GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
FILM STUDIES
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2015
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at: https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en Online results analysis WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer at the centre. Annual Statistical Report The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Unit
Page
FM1
1
FM2
4
FM3
11
FM4
14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
FILM STUDIES General Certificate of Education Summer 2015 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced FM1 – INTERNAL ASSESSMENT – EXPLORING FILM FORM
Principal Examiner:
Freddie Gaffney
As stated in last year’s report, FM1 this year has again given rise to some fabulous work from the majority of centres. Unfortunately, a minority of centres are failing to engage with the spirit of the specification and, in some instances, are using an outdated version of the specification, leading to inappropriate task setting. The majority of candidates were able to engage well with each aspect of FM1, developing very real skills in film form and technique, underpinned by a solid understanding of how meaning is made. Candidates were largely enabled to work from their own individual interests and enthusiasms through individualised tasks, resulting in stronger work and a deeper understanding of film. Most centres were able to evidence good teaching of Film Studies across all levels. As noted above, it is worth reminding some centres that it is essential to ensure that both the tasks set, and the assessment of those tasks, reflect the demands of the current specification. It is of course good practice to ensure that delivery of Film Studies is constantly updated to reflect developments in the field of study and any shared good teaching approaches. It is similarly worth reminding centres that best practice is to allow candidates as much choice in the component options as possible as this leads to the production of individualised work and facilitates clear differentiation, allowing candidates to work to their strengths. Marking generally was within tolerance in most centres, and most demonstrated that standardisation, where required, had taken place. If there is more than one teacher responsible for assessment – or if there is a consortium – internal standardisation of marking must take place prior to the submission of marks for moderation. As in the previous two years' reports, it is worth reminding centres that they should ensure that the FM1a forms are fully completed with Aims and Context succinctly addressed (bullet points are perfectly acceptable, although aims should be more significant than 'make a short film sequence'!). Ideally, the aims should clarify the micro feature(s) the candidate is concentrating on and, if within a group, the role the candidate is responsible for. There were some isolated examples of plagiarism. Centres are thus encouraged to reinforce the distinction between researching and crediting sources and 'copying and pasting'. If plagiarism is suspected, centres should endeavour to address the issues prior to work being sent for moderation, using internal systems to resolve the issue rather than simply identifying it. Most potential plagiarism is simply downloaded from the internet and cut and pasted into the candidate’s work and so is relatively easy to source. Centres are encouraged to introduce systems such as random checking when work is submitted for internal assessment.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Analysis of Film Extract There was a generally high level of engagement with the Analysis of the Film Extract with most centres taking last year’s advice to offer straightforward tasks that lead candidates to focus on micro features. It is probably sensible for candidates to identify the micro feature(s) that they are exploring in the extract in the opening paragraph, and then ensure that they avoid mere scene description by referencing back to the micro feature(s) throughout. A good number of Centres seem to still encourage their candidates to look at multiple micro features, and for many candidates this proves a disservice as they are unable to achieve depth. Close analysis of a Film Extract through a single micro feature tends to create stronger, deeper, more focused work, and as such this approach should be a preference for the majority of candidates. A number of candidates were able to look at the shot-to-shot relationships as well as within single shots. This is good practice as it enables the cumulative effect of the use of a micro feature to be explored. Similarly there was an increased use of screen grabs and other illustrative material in the analysis and this is to be encouraged. Using them to anchor the writing to particular shots or sequences is good practice and aids candidates' analysis. Creative Project The Digital Storyboard option delivered some excellent work this year, and candidates were able to understand the task of deploying micro features to make meaning. Many candidates were clearly able to make use of established cinematic forms and were able to demonstrate a deeper understanding of shot-to-shot relationships that are key to the construction of sequences. There continues to be some setting of inappropriate tasks (including some hand-drawn storyboards, which are not permitted in the current specification). It is important to reiterate that centres are advised to ensure they are meeting the demands of the current specification and to familiarise themselves with the guidance and sample storyboard offered by WJEC. A number of storyboards are still using a frame to represent a scene rather than exploring how a scene can be broken into a series of shots that takes the audience through the scene, drawing attention to objects and actions via the use of close ups and mid-shots, for example. Centres are encouraged to point candidates to the wealth of examples of storyboards available online and should also encourage candidates to work on several drafts of storyboards to perfect them. The Extended Step Outline has been relatively straightforward this year, with the majority of candidates engaging with the ‘writerly’ nature of the task. There is still a tendency for some candidates to veer towards a shooting script in offering detailed shot level description. It is important to emphasise that the Extended Step Outline is a form that functions at scene level and should not contain shot descriptions and instructions. Rather, it should allow a director, a cinematographer or an editor to visualise shots, lighting or edits, for example, from the scene descriptions. The Production option continues to be largely very strong, and there were some outstanding sequences produced, with the construction of meaning through the selection of micro features to the fore. Some centres seemed to encourage the creation of extended short films – often significantly exceeding the duration requirements. Whichever option is taken, it is recommended that the narrative is seen as secondary to the use of micro features. As noted earlier, candidates working as a group for this option must identify the role and a related micro feature that they will be assessed on. Sharing roles is not to be endorsed as this does not meet the demands of the specification.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Reflective Analysis The Reflective Analysis was largely well addressed, with the majority of candidates choosing to approach it as a written exercise. There were some superb DVD commentaries (both audio and visual) that enabled candidates to focus on particular elements, encouraging close analysis of form and meaning. A minority of centres are still allowing their candidates to submit conventional evaluations rather than reflective analyses of their creative products. It is requested that centres ensure they check both the specification and the Notes for Guidance to clarify the requirements for this element. Selection of creative project option As with the last few years, it is important to point out that a significant number of centres offer their candidates only a single creative option, rather than the freedom to choose from the full range. Whilst I can understand the rationale, it does restrict differentiation and does not allow all candidates to work to their strengths. It is worth reminding Centres that where candidates are offered more than one option their weaker candidates in particular generally gain better results. It is important that candidates should offer Aims and Context for their work and must identify what micro feature(s) they are responsible for and will be focusing on for their assessment. This again offers a greater opportunity for evidencing differentiation.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
FILM STUDIES General Certificate of Education Summer 2015 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced FM2 – BRITISH AND AMERICAN FILM
Principal Examiner:
Jill Poppy and Steve Robson (Assistant to Principal)
General Observations on FM2 The paper was appropriately accessible and showed evidence of detailed and productive learning. Examiners felt that the general standard of candidate responses was high, with centres effectively and resourcefully teaching films, case studies and sequences. In section A, there were very good examples of relevant case study material being used, including independent films such as A Field in England and The Rocky Horror Show. There was a confident and lively engagement with issues. Centres still need to emphasise that the resource material set should be used as a springboard for debate and discussion and can also be challenged. Some candidates tend to repeat the material in their responses. Some centres offered TV dramas such as Breaking Bad and Boardwalk Empire for discussion; whilst these productions may be cinematic, they are not appropriate for a Film Studies qualification. In section B candidates were, on the whole, well prepared for their topics, with detailed understanding of sequences and some contextual information. There are still some candidates either attempting a topic for which they were unprepared or using inappropriate films, e.g., Billy Elliot for Thatcher’s Britain. There were also some attempts to use films clearly studied for one specific topic in relation to another in the examination, e.g., Living with Crime films being used for the Genre section (which is based only on the horror or comedy genre). Even if some films can be used for more than one topic, this appears to confuse candidates and is not recommended as an approach. Knowing which films have been chosen for which topic and responding to the right section is a basic exam technique and centres should ensure that candidates are fully prepared. Similarly, choosing too many films tends to inhibit candidates’ ability to discuss films in detail. Examiners recommend focusing on two or three films (maximum) in examination answers to ensure the appropriate depth of discussion. In section C, comparative work is good and films are often well chosen, with detailed understanding of sequences. In many cases, candidates are tending not to provide sufficient contextual information. Section A Overview Section A was generally well-handled with candidates using recent up-to-date case studies and showing good preparation for the exam. More candidates than in previous years seemed able to identify important issues raised by the resource material and use it productively in their responses. There were some excellent uses of personal experience and prepared case studies that were expertly applied to the resource material and the questions, © WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
developing some extremely engaging responses. There was less descriptive repetition of the resource material this year which helped candidates to be more effective in answering the questions. This can still, however, be an issue for some candidates and centres are advised to aim to develop stimulus-response skills with their candidates. There was a good mix of candidates answering both questions with equal success. Question 1 responses showed some very enthusiastic engagement with the resource material whilst Question 2 enabled candidates to use their personal experience, contextualised by learning, well. As always in Section A, the better responses were those that made focused use of the resource materials combined with detailed examples/case studies of their own to engage with the question. Question 1 This question was generally answered well. Many candidates clearly engaged with the issues raised by the question and with the resource materials. Many candidates were able to use prior knowledge of ‘shared universe’ and franchise films in enormous detail and wrote passionately about factors that affected their production. There were many good examples cited, with clear links made to Hollywood/mainstream examples alongside independent and more esoteric art-house films. Most candidates maintained a sharp focus on the question and did not let their enthusiasm for the subject matter detract them from it. Better candidates were able to identify a range of ‘factors’ affecting production and discuss the importance of some of them in great detail. There were some very engaging case studies that detailed the production histories of very different films such as ‘Batman Begins’ and ‘Whiplash’ that showed very good preparation and the encouraging use of WJEC online resources. Most candidates were able to identify key issues in the resource materials and seemed familiar with the concepts of mainstream and independent cinema. Better candidates were able to supplement the resource materials with their own examples. Most candidates argued, understandably, that the desire for profit was the key factor in most forms of film production but they also recognised that filmmakers’ creative interests, cultural influences, star and studio interests as well as other factors could also be influential for certain films. Question 2 Most candidates were able to discuss confidently different forms of film exhibition and the different viewing experiences available. There were many answers that discussed the relative merits of ‘home viewing’ compared to ‘cinema viewing’ with better candidates supporting points made through close reference to particular films they had watched in particular contexts. Some of the most interesting answers were able to outline key technological developments in film exhibition and consider whether these had actually changed the viewing experience. Many concluded that the changes were not necessarily significant. There were some passionate and lively criticisms of the supposed improvements afforded by 3D and smartphone exhibition. Alternatively, many candidates focused on the interesting and potentially powerful developments in the portable features of viewing films on tablets or the excitement that innovations in social screenings, such as Secret Cinema and Film Festivals can offer. There were some very interesting uses of personal experience here that allowed candidates to talk about the interplay of spectator, technology, context and film in this question - especially when the candidates engaged with the ‘how far’ aspect of the question and closely examined the influence of the exhibition method upon their experience. Many candidates did not develop their responses adequately because they did not evaluate developments in film exhibition. Not focusing carefully on the question set is a common problem in examinations and something that will continue to need to be focused on in revision preparation. Some candidates were confused between 'exhibition' and 'distribution' in this question and lost focus on 'exhibition'. Clarifying terminology and the distinct stages of the film industry cycle may be useful revision too. A final point is that examiners reported a worrying trend to discuss extended TV dramas such as Breaking Bad and Boardwalk Empire in this question. Whilst these productions may be very ‘cinematic’, they are not suitable texts for Film Studies.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Section B British Cinema Overview These sections were generally answered well with evidence of detailed preparation, good levels of learning and engaged responses. Many candidates were able to focus clearly on the question, refer to their films in precise detail and show clear understanding of the topic studied. There was a significant number of centres preparing able and less able candidates very well, which enabled them all to achieve their best possible marks. There were good signs of a growing focus on narrative techniques and features such as plot sequencing and motivation, particularly in British Film and Genre. There are still cases of candidates using inappropriate films, e.g., This is England and Billy Elliot for the cultural study (Thatcher’s Britain). Centres unsure of the appropriateness of films should seek advice from WJEC. Examiners do not recommend using the same films for two different topics. Candidates do not appear to be able to select the appropriate information in reponse to the question set. Preparing candidates for two topics by using the same films can also mean that the films chosen are not the best choices for either topic. There were some rubric issues this year with candidates seeming unsure of which question number they were answering or, trying to fit, for example, a Living with Crime response into the Genre topic. It is recommended that teachers ensure that candidates are aware of the need to identify in the margin the number of the question they are answering. Many candidates do not fill in the question box on the front of the examination paper. This is not only important for examiners but it will also ensure that candidates are aware of which question they are answering. Candidates can only effectively discuss two or three films in the required amount of detail in the time given. Any more than this tends to produce a superficial response. (One centre used seven horror films, which led to very descriptive responses). Weaker candidates' responses tend to be too descriptive. British Film and Genre (Question 3 and 4) Horror was the most frequently tackled topic in this section. There were, nevertheless, some excellent responses on Ealing Comedy, with a sound and insightful focus on the British aspects of films. Stronger candidates answered well on genre and representation and the majority included some interesting references to place and time periods with a confident discussion of genre conventions. Many candidates answering on Horror referred to The Descent and Eden Lake. A good many candidates dealt with theory well but the weaker candidates struggled with the concepts and spent too much time trying to put in the names of theorists rather than concentrate on what they understood and could relate to in the film. Examiners felt that many were disadvantaged by what seemed to be formulaic responses. The stronger candidates understood and answered well on genre and representation. With Eden Lake, a good number were able to reference moral dilemmas in society. Horror: Dracula (Hammer); The Descent; Eden Lake; Deathline; My Little Eye; 28 Days Later. One centre produced very good responses with The Awakening and Woman in Black. Comedy: Lady Killers; East Is East; The Full Monty; Four Lions; Whiskey Galore; Kind Hearts and Coronets.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
Question 3 This question was, in the main, well answered. There were sound references to place and time periods and knowledgeable discussion on genre conventions. Responses on Horror dominated and the best answers compared, for example, the various settings in 28 Days Later with the very fixed setting of The Wicker Man. Better candidates were able to offer detailed micro analysis of particular sequences and also embed contexts into the answer. They were also able to outline specifically British features raised by the films. Responses using An American Werewolf in London and 28 Days Later looked at patriarchy and the ‘zeitgeist’ of the 80s and at genre conventions and cinematography. Although ‘settings’ in Comedy was confusing for some candidates and difficult for ‘coming of age’ comedies, candidates did quite well with Albatross and Submarine, looking at rural and seaside locations, school, the suffocation of the suburbs and ‘escape’. Question 4 Some candidates offered a survey approach to the films here, focusing on moments and not specific sequences, which was not what the question asked for. The best answers had a clear focus on specific sequences, offering a wide and varied set of messages and values for the films studied. Once again good responses were able to draw on micro/macro/contextual information to support their assertions. The comparison with Four Lions and Whiskey Galore was interesting but it struggled with linking themes (even though comparisons are not explicitly required in this section). Responses using The Life of Brian and Four Lions were able to discuss aspects of black comedy within the genre. Brassed Off and The Full Monty produced good responses on comedy and social realism. British Films and Stars (Question 5 and 6) Not many centres chose this topic but there was some good work on Ewan McGregor looking at Trainspotting, Miss Potter and Little Voice, with sound knowledge and understanding of the films. Other candidates found it difficult to engage their response with the question. British Film and Production Companies (Question 7 and 8) Working Title: Stronger candidates examined the range of Working Title films produced and then focused on romantic comedy. Some of the responses to Working Title were contrived and candidates seemed to struggle with connecting films to the studio. Examiners felt that this was an area where candidates seemed to be trying to answer a set question. In addition, some candidates seemed to want to write more about genre than studios, which may have been because they had been prepared for both topics. This approach does not work well and is not advised. Working Title films: Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill. Ealing Studios: Ealing Studios was very well taught and responses demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the production company and of the films: Whisky Galore, Man in the White Suit looked at slapstick, community heroism and documentary style. Other well-taught centres looked at Kind Hearts and Coronets, Passport to Pimlico and The Blue Lamp and examined messages and values and British elements with sound references to social history. Question 7 Most of the responses avoided reductive notions of how Working Title films represent British values. Once again the better answers used sequences. There were some excellent, productive responses on Ealing Studios.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
Question 8 This was the more popular option. Many of the better candidates did discuss the identity of Working Title in some depth. They also looked at the way that it changed over the years (and indeed continues to further evolve). The less effective answers looked at how Working Title just works off a formula, rather than looking at the evaluative ‘how far’ aspect of the question. British Film: Cultural Study (Question 9 and 10) Swinging Britain dominated the responses with good use of Poor Cow and Darling. Representation was handled well and there were good references to the social history of the period. A Hard Day's Night and Darling were frequently used well together, particularly on the gender question. Kes was used well to provide an example of conflicting values. Centres need to be reminded to check the appropriateness of the films chosen for this section. Question 9 Examiners felt that the term ‘conflicting values’ may have put candidates off this question. Better responses focused on largely generational differences linked to the changing times. There were some fine answers on Billy Liar and A Clockwork Orange. Many candidates struggled with Performance although some centres did produce good work on Performance, If and Alfie. Question 10 There were some good responses on gender, most focusing on women. By and large there was a solid use of contexts, although there was a predictable tendency by some candidates to use this in a reductive manner. Productive answers were seen on Up the Junction, Darling and Alfie. British Film: Living with Crime (Question 11 and 12) Some very engaged and detailed analytical work here. An improvement in the quality of narrative analysis was seen with the productive used of narrative terminology. Harry Brown, Bullet Boy and The Angel’s Share were used effectively by one centre. Sweet Sixteen was also used well. Question 11 The most difficult aspect of this question was for candidates to discuss ‘challenges’ directly. The best answers focused on key extracts in some detail and worked on the premise that challenges were often the result of contextual issues. Question 12 Examiners felt that the focus of ‘living with crime’ was misunderstood by some candidates. They appeared unprepared to discuss ‘macro’ features appropriately. Better answers still use films like Bullet Boy, although a number of candidates struggled with more generic texts like Harry Brown. British Film: Identity Study – Borders and Belonging (Question 13 and 14) Good links were made in this section to social representation and stronger candidates were able to make good references to sequences that related to the question. One centre used Bend it Like Beckham and Trainspotting well in this way. Candidates showed close and meaningful engagement with passionate and well-written examples of analysis and discussion of messages and values.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
Question 13 Responses on Hunger and In the Name of the Father were generally good. This question was done well with a good focus on borders and/or belonging and a clear sense of the closing sequences. Better answers made productive use of film language and contextual information. Question 14 This was the more popular of the two questions. There was a good sense of how these characters represented important messages and values for the whole film. This was particularly true of Gerry Conlon in In the Name of the Father. Better responses looked at a range of characters with some support from sequences. Section C: American Film – Comparative Study Overview In section C centres are, on the whole, making good film choices enabling candidates to offer detailed sequences and make sound comparisons. Some centres might revisit the appropriateness of the chosen films in order to enable candidates to make strong comparisons. Context is still problematic for some centres and there needs to be more time spent on this. The time when a film was made and the time when it was set causes some confusion for candidates when responding to examination questions. It is recommended that teachers aim to clarify the implications of this distinction for candidates. Good film choices were frequently made in this section, particularly where genre formed a framework for comparison. There were detailed and mature comparisons of gangster, war and film noir films that worked particularly well when framed by significant historical or cultural events in America, e.g. Noir comparisons that looked at the impact of feminism in the 60s or Watergate in the 70s. Many candidates are failing to maximise their marks by not showing any evidence of context in their responses. Question 16 specifically asked candidates to engage with their ‘wider contextual studies’. Some candidates were unable to develop responses beyond the fact that their chosen films had been made ‘a long time apart’ or tended to use genre as a contextual influence. Centres choosing one film and allowing candidates to select the second comparison film can lead to choices which make it difficult for candidates to compare. Question 15 This question did not cause problems for candidates and was generally well done. There was a clear focus on the openings and links to key messages and values. Better answers were able to discuss micro and macro issues in depth and make productive comparisons. When context was referred to, it was usually relevant. Question 16 This question demands an understanding of context and caused candidates some problems. The emphasis on contextual studies has been challenging for candidates in the past. There was insufficient exploration of ‘how far’ an evaluation of contextual study helps understanding. Some candidates offered the pre-prepared paragraph approach, which outlines the history around the film. Although this information is relevant, it needs to be embedded within discussion of film sequences. Candidates in some cases struggled to discuss similarities and differences in a meaningful fashion.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
Film comparisons Very good scripts seen were for Ice Storm and American Beauty. Candidates responded well and both Q15 & 16 were equally successful, with candidates able to reference and contextualise, particularly in relation to the American Dream. Pale Rider and Shane was another sound combination which allowed candidates to explore and produce strong responses. It enabled candidates to discuss messages and values, community, relationships and good versus evil. Angels with Dirty Faces and The Departed were well taught and dealt with the representation of men, the rise and fall of the gangster (Cain and Abel) and the Church against gangster heroes in the context of the Depression. Film Noir was very well taught and there were sophisticated responses looking at iconography, archetypes, neo-noir and views of noir itself – genre or non genre. The films most frequently studied were Double Indemnity and The Last Seduction. Silence of the Lambs and Psycho was a successful combination. Unforgiven and The Searchers was an excellent combination and allowed candidates to look at race, genre and context. There was excellent work on Scream and Psycho looking in detail at the film texts and their context. Halloween was another good comparison with Psycho where candidates were able to identify references to the film and discuss context well. There was some very good work on Twelve Monkeys and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The candidates had been well taught and produced insightful and knowledgeable work with excellent contextual references. Django Unchained compared with Gladiator and Inglorious Basterds did not work well because the references to the US context was flimsy. Other films compared: Green Berets & Platoon Green Berets & Apocalypse Now Ice Storm & American Beauty Rambo & Rambo II Shawshank Redemption & One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest Oceans 11 & remake Double Indemnity & The Last Seduction Pale Rider & Shane American Beauty & The Wolf of Wall Street Rebel Without A Cause & Ferris Bueller’s Day Off Scarface & Goodfellas Precious & Milk Iron Man & The Dark Knight Grapes of Wrath & O Brother Where Art Thou.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
FILM STUDIES General Certificate of Education Summer 2015 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced FM3 – INTERNAL ASSESSMENT – FILM RESEARCH AND CREATIVE PROJECTS
Principal Examiner:
Freddie Gaffney
Centres have largely used the Research Project to build their candidates' knowledge of research methodologies and abilities. This reflects an excellent teaching approach to what is a strength of the specification. Many candidates were able to produce well-considered and thorough academic work that shows real and dynamic engagement with Film Studies. Centres who spent time at the early stages of the projects working with their candidates on identifying suitable contextualising frameworks and honing the focus of the projects tended to produce better results. A wide range of frameworks was engaged with, although auteur and genre were dominant. Simple star study seems to remain the focus of weaker candidates, who should be encouraged to adopt a more critical approach to the construction and use of the star, thereby avoiding simple biography. In previous years, the examiners' report has identified the problems created by centres restricting their candidates' choices (either of topic or of contextualising framework). Unfortunately, there are many cases where this still occurs. As stated last year, a ‘whole centre’ approach is unlikely to be in the best interests of candidates and is not in the spirit of the specification. Candidates who are given freedom of choice tend to work to their areas of interest and therefore put in greater effort and engage better with their chosen topic of research. There was some excellent work in all aspects of the Creative Project, with centres clearly encouraging the wider application of learning through creative work and reflection. Filmmaking and Scriptwriting were again the dominant options, and some centres pushed their candidates to produce sophisticated, mature, engaged work, reflecting other elements from their Film Studies course. There was some good work in the Documentary Step Outline option although there was also some work that would have benefited from more formal investigation of the form. As with FM1, there were some isolated instances of plagiarism. Centres are advised to work hard on detecting this in-centre, applying centre policies to address this issue (which is the agreed Joint Council of Qualification approach). Most plagiarised work is taken directly from the internet, and is therefore is relatively easy to source. Centres should avoid sending drafts of candidate work, the catalogue items themselves or multiple versions of films for moderation. Only the items for assessment as identified in the Specification should be included. Centres should ensure that annotated copies of the candidates’ work are submitted rather than sending 'clean copies', since the annotation is key to assessing how the mark has been arrived at.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
The Small Scale Research Project This year, candidates pursued a wide range of research topics, with World Cinema topics increasing in prominence. There is some irony in the fact that British Film topics reduced their share, despite British Cinema going through a significant growth period. Contemporary film dominated, although there was a range of film periods addressed. Most candidates were able to engage with new knowledge and complete primary and secondary research effectively. Some candidates carried out some very effective primary research, whilst others were able to use quantitative and qualitative data to build a body of supporting evidence. It is worth reiterating last year’s comment on secondary research: Skills in secondary research are well evidenced and certainly within the capabilities of most candidates. As noted last year, in the Annotated Catalogue multiple entries from collation sites (such as IMDb and Wikipedia) should be viewed as one source with multiple pages, and should be referenced as such. YouTube clips from the chosen focus films should not be included in the Annotated Catalogue as they do not represent additional material or separate items. Other YouTube clips (directors speaking, clips from documentaries, etc.) are to be encouraged. The Annotated Catalogues were widely sourced, although at the weaker candidates seemed rather over-reliant on generalist sources such as Wikipedia or IMDb. Stronger candidates' annotation offered analysis of the research material (and source) and ascribed relative value to it whereas weaker work tended to be descriptive rather than evaluative. A significant minority of candidates did not offer any 'deselected' items. Centres are encouraged to ensure that their candidates undertake a considered selection process. As noted in last year's report, it is recommended that centres introduce their candidates to some form of academic referencing such as Harvard referencing. This will allow them to reference the catalogue items effectively and is a valuable transferable skill. The Presentation Script element was effective in the majority of centres, although some still advised their candidates to submit it in an essay form. It has to be stressed that the presentation script is not an essay but a script for a presentation. As such, it should utilise an appropriate presentation form. The majority of candidates, however, were able to utilise a range of presentation tools and approaches, with some centres enabling their candidates to give presentations. This is an effective way of encouraging candidates to develop effective presentation scripts. Most Candidates were able to use one of the defined frameworks to contextualise their research. This is something that could be foregrounded further in future years to ensure the selected framework is clearly identifiable and clearly a shaping device. The majority of candidates were able to make direct, itemised reference to the Annotated Catalogue. Candidates should be encouraged to make direct reference to the catalogue items – the easiest way to do this is by catalogue item number.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
Creative Project The Creative Project work still continues to go from strength to strength producing high quality work across all options, particularly in the film production and the screenwriting options. The very best of this work is worthy of first year undergraduate study. Candidates are able to demonstrate the application of a wide range of knowledge and understanding, both practical and theoretical, in the construction of creative work. This could be further enhanced through some focused research into form and style, and candidates should be encouraged to explore the wealth of material available that could support the development of techniques and a greater critical understanding of the form. Centres still need to work further on the Aims and Contexts on the FM3a form – a simple set of bullet points with some considered ambitions (beyond wanting to “make a film”) will provide a greater context for more accurate marking and differentiation between candidates collaborating on a creative project. As in previous years, the Screenwriting option yielded a lot of dialogue heavy scripts, many with little by way of cinematic traits (they may as well have been stage plays). There continues to be an inappropriate use of the ‘shooting script’ form as opposed to the ‘masterscene script’ form, which is the appropriate one for the assessment. Centres should endeavour to give their candidates access to suitable exemplar material and screenwriting texts to ensure that they are adequately equipped for this component. Most candidates engaging with the Documentary Step Outline were able to evidence the development of ideas from their Research Projects, and this produced some creditable work. The strongest candidates were supported in their creative work with research into documentary technique and into the construction of reality, and this is to be encouraged. The Film Production option again produced some highly charged, imaginative work, including material that stretched and challenged the form. Candidates produced films that were truly cinematic in approach, though at the lower end of the range there was a lot of excessively generic material. It is worth candidates engaging with their chosen form (even if it is a zombie movie or slasher horror) and researching an understanding of stylistic features in order to move beyond the norm. There was again some issue with material being submitted in a format that could not be played/opened. Centres are reminded that they MUST supply films on DVD that can be read on a standard DVD player, and that these should be checked for readability before being dispatched. The Reflective Analysis was largely well addressed by candidates, with both decisionmaking and the application of specific learning within a role explored. With group projects, it is essential that candidates’ own individual roles become the focus for the analysis with a clear address of what decisions they made within their individual role to contribute to the making of meaning. Centres must endeavour to lead candidates away from a more traditional evaluative approach and towards a more closely focused reflective, analytical approach.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
FILM STUDIES General Certificate of Education Summer 2015 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced FM4 – VARIETIES OF FILM EXPERIENCE: ISSUES AND DEBATES
Principal Examiner:
Patrick Phillips
The examination paper included some demanding questions in all three sections and it is to the credit of candidates that, on the whole, they were able to use these questions effectively to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding. The majority of candidates were well prepared and it was clear that in many centres the level of teaching and learning is high. As in the past, some centres over-prepared for anticipated questions, in so doing putting their candidates at a disadvantage as they were less able to think on their feet. Candidates from some centres produced answers that were almost identical, indicating an exam preparation practice that is generally counter-productive, not least in preventing an individual ‘voice’ or allowing a sense of personal enquiry. Candidates who worked from an enabling framework of knowledge, within which they were able to respond directly and freshly to the question set, were generally the most successful. It is very pleasing to see that a number of films are studied for the chosen topics in Sections A and B. Exposing candidates to a wider number of films than the minimum requirement of two is particularly useful for giving a wider contextual field of reference, as well as providing choice. However, most candidates were actually limited by writing on more than two films in the exam. Within the time available writing with depth and detail about two principal films is sufficient – although brief reference to further films in order to make specific points can be valuable. One topic where this issue is especially notable is documentary (questions 11 and 12). This year it was good to see an improvement in basic referencing – such as being able to identify the correct year of release of a film – and in the spelling of films and the names of key creative talent associated with those films. A general grasp of history seems a challenge for many students. It clearly is worth spending some time on general historical context, not least because it increases the candidate’s confidence – as well as the examiner’s confidence in the candidate. After a wayward introductory paragraph full of historical inaccuracies, there is a lot of recovering to be done! Section A: World Cinema Topics Good work continues to be done for the National Cinema topic – with Japanese 1950-70 producing consistently good work. Question 1 asked candidates to think about a ‘national style’ whilst question 2, the more popular, encouraged lively and engaged answers. New Waves and Neo-realism are the most popular options within the International Film Styles topic. Question 3 asked candidates to discuss ways in which their films and their styles were ‘new and important contributions to cinema’. Some candidates revelled in the opportunity provided to discuss innovation and wrote with considerable engagement.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
Urban Stories remains the most popular topic in this Section. Within this topic La Haine and City of God rule supreme. The argument is always a sound one that these films are fresh to the candidates if not to teachers and examiners – and clearly they do work well. This year the context question (question 6) was answered rather weakly by a number of candidates, suggesting that more detailed work could be done in ‘locating’ the chosen films. Empowering Women is a potentially exciting topic that is currently producing answers somewhat limited in scope. One of the reasons for this appears to be a rather mechanistic approach to the idea of empowerment – a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ in which women gain control over key aspects of their lives. More focus on the compromises and contradictions in films that purport to be about female empowerment is encouraged, as is more reflection on what actually constitutes empowerment. Section B: Spectatorship Topics The central focus on spectatorship in this section cannot be emphasised enough. Topics offer the opportunity to focus on different kinds of work – on early film, on documentary, on experimental, on mainstream commercial film – but the fundamental is that spectatorship and spectator response is at the heart of every question. One useful way of approaching spectatorship is in terms of the film experience. The more dynamic and interactive the model of spectatorship used to describe the film experience, the more candidates are encouraged to reflect on their work, their activity as spectators, as well as the work of the film itself. The Early Cinema topic continues to be offered successfully by a minority of centres. It is the topic that most enables a direct engagement with the spectator, not least because the spectator is being invented by early film. Similarly Experimental/Expanded Film/Video has a very distinctive focus on the spectator, indeed often trying to reinvent the spectator out of the normal viewing position of routine movie watching. By contrast the Documentary topic (already referred to in the introductory section of this report) is the one most likely to lead candidates away from spectatorship altogether into what can perhaps be described as Bill Nichols studies! There is fascinating work to be done in looking at the particular ways in which documentary addresses the spectator and the range of ways in which the spectator may respond. Centres are encouraged to question and move beyond an over-reliance on Bill Nichols' framework for documentary study. The Popular Film topic generally produced good work. Many candidates chose question 15 and were able to focus effectively on dramatic sequences – and indeed to write about drama in relation to spectatorship. Question 16 asked about pleasure in the mix of the predictable and the unpredictable in popular film. Those centres that focus on genre films were particularly advantaged and some interesting answers were produced. In general the choice of films for this section is not difficult: mainstream formula movies characterised by strong oppositions between vice and virtue, heightened melodramatic situations and the deployment of film techniques to provide an intense viewing experience are all very effective. Some centres seem resistant to this and are choosing more ‘independent’ and ‘art house’ films: this is not in the best interest of candidates and does not represent a film choice required by the topic.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
Section C: Single Film: Close Critical Analysis Question 17 is always formulated in relation to one or more critical approach. For several years there has been a slippage from a critical approach as an interpretative method derived from film and media theory to a named interpretation as such. For example, an auteur or gender critical approach to Vertigo is highly appropriate. However, ‘masculinity-in-crisis’ is not what the specification means by a critical approach – rather this is a possible finding from the application of a critical approach. For reference, the critical approaches are the same as those listed for the FM3 Research Project. Question18 is differentiated from question 17 with its focus on critics and reviewers. Candidates should be able to name specific individuals and be able to reference what they have written or spoken about their chosen film. This year’s question focused on critics provoking disagreement and was answered well by candidates with a willingness to use their knowledge in debate. The specific questions were generally answered well with candidates showing a high level of knowledge and understanding of their chosen film. In light of this, it is interesting to note that approximately 50% of candidates are now choosing to do question17 or question18 (mainly the former). The obvious explanation is that centres feel that they can prepare candidates for these general questions. In practice, they are proving to be good illustrations of what was referred to in the introductory section of this report as over-preparedness. Candidates who marry excellent knowledge to a strong willingness to discuss and debate with a sense of personal engagement are the ones who will achieve the highest grades. Fight Club and Vertigo both continue to prompt very interesting critical writing. Talk to Her, Modern Times and Battle of Algiers are also popular choices producing very good work. Overall, Section C works extremely well as synoptic assessment, demonstrating the range of candidates’ knowledge and their growing maturity in critical analysis and debate.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
WJEC 245 Western Avenue Cardiff CF5 2YX Tel No 029 2026 5000 Fax 029 2057 5994 E-mail:
[email protected] website: www.wjec.co.uk
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
