GUIDANCE FROM EXAMINER'S REPORT 2012: RESEARCH & PLANNING FILM OPENINGS

 WORK FOR TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER
You upload your research into thriller film openings onto your blog. This post explains how to achieve the best marks. Look critically at what you have done so far and then take the next step in research.

You present it in Scoopit!

Look at last year’s work to select your next step of research, such as the analysis of three successful film openings that are similar to the kind of work you aim to make.

 

• Your blog must show equal measure of research and planning.
• You are advised to see this as an ongoing process, representing the journey of the project.
• This means that there must be good evidence of you reflecting on the process of the production in your blog, at all stages.
• The best work showed a real sense of progression from both the preliminary task and the research and planning through to the finished production.
• For level 4 marks in research and planning (the top marks), substantial evidence is expected.
• The best work exploited blog form properly: lots of embedded video/audio and annotated images, making the use of ICT integral to the presentation, rather than using images as part of an illustrated essay.
• Generally research into opening titles was weak. You need to understand that research is not a ‘bolt-on’ but a fundamental element of your project, so connect what you learned with what you produced.
• You will do particularly well when you do audience research at every stage and use the results (that is, what you learn informs what you make)
• There was some excellent evidence of audience research using a range of methods & reflecting upon findings, particularly video interviews. However, in some instances research was merely a series of questionnaires & graphs with minimal discussion of potential impact. As in previous years, paper-based research often comprised piles of questionnaires, which are very difficult to credit in any way and thus should be avoided. Only a copy of the blank questionnaire and a summary of the questionnaire results needs to be submitted – not each individual questionnaire.
• Avoid analysis of texts which bears no relation to the eventual production, so that it is difficult to see what value it had for the project. 
• Overall, there often seems little application of research findings in the final product.
• Film had some excellent use of test shots and location scouting across samples, including one group who did an excellent foley sound experiment with melons and chicken thighs!
• The main issue in research and planning was inconsistency in ensuring that you offer a ‘sense of journey’ through the project. While some candidates did this well, many blogs contained little information on the post-production stage, usually petering out after listing details of actors, props and locations. References to improving skills in the use of software were often omitted. Although this is partially addressed in one of the evaluation questions, there was often little reference to difficulties encountered in editing and changes made following feedback.
• Some of the best research and planning seen included a film opening analysis with every bit of terminology highlighted, remaking an old student project and trying to improve it and undertaking a full equipment audit examining strengths and weakness of each item. In one centre, there were several rough cuts of each group’s film openings embedded on the blogs, each showing peer feedback and the group’s responses. This was then possible to use as evidence for the audience question in the evaluation, as well as enhancing their final productions. Such good practice is applauded.