JAN 2012 EXAM QUESTION ON FILM

Examiners' Report on January 2012 exam

The question provided suitable differentiation of candidate responses. The majority of candidates addressed the issue of digital distribution and marketing more than that of production or audience. The question provoked a range of responses from candidates, many of whom were able to discuss the relationship between production, distribution and marketing in ensuring the success of media products. The most able candidates were clear about the changes that digital distribution and consumption were having upon the products that were produced.

The best answers were able to create a debate around the relative strengths of distribution practices and marketing strategies by institutions in engaging appropriate audiences through online media and incorporated technologies. Frequently, strong candidates were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, and/or mass audience/niche audience targeting. More candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape, which included the use of online technologies and distribution platforms. In this session, very few candidates attempted to answer the question without any kind of institutional knowledge or focussing exclusively on texts produced.

Strongest responses came from those candidates who had a wide range of relevant and contemporary examples of marketing and distribution strategies in their chosen area and could discuss them with confidence. Those candidates that fared less well used a ‘saturation approach’, writing all they could remember, rather than addressing the set question.
On the whole the terminology used for question 2 was good, including candidates’ discussion of convergence, synergy, horizontal and vertical integration as key media concepts. It is advised that centres ensure the appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience in the same depth as institutions.

The most common approach remains a comparison between major US studios with UK production companies, often focusing on digital distribution and marketing strategies. There was often an assumption that UK cinema is failing because of low cinema attendance, which obviously underestimates the importance of home exhibition windows in making UK film viable. There were some excellent answers that referred to the expansion of the Digital Screen Network and the issues posed and the opportunities it offers.

Working Title was the most frequently used case study, along with Warners, Fox and Paramount as American examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as case studies. Newer UK productions such as Shifty, Monsters, Four Lions and Attack The Block were used by candidates as contemporary case studies to good effect, with some candidates attempting to address specifically the use of You Tube as a potential distribution platform for the future media in discussion of Life In A Day.

Excellent answers engaged thoroughly with new media forms such as social networking sites, You Tube and blogging and how these relate to their chosen case studies. Other strong areas for discussion were in the consideration of audience consumption and distribution through digital technology such as iPhones, BluRay, downloading, iPads, and Sony PSP’s. Candidate discussion of this technology would be better supported with examples. Sometimes these technologies tend to be mentioned without reference to specific examples of products to exemplify how films are distributed and/or marketed using such technologies, which limits access to higher mark bands.

The advantages of digital distribution and exhibition were discussed, but with varying effectiveness at times, in part because candidates see film as being freely available as a digital format online, which is often not the case. Many candidates accurately argued that digital distribution, marketing and digital practices were important for the frontloading of film marketing campaigns, for example, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Paul and The Kings Speech. Most candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape.

There still remains a number of centres that are preparing candidates with inappropriate material. Potted histories of media companies or textual studies are unlikely to be useful for the kind of questions which this paper poses. Candidates should be encouraged to take a selective approach to their case study material, concentrating on what is most relevant to the question rather than trying to get their entire case studies down. Quite a few centres are relying on case study material which is rapidly dating and there needs to be more emphasis on contemporary examples. Far too many candidates using Working Title as a case study institution are still writing about films which are at least 15 years out of date.

JAN & JUNE 2010 EXAM QUESTIONS ON FILM

June 2010

Marks for Section B are awarded according to the detail in which the argument was explored and the detail of the exemplification. The question provoked a range of responses from Candidates who were able to discuss the use of digital technology in the production, distribution, marketing or consumption of media products or a combination of these elements. The most able Candidates were able to create a debate around the benefits and drawbacks of new technology for both audiences and institutions and were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, or mass audience/niche audience targeting.

The best answers tended to come from Candidates who had been well prepared with detailed, contemporary case studies – not historical ones. Many Candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers (and occasionally producers) into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More able Candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that characterise the contemporary media landscape and at times across different media areas.

However, there are still a number of Centres who are preparing Candidates with inappropriate material, for example with potted histories of media companies or textual studies which are unlikely to be useful for the kind of questions which this paper poses. Candidates should be encouraged to take a selective approach to their case study material, concentrating on what is most relevant to the question rather than trying to get entire case studies down into the response to question 2.
the most common approach was to compare major US studios with UK production companies, though technology at times was often interpreted in quite a narrow fashion, concentrating on 3D production and digital distribution, for example ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Avatar’. 

Some good answers focussed on how major studios like Fox can finance the production of cutting edge films like ‘Avatar’, and how the technology they have at their disposal can be employed in marketing via a range of new media platforms, all backed up with a range of relevant examples. The digital technology used in ‘Avatar’ was succinctly addressed as were the advances in 3D, but also characterised by some simplistic assumptions that digital distribution is cheaper and quicker than conventional film distribution because you do not need reels of film. There was often an assumption that UK cinema is not dependent upon technological advances, which obviously underestimates the importance of home exhibition windows in making UK film viable.

Working Title was the most frequently used UK case study, though many Candidates tended to offer a history of the company and their argument depended upon the relative of success of films such as ‘Four Weddings and A Funeral’, ‘Notting Hill’ or ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’, which clearly are not contemporary examples. Warners, Fox and Paramount were frequently used as US examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as UK production companies. One Centre’s Candidates had been prepared with a comparative textual study of ‘The Cruel Sea’ (1953) and ‘Atonement’ (2007) with which they struggled to answer the question.

Histories of film studios such as Aardman or film biographies of film personnel did not address the question that has been set. Centres should keep taught examples contemporary and varied for the Candidates for future series. There was evidence that a number of Candidates focused solely on digitisation of cinema and did not have a film company as an institutional case study. Where this was the case, answers (whilst detailed in some respects) did not show enough depth, as they were tackling only exhibition.

January 2010

A significant number of candidates used Working Title & Universal as a case study. This case study had a varying degree of success, for example, weaker arguments used a case study of Working Title films in 1994 with almost no reference to contemporary issues of production, distribution or exhibition. Candidates seem to have far more knowledge of marketing than any other phase of film production, but at times this led to naive answers, which ignored the role of non-theatrical exhibition in generating revenue for film companies or drew simplistic conclusions about independent company’s lack of marketing expertise compared to those of major studios.    The most common approach was to compare the production processes of major studies with those of smaller UK companies. In particular, Universal and Warner Bros were common case studies, in comparison with Working Title, Film Four and Warp Films. More able candidates looked at the success of big US studios and their blockbusters (like Avatar), compared them to Universal backed Working Title and its output of hit formula rom-coms like 'Love Actually' and independent productions like 'This is England'.

The better responses were focused on the question set and discussed the ways in which the majors dominate film production and distribution with case studies of Avatar, The Dark Knight and Harry Potter. Candidates referred to Paramount and Universal, and the issues of horizontal integration and synergy were cited as key reasons for the dominance of the majors. Those that were equipped with a comparative study of an independent company were able to really engage with the question and consider an element of debate. ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ was a popular example of a small film reaching a global audience through differing factors rather than expensive marketing and synergy. Small British films such as ‘This is England’ were also referred to as films that fail to reach a global audience and meant that the question was well addressed.

Candidates who only looked at one media producer were often disadvantaged. Having a detailed comparison between US Major/ UK Minor (for example), often helped candidates see a bigger picture, which was not always the case with very in depth case studies, where candidates often repeated historical context data. Some candidates were clearly prepared with the case study that they presented, but they did not fully engage with the question set.
Do note that the use of factual information and statistics helped illustrate answers; however, there were instances of obviously false or incorrect data, which detracted from the answers. There was plenty of evidence that showed candidates who reproduced learnt answers could show great recall of factual material from their case studies but failed to address and apply this knowledge to the set question. This led to a number of candidates achieving much lower marks than they were certainly capable of.

Centres must teach students the skills needed to adapt their case study knowledge and understanding to the demands of a specific question. Simply knowing the history of an institution and understanding its current position within a particular industry is not enough to meet the marking criteria at the highest levels.

The logical step for this question and which worked well in answers was to agree with the statement and use a large institution and example to prove this, in conjunction with an independent institution or one which is not global plus an example to show that the statement is not the whole truth. The approach of contrasting two institutions led to some very good responses. This is to be encouraged as it provides candidates with more options to formulate a response to the set question. Only a few answers then went on to mention ‘guerrilla film making’ outside the domination of global institutions.