JAN & JUNE 2011 EXAM QUESTIONS ON FILM

January 2011

The majority of candidates addressed the issue of production more than that of exchange. There was plenty of evidence of well-prepared answers. The best responses were able to show how the ownership of media companies determined the approaches that were taken to individual media texts and discussed advantages and disadvantages to all types of institutions. A few candidates misunderstood ownership to refer to audience ownership of media hardware or content which was clearly not appropriate.

Those candidates who fared less well would only produce a response which either focused on a single case study which struggled to address the question set in terms of media ownership, production and exchange or would often write ‘all I know about’ the media area that they studied.

As stated in the previous report, the advice that can be offered to centres is to refer to and use the questions posed in the specification on page 19. They should ensure coverage of key institutional concepts such as digital media, synergy, cross media, convergence, media technologies and audience consumption; this will aid candidates in their conceptual understanding of institutions and audiences. It is also necessary for candidates to address the question set, rather than offer a general address of institutional practices across the board and centres should teach at least two specific case studies for question two in their chosen media area to allow scope for all possible questions and a sense of the diversity of media case studies.

It is advised that centres ensure appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience as much as institutions. Whilst individual candidate research on their own chosen examples is encouraged, centres need to ensure that this research is supported within a framework which prepares candidates for the demands of the exam.
The following comments on each media area are a summary and not exhaustive of the range of issues that emerged in candidate responses.

This was by far the most popular media area addressed by candidates, with a significant number of candidates using Working Title & Universal as case studies.    The use of these case studies had a varying degree of success; for example, some weaker answers used a case study of Working Title films from 1994 with almost no reference to contemporary issues of production, distribution or exhibition.    Candidates seem to have far more knowledge of production than any other phase of film, but at times this led to naive answers, which ignored both the exchange of media texts the role of film audiences.
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. Many candidates looked at the success of big US studios and their blockbusters, such as Avatar, The Dark Knight and Harry Potter, comparing them to hit formula ‘rom-coms’ or to independent productions like 'This is England'.

Candidates referred to Paramount and Universal, and the issues of horizontal integration and vertical integration, in terms of media ownership and on occasion market dominance and how this affected the types of media texts produced. 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. It was noted that one centre had good success comparing Slumdog Millionaire and Avatar by extending their case studies and investigating the ownership, production and exchange of these films in detail whilst referring to other films and the effect of new technology.

Many candidates struggled with more complicated institutional issues surrounding film ownership and funding, leading to some misunderstandings and simplistic responses. In an examination candidates need the skill 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 secure a high mark. In this series some candidates ignored the question and simply regurgitated their case studies (too often around digital technologies and initiatives) without actually relating any of it to media ownership.
The logical step for this question (and one which worked well in answers) was to use a large institution and examples in conjunction with examples from an independent institution (or one which is not global). 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.

June 2011

The question provided suitable differentiation of candidate responses. The majority of candidates addressed the issue of 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 best answers were able to create a debate around the relative strengths of production and marketing/distribution practices by institutions in engaging appropriate audiences. Frequently strong candidates were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, and/or mass audience/niche audience targeting.

In addition, many candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape. A few candidates attempted to answer the question without any kind of institutional knowledge, focussing exclusively on texts, suggesting that there are still misconceptions as to the demands of this section of the specification. Strong responses from candidates were those 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’ to addressing the question writing all they could remember, rather than addressing the set question. There was some confusion by candidates between 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. It is also recommended that centres find a balance between giving candidates independent research tasks and modeling the kinds of material they need to produce.

The most common approach was to compare major US studios with UK production companies, often focusing on the role of budgets in determining production and marketing strategies. In the latter case, there was frequently a simplistic assumption that digital distribution is cheaper and quicker than conventional film distribution because you don't need reels of film and a white van!
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. Working Title was the most frequently used case study, though many candidates tended to offer a history of the studio and their argument depended upon the relative success of films, such as Four Weddings and A Funeral or The Hudsucker Proxy, Notting Hill, and Bridget Jones Diary which clearly are not contemporary examples. Warners, Fox and Paramount were frequently used as American examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as UK production companies.

However, many candidates seem to be prepared with a simplistic view of film production, distribution and marketing strategies which fails to acknowledge the wide range of approaches taken by studios both big and small.

Many responses failed to address the question directly and just presented their case studies. Candidates who tried to develop an argument with counter examples were more successful but the case studies often lacked relevant detail and failed to sufficiently differentiate between Hollywood and local production companies. Candidates demonstrated keen knowledge and understanding of concepts such as interactivity, globalisation, conglomerates and convergence.

Excellent answers engaged thoroughly with new media forms such as social networking sites, YouTube 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.

The advantages of digital distribution and exhibition were also sometimes discussed, but with limited effectiveness at times. Many candidates engaged with the crucial issue of piracy and illegal downloading and the implications for the media sector under consideration. Marketing and advertising was also considered with reference to extensive online campaigns, websites and viral marketing.