G321 Foundation Production
The examiner's report advises you to look at the exemplar material provided at http://ocrmediastudies.weebly.com/index.html
HERE
Sunday, 25 November 2012
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 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.
G322 REPRESENTATION OF DISABILITY
GUIDANCE FROM EXAMINER'S REPORT ON G321 TV DRAMA is below
FIRST WATCH THIS ANNOTATED EXTRACT - Representation of disability.
HERE SCROLL DOWN
GUIDANCE FROM EXAMINER'S REPORT ON G321 TV DRAMA
LOOK at the June 2012 exam extract and the examiner's report below here:
Question 1 – Television drama
The question required candidates to move from description of key technical areas to analysis of how representations of ability and disability were constructed. Most candidates addressed the key media concept of representation in the extract, contrasting a discussion of the representation of Ben’s disability with the representation of his able brother, David. Most candidates were able to engage with analysis of ability/disability and the hierarchal relations between the two principal characters.
In approaching the set question, candidates pre-dominantly analysed their chosen examples of representation in a chronological address of the extract, whilst integrating different technical aspects, for example, combining the analysis of camera composition with sound. Stronger candidates provided an integrated analysis of the extract through analysis of key examples identified. These candidates explored how the technical features could be applied in combination with each other.
However, lesser achieving candidates struggled to achieve a satisfactory balance with the chronological approach, frequently omitting coverage of editing or lapsing into passages of description or analysis without reference to representation. These candidates would have been better advised in preparation to adopt a more structured approach, basing their analysis around each technical area in turn or focussing upon ability and disability in turn. These candidates could list many technical aspects, with varying degrees of accuracy, but struggled to say anything meaningful about the representation of ability/disability, at times focusing on character analysis alone or just re-telling the narrative of the piece without appropriate textual exemplification of the micro aspects of the TV drama extract.
Representation
Confident candidates were able to analyse the ways in which the extract attempted to position the audience in relation to Ben and David and their sibling relationship. Candidates showed maturity in terms of their understanding of the juxtaposition of ability and disability.
Frequently, candidates were able to explore the status of David as a confident, able bodied young male in comparison to his brother Ben. As a result candidates were able to explore the nuances of the representation of ability/disability, in relation to the micro technical elements, for example, candidates were able to explore David’s ‘angst’ as a teenager and the alternative viewpoints presented of him as both carer and a selfish, young individual. Stronger responses also showed a good grasp of the brother’s ambivalent abilities, in terms of his maturity and expectations of behaviour and these were compared with Ben’s expectations as a disabled child. Also, candidates tended to comment on the stereotypical representation of disability as burdensome and either lonely, isolated or incapable of relatively straightforward activities. Some candidates rightly brought out that the Ben is not entirely helpless, noticing the little smirk at the breakfast table, and the fact that he does inhabit his world quite happily at times – the negative sides of `ability` were also brought out – for example the unruly behaviour of David. Indeed more subtle interpretations offered the view that even the able bodied characters exhibited weaknesses and more commonly that David felt trapped and isolated by the responsibility of his brother.
Those candidates that did less well with the analysis of representation would focus on a discussion of sibling identity and power, rather than ability/disability. Lesser achieving candidates used sweeping generalisations or simply had little to discuss on the topic, some candidates simply suggested that Ben, had few if any abilities.
Camera Shot, Angle and Composition
Most candidates used the correct terminology and could identify shot composition, movement, framing, and angles in relation to each of the characters and their situations and link these to the construction of ability/disability. There was more evidence than previous series that candidates engaged with the exploration of cinematography and composition of shots; for example plenty mentioned the use of shallow focus. The establishing shot of a bird’s eye view, which then zoomed and panned around the main character, were all identified well and most candidates took the time to analyse what such an aerial shot allowed the audience to see of the boys’ bedroom and what this said about them as individuals. Candidates also engaged with the prolonged use of close-ups, which were explored, in detail and with sensitivity highlighting the maturity of media students to explore these complex topics of representation. The terms panning and tracking were commonly confused with each other, as were the identification and use of high and low angles.
Mise en scene
Overall most candidates had plenty to comment on the micro feature of mise en scene, ranging from some excellent detailed analysis of the set design; principally the contrasting sides of the boys’ bedroom, in particular the child like and innocent props associated with Ben and his toys. Candidates also frequently commented on the use of outside locations, such as the activities of the able bodied versus the less abled activities of Ben, for example, David climbing the tree with a low angled shot of Ben looking up and supping on an ice cream. Most candidates also engaged with the end of the extract, with Ben sitting on the double decker bus amongst a noisy set of school children on their way home. Here candidates wrote plenty in interpretation of Ben’s loneliness and isolation on the school journey home and paid an equivalent amount of attention to the way in which he appeared to clutch his schoolbag in the playground, as a sign of insecurity. In contrast most candidates also recognised David’s ability represented by an artistic drawing in the classroom.
In general, Centres appear to be heeding advice from previous reports about discarding simplistic colour determination in analysis of characters and their actions, which is encouraging. Also more candidates attempted to engage with the issue of lighting to varying degrees. The most able candidates offered detailed and at times quite sophisticated analysis of the representation of ability and disability, because they linked analysis to informed exemplification from the extract. Lesser achieving candidates could describe the mise en scene, but often lacked reference to how the representation was constructed or focused too much on character function, status, family and/or power relations over ability and disability.
Sound
The analysis of sound is continuing to improve with candidates attempting to link music with the representation of the characters. Some candidates were able to discuss the ways in which sound in the extract represented David’s frustration at having a disabled brother, for example with the use of the diegetic soundtrack “Wouldn’t it be nice’. Most candidates could associate the use of diegetic sound with empathy for Ben, exemplified by the close up of Ben on the bus juxtaposed with a shallow focus and muffled diegetic sounds, signifying detachment and vulnerability.
There seemed to be more confident use of terminology in relation to the soundtrack this series, for example the most able candidates recognised the irony of the pop song used from the Beach Boys. Many candidates were proficient in analysing diegetic/non diegetic sound (however a number of candidates did get diegetic and non diegetic sound mixed up). Candidates also made frequent reference to the dialogue in the extract, especially the use of the voiceover at the beginning of the extract when David anchors his personal feelings for Ben when he narrates his co-existence and lifestyle in terms of his relationship to his disabled brother. Candidates also understood the voiceover technique and acquainted this with David’s burden. Lesser achieving candidates relied solely on dialogue in analysis of the sequence, sacrificing analysis of other uses of sound in the extract to analyse the representations offered.
Editing
Candidates were able to discuss the shot-reverse shot technique, for example in the family home and the positioning of the two main characters. In addition, most candidates were able to identify and discuss the significance of the use of slow motion at the end of the extract, discussed with varying degrees of success. The most able candidates also made reference to a range of editing techniques, which included the use of crosscutting, pacing and the montage of black and white evolutionary images. The montage of evolutionary images used was identified by most candidates, some offering in analysis, an examination of the David’s thoughts and an evolutionary scale, whilst some candidates were simply confused about the context and use of these images; or even omitted any analysis of this sequence of shots. ‘Jump cut’ remains a term that is misused and overused, for example, when candidates labelled the transition from the establishing external shot to the interior shot of the family home.
Editing remains the most challenging area for analysis, although there are some encouraging signs that fewer candidates this series seemed to omit this area altogether. Some less able candidates had gaps in their knowledge and understanding of editing terminology, for example editing transitions were often identified as ‘switched’ or ‘flicked’ or ‘choppy editing’.
Advice offered to centres is keep working on editing as a micro aspect examined for question one and focus on how meaning is constructed through shot sequencing and what is being represented by the edited TV drama extract.
FIRST WATCH THIS ANNOTATED EXTRACT - Representation of disability.
HERE SCROLL DOWN
 |
| Scroll down until you find this clip |
GUIDANCE FROM EXAMINER'S REPORT ON G321 TV DRAMA
LOOK at the June 2012 exam extract and the examiner's report below here:
Question 1 – Television drama
The question required candidates to move from description of key technical areas to analysis of how representations of ability and disability were constructed. Most candidates addressed the key media concept of representation in the extract, contrasting a discussion of the representation of Ben’s disability with the representation of his able brother, David. Most candidates were able to engage with analysis of ability/disability and the hierarchal relations between the two principal characters.
In approaching the set question, candidates pre-dominantly analysed their chosen examples of representation in a chronological address of the extract, whilst integrating different technical aspects, for example, combining the analysis of camera composition with sound. Stronger candidates provided an integrated analysis of the extract through analysis of key examples identified. These candidates explored how the technical features could be applied in combination with each other.
However, lesser achieving candidates struggled to achieve a satisfactory balance with the chronological approach, frequently omitting coverage of editing or lapsing into passages of description or analysis without reference to representation. These candidates would have been better advised in preparation to adopt a more structured approach, basing their analysis around each technical area in turn or focussing upon ability and disability in turn. These candidates could list many technical aspects, with varying degrees of accuracy, but struggled to say anything meaningful about the representation of ability/disability, at times focusing on character analysis alone or just re-telling the narrative of the piece without appropriate textual exemplification of the micro aspects of the TV drama extract.
Representation
Confident candidates were able to analyse the ways in which the extract attempted to position the audience in relation to Ben and David and their sibling relationship. Candidates showed maturity in terms of their understanding of the juxtaposition of ability and disability.
Frequently, candidates were able to explore the status of David as a confident, able bodied young male in comparison to his brother Ben. As a result candidates were able to explore the nuances of the representation of ability/disability, in relation to the micro technical elements, for example, candidates were able to explore David’s ‘angst’ as a teenager and the alternative viewpoints presented of him as both carer and a selfish, young individual. Stronger responses also showed a good grasp of the brother’s ambivalent abilities, in terms of his maturity and expectations of behaviour and these were compared with Ben’s expectations as a disabled child. Also, candidates tended to comment on the stereotypical representation of disability as burdensome and either lonely, isolated or incapable of relatively straightforward activities. Some candidates rightly brought out that the Ben is not entirely helpless, noticing the little smirk at the breakfast table, and the fact that he does inhabit his world quite happily at times – the negative sides of `ability` were also brought out – for example the unruly behaviour of David. Indeed more subtle interpretations offered the view that even the able bodied characters exhibited weaknesses and more commonly that David felt trapped and isolated by the responsibility of his brother.
Those candidates that did less well with the analysis of representation would focus on a discussion of sibling identity and power, rather than ability/disability. Lesser achieving candidates used sweeping generalisations or simply had little to discuss on the topic, some candidates simply suggested that Ben, had few if any abilities.
Camera Shot, Angle and Composition
Most candidates used the correct terminology and could identify shot composition, movement, framing, and angles in relation to each of the characters and their situations and link these to the construction of ability/disability. There was more evidence than previous series that candidates engaged with the exploration of cinematography and composition of shots; for example plenty mentioned the use of shallow focus. The establishing shot of a bird’s eye view, which then zoomed and panned around the main character, were all identified well and most candidates took the time to analyse what such an aerial shot allowed the audience to see of the boys’ bedroom and what this said about them as individuals. Candidates also engaged with the prolonged use of close-ups, which were explored, in detail and with sensitivity highlighting the maturity of media students to explore these complex topics of representation. The terms panning and tracking were commonly confused with each other, as were the identification and use of high and low angles.
Mise en scene
Overall most candidates had plenty to comment on the micro feature of mise en scene, ranging from some excellent detailed analysis of the set design; principally the contrasting sides of the boys’ bedroom, in particular the child like and innocent props associated with Ben and his toys. Candidates also frequently commented on the use of outside locations, such as the activities of the able bodied versus the less abled activities of Ben, for example, David climbing the tree with a low angled shot of Ben looking up and supping on an ice cream. Most candidates also engaged with the end of the extract, with Ben sitting on the double decker bus amongst a noisy set of school children on their way home. Here candidates wrote plenty in interpretation of Ben’s loneliness and isolation on the school journey home and paid an equivalent amount of attention to the way in which he appeared to clutch his schoolbag in the playground, as a sign of insecurity. In contrast most candidates also recognised David’s ability represented by an artistic drawing in the classroom.
In general, Centres appear to be heeding advice from previous reports about discarding simplistic colour determination in analysis of characters and their actions, which is encouraging. Also more candidates attempted to engage with the issue of lighting to varying degrees. The most able candidates offered detailed and at times quite sophisticated analysis of the representation of ability and disability, because they linked analysis to informed exemplification from the extract. Lesser achieving candidates could describe the mise en scene, but often lacked reference to how the representation was constructed or focused too much on character function, status, family and/or power relations over ability and disability.
Sound
The analysis of sound is continuing to improve with candidates attempting to link music with the representation of the characters. Some candidates were able to discuss the ways in which sound in the extract represented David’s frustration at having a disabled brother, for example with the use of the diegetic soundtrack “Wouldn’t it be nice’. Most candidates could associate the use of diegetic sound with empathy for Ben, exemplified by the close up of Ben on the bus juxtaposed with a shallow focus and muffled diegetic sounds, signifying detachment and vulnerability.
There seemed to be more confident use of terminology in relation to the soundtrack this series, for example the most able candidates recognised the irony of the pop song used from the Beach Boys. Many candidates were proficient in analysing diegetic/non diegetic sound (however a number of candidates did get diegetic and non diegetic sound mixed up). Candidates also made frequent reference to the dialogue in the extract, especially the use of the voiceover at the beginning of the extract when David anchors his personal feelings for Ben when he narrates his co-existence and lifestyle in terms of his relationship to his disabled brother. Candidates also understood the voiceover technique and acquainted this with David’s burden. Lesser achieving candidates relied solely on dialogue in analysis of the sequence, sacrificing analysis of other uses of sound in the extract to analyse the representations offered.
Editing
Candidates were able to discuss the shot-reverse shot technique, for example in the family home and the positioning of the two main characters. In addition, most candidates were able to identify and discuss the significance of the use of slow motion at the end of the extract, discussed with varying degrees of success. The most able candidates also made reference to a range of editing techniques, which included the use of crosscutting, pacing and the montage of black and white evolutionary images. The montage of evolutionary images used was identified by most candidates, some offering in analysis, an examination of the David’s thoughts and an evolutionary scale, whilst some candidates were simply confused about the context and use of these images; or even omitted any analysis of this sequence of shots. ‘Jump cut’ remains a term that is misused and overused, for example, when candidates labelled the transition from the establishing external shot to the interior shot of the family home.
Editing remains the most challenging area for analysis, although there are some encouraging signs that fewer candidates this series seemed to omit this area altogether. Some less able candidates had gaps in their knowledge and understanding of editing terminology, for example editing transitions were often identified as ‘switched’ or ‘flicked’ or ‘choppy editing’.
Advice offered to centres is keep working on editing as a micro aspect examined for question one and focus on how meaning is constructed through shot sequencing and what is being represented by the edited TV drama extract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)