most favourite literary characters to life - the painstaking attention to detail. My new description reflects this shift in appreciation.

• If yes, do you think the description is better or worse after unpicking the work?
• Did the act of unpicking the work highlight any aspects differently?

I do not think my description is necessarily better, but different - I focussed on different aspects, and still chose to be quite universal in my experience, however I feel it fits the piece of work I have chosen better - rather than being a description perhaps that focussed more on its source material.

• Did the tone of your description change?

I think I have a very appreciative tone within my description; for me, I think Wind in the Willows displayed the talents of a team that clearly worked well together, but my limited understanding of the inner workings of the production behind the scenes has restricted me to only seeing the final product as it is, as something I enjoyed when I was little and continue to do so as both audience and maker.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Having unpicked the work, have you changed the way you would describe it?

# data[].attributes.body
✎ Describe why your piece of work is good again using a single sentence -

Wind in the Willows (1983) is a celebration of beautiful storytelling and masterful design, evident in the collective efforts of so many to make the work the cherished and timeless classic as it is received today; Willows (1983) is no less wonder-filled today, as it was nearly 40 years prior.

# data[].attributes.body
• Which of these details were in your original description?

In my original description, I think it's interesting that a lot of  things like the details of who made it, when and where, dates and facts were left out - probably because most of this goes over our heads when we're young. In places though, I did repeat myself, which makes me think that the key details I had were quite solid in my mind and therefore hopefully made their way into my description.

• Do you think some parts are always more interesting to you than others?

I think it was interesting to think about how it was made - this was definitely more interesting than considering, for example, who it was made for (as a children's movie, it was made for children. End of.) Having said that, taking a minute to think a little bit deeper made a world of difference - as it made me consider that although the author has some intentions of who they are making something for, this does not mean that exclusively these people will access it. There's always more going on than you think, I think.

• What might people need to know to understand the work?

In order to understand the work, I think you wouldn't need much pre-knowledge (although in my opinion, I would have thought that most people would have come with at least a touch of insight.) It is perhaps helpful to know a little of the world you are entering into but I think the immersion is well done and refreshing - after all the way the film/story is framed we get to explore the new world we are entering through Mole (the protagonist)'s eyes, of whom is somewhat of a hermit himself (as symbolically, the audience would be also). This is effective as a device because the audience is not left asking questions, nor do we feel like outsiders - just as Mole is, we too are welcomed in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Why do we like the things we do? Our decisions can be based on so many different factors, some highly personal, others universal, some intended by the maker...

# data[].attributes.body
✎ 1. Who made the work?

Wind in the Willows (1983) was made by Cosgrove Hall Films. It was made to be a TV Film for ITV in the 80s.

✎ 2. When and where was it made?

It is a British film, made in 1983. It was produced in England in the United Kingdom.

✎ 3. What is the presentation form / format?

The film aired on the Independent Television Channel (ITV), on British television, making it an extended feature. It is approximately 1h 30 minutes long, and is stop motion animated.

✎ 4. What materials were used?

The film is made using animated (vinyl?) puppets and dressed sets which were built by hand. The production company employed many animators, set designers, costume designers and artists to make the film.

✎ 5. What was the making process?

I think the film would have had to go through many processes before being made - for example, the screenplay had to be written, the storyboards made, the shot list considered and all the sets and backgrounds would have had to have been constructed in painful detail (including the River Bankers' Territory, Mole End, The Wild Wood, The Open Road, Badger's Lodgings and the illustrious Toad Hall and his Motor Cars). The puppets themselves would have to be designed and constructed, as well as all their outfits being designed and hand sewn - this is multiple outfits for some characters too, and for virtually all seasons. Then the animators would come which can take years, before editing and sound design/foley etc. The film was also independently and originally scored, and then post production and promotion too! All of that before release...

✎ 6. Why was it made? (for who/what purpose)

In my opinion, the intention of Cosgrove Hall Films was to bring Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows (1908) to life in a charming and endearing 'modern' adaptation. I don't think it was the first cinematic adaptation of the literary work, however the use of stop motion (I believe) is unique to the 1983 rendition. It was primarily aimed at children, although its U-rating suggests it was aimed at all ages. It is made for entertainment purposes. The film would have delighted those who had fallen in love with the original classic, most likely when they were children too - as well as those who were interested in Stop Motion as a practice within Filmmaking, which I believe was doing very well culturally in the UK (I'm thinking Morph and Aardman Studios may have been around?) and gradually growing in popularity.

✎ 7. How was it intended to be engage/interacted with?

The film was intended to be engaged with by all ages, across the United Kingdom, as it was freely distributed on British Television. It was later released to DVD and worldwide, suggesting it was made to be interacted with as a part of home cinema and family viewing.

✎ 8. How did you engage/interact with it?

I believe that I first watched the film when I was quite young - either we had the VHS, or the DVD as one of the free films you could collect as part of a classics series within one of my nan's newspapers. When I was young I was quite afraid of it, particularly the gang of wild animals when they overtake Toad Hall - however I'm glad we kept the film.

✎ 9. Where did you interact with it?

We watched the film at home, on our VHS/DVD player. We also had one of these DVD players you could take into the car for long journeys, so it wouldn't surprise me if I'd watched it in the car once or twice too.

✎ 10. Who were you with?

I was with my mum, probably my dad, and definitely my two sisters when I first watched it. These days I watch it on my own because I'm old and I can do that if I want to. My younger sister said she'll watch it again, but she's still afraid of the weasels.

✎ 11. How much did it cost you to experience?

When I was little, nothing - either because it wasn't my money to obtain it, or because my nan bought the newspaper and gave us the DVD or even if we recorded it on VHS straight off the TV, I'm not sure. If I want to watch it now it costs me about a fiver as part of the BritBox Subscription that I bought accidentally, and I try not to mind because having those films I miss is a plus.

✎ 12. Where did you hear about it?

I didn't. My parents probably put it on for me.

✎ 13. How was it is described by the maker?

✎ 14. How is it described by others?

I think the film is pretty well received, given that the characters are all pretty sweet and highly recognisable, and that it was picked up for a 52 part series following its success. Quite possibly it won an award too, so I'd say it's well loved and a hit across the generations - not to mention, we're still talking about it, so.

✎ 15. What is/was the intended audience?

The intended audience is children - given that The Wind in the Willows (1908) is a children's book. The book, however, has been around for ages, so it's quite likely that when children sat down to watch it their parents did too, as it's well deserving of its 'classic' status.

✎ 16. Is it popular or not? (in what ways)

Of all the adaptations that have made of Grahame's 1908 novel, I would say that this is one of the more popular ones - the voice actors were well known (Una Stubbs, David Jason, Michael Hordern) and the film reached international audiences across the pond. It also does well to stay true pretty much entirely to the book, however one notable observation is that the Wild Wooders (That being, the foxes, weasels and stoats) are made to be very bloodthirsty and aggressive in this adaptation, more so in the book - which could have inspired later works to portray them in similar ways (Such as that of the Broadway Musical). This might have detracted from the overall popularity of the film, given their ability to frighten younger audiences (depending on the personal opinion of whether or not stop motion heightens the realism of their portrayal).

✎ 17. Are there intended associations/references?

The obvious intended association is that the work is an adaptation of the Children's book The Wind in the Willows, by Kenneth Grahame. Within this adaptation in particular, it is interesting to note that the 'Wild Wooders', of whom act sort of as the second class citizens to the rest of the forest, are all profiled as ruffians and bloodthirsty misfits; that is, except Badger, who is portrayed as affable but unwilling to conform to the norms and rituals of the 'river-bankers' society. In stark contrast, those whom live outside of the Wild Wood are   all seen to be almost insufferably nice, good-natured and socially conforming critters, for the most part. There is a lot of 'Them' versus 'Us' between the two gangs with very different lifestyles, however it is unclear if there are any other intended real world connotations beyond the role the two parties play within the boundaries of the world they reside in, in universe of the film (that being innocent, too-pure-for-this-world protagonists and good for nothing, heart of stone villains.)

✎ 18. Do you have personal associations with it?

For me, the Wind in the Willows have come to be comfort characters - I love the story, which is quite simple in design, where life is just nice and to be enjoyed and when we encounter adversity, it can be overcome and good will prevail. I have associations with the characters, in particular Toad; I feel that I have a lot in common with him by his becoming fixated by something, and moving on quickly, and chasing highs - but as they describe him 'really a good fellow', even if he refuses to slow down to think things through. I would also like to live as Mole, who realises that life is for the living and not the cleaning, and goes out and seeks adventure on the water - but also his home is his sanctuary, and he knows the importance of returning to it (something I try to live by.) I have grown up in the South of England, and I have visited the rivers that Grahame wrote about and Ratty and Toad have sailed upon; I live and breathe the stories and the film is just like the characters are real and tangible. Like I have said this film is faithful to the end, and therefore it is clear in this sense that it would mean a great deal to me.

✎ 19. Any other important details?

God no, I think we've said it all!

# data[].attributes.body
• What did you choose to focus on?

Above anything else, I chose to focus on the universal appeal of the film. In my opinion, the primary aspect of why I believed the film to be a successful piece of work is that it has the potential to be, and is, enjoyable for all ages - as supposed to a large proportion of works which could be said to fall into the category of being 'appropriate' for all ages, yet come across as boring and unfulfilling for its more mature audiences. With Willows, however, it wasn't just a film I enjoyed as a child, in fact far from it - given that there are some moments that made the film rather chilling for myself as a young viewer. This is why I think it is so good - It is the second viewing for me, watching again as someone older, that has cemented this adaption as one of my favourites.

I like that I am frightened (I still fear for Toad Hall, even now) because it shows that the characters are so well rounded, and appear real enough, that we can all empathise and concern ourselves with their safety - it is a relief when they overcome the big bad, and I feel a great sense of fulfillment knowing that everything is going to be okay for them (until Toad buys a plane, and we're right back to square one!) This also suggests that with Willows, I focussed largely on the concept of Nostalgia and how powerful it can be within our role of the Audience, and the relationship we have to a piece of work.

Finally, I also chose to focus on the aesthetic and feel of the film itself. The work is stop motion, and I think highly successful for being so. The characterization is effective and the characters feel familiar - and true to Grahame's original source material. This is highly important to me.

• What did you leave out?

Given the limitation of a single sentence, I was forced to leave out many factors that in my eyes make this film successful. For example, having personal experiences with and attachments to the film, its stories and characters - as well as the well established setting - that establishes Willows as a mainstay in my personal library of visual refences, could in no way be summarised within a single sentence - nor does the format of an emoji summary do the works' vast array of spiritual predecessors and antecedents any form of justice. Whilst The Wind in the Willows (1983) is successful in its own right, it cannot be left unsaid that it would not even exist if it were not for the the original well treasured 1908 children's classic, written by Kenneth Grahame - however it by no means has been successful in keeping the tale alive, by its   position as acting 'pilot' to a 52 part series that followed in later years.

• Was your description personal or universal?

I chose to make my description universal. Given the grand appeal and reception that followed the film, it is not the case that I see the work solely as something personal, or unique to me - that is to say I did not discover it, nor would I describe it as a 'hidden gem'. I think instead that it is a respected, well-seen work, and I think it deserves this acclaim; In the case of Willows (1983) I would say that the resounding opinion would be that the universal experience could be said to outweigh the individual experience.

Having said that, I also believe that personal experiences are important, as this is what makes the work what it is to me. It is, for example, the difference in whether a work is perceived as 'Kitsch' or even 'rough', and 'shabby' - in comparison to the interpretation that rough edges can make a piece of  work seem 'tangible' and 'well-loved', or 'home-made'. By having watched the film with my family, I see it as a family classic - in this way, the personal experience informs the universal.

• Did the limitations (Emojis / single sentence) help you focus your description or make it difficult to say all you wanted to?

I think I felt focussed by the limitations. Because I knew that I only had five emojis, I didn't feel like I had to think too much about which emoji I was going to pick as I didn't have the luxury of choice beyond what images where available, and I liked the challenge of being succinct and thinking holistically about how I would present my ideas.

I found the sentence difficult because using language suddenly rapidly increased the options of what I could say, which made it hard to filter out what was unnecessary to satisfy the task - however I felt like I managed to get my point across without rambling too much (or, not as much as I could have)!

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
K. Grahame, E.H. Shepard (1931) The Wind in the Willows. London: Methuen LTD & Co. 

# data[].attributes.body
✎ Now attempt to describe why your chosen piece of work is good as a single sentence, using the limitation of written language:

Wind in the Willows (1983) serves as a faithful adaptation to a timeless classic, beloved by all ages - it is both thrilling and action packed, heartwarming and carefully constructed in design; done so in such a way that allows the audience to be fully immersed into life 'on the open road' as it where, as we are transfixed by the whirlwind adventure that reminds us to cherish the joy that can be found in simple pleasures (and of course, motor cars).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
✎ Describe why your piece of work is good using the limited medium of an Emoji sequence (maybe 5 or less Emojis?)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Wind in the Willows (1983). Directed by M. Hall, C. Taylor. [Film] United Kingdom: Cosgrove Hall Films, ITV.

# data[].attributes.headline
✎ Please choose a piece of work by another maker that you think is good

# data[].attributes.subject
✎ Please choose a piece of work by another maker that you think is good

# data[].attributes.body
(The work could be in any form or format you like, might be an image, drawing, painting, print, animation, film, piece of sound, game, website, installation, book, other... it is totally up to you)

Try not to overthink it, be instinctive, pick any piece of work you like, nobody is questioning your choice - YOU ARE THE AUDIENCE, so YOU decide what is good.