A2 film examiner's report by tallis media

FILM STUDIES General Certificate of Education Summer 2016 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced FM3: FILM RESEARCH AND CREATIVE PROJECTS

Introduction As with FM1, most candidates were able to produce work in all components that showed a real and dynamic engagement with Film Studies and were able to exploit their own interests and enthusiasms. Centres produced better results when they spent time working with candidates during the early stages of the research projects on research techniques and how to work within contextualising frameworks. A wide range of contextualising frameworks was engaged with, although auteur and genre were dominant. Candidates should ensure that they understand the purpose of the contextualising framework and can be encouraged to explore key aspects of it as part of their research. This is particularly the case with the star/performer framework, which should be used to enable candidates to approach their chosen star through star or performance studies. Candidates can also be encouraged to adopt a critical approach to the use of the contextualising framework, which will in turn enable a more critical assessment of the research material and the construction of the presentation script. Once again there was some excellent work across all the components of the creative project, with centres clearly encouraging candidates to engage with a wider application of learning. Filmmaking and scriptwriting were the dominant options, although there were some interesting documentary step outlines. It was good to see a number of centres encouraging a detailed investigation into the documentary form and the majority of candidates were able to apply learning from other aspects of their Film Studies course (most obviously FM4, Section B). It is worth reiterating last year’s advice that centres should avoid sending drafts of candidate work or catalogue items 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 teacher annotation enables moderators to understand how assessment decisions have been arrived at. The Small Scale Research Project This year, candidates researched a wide range of topics. Many explored Hollywood topics, although several researched very effectively topics from both British and World cinemas. Contemporary film topics dominated, possibly more so than in previous years. Most candidates were able to engage with both primary and secondary research. In addition to analysing focus and related films, primary research can include information gained from filmmakers or film specialists (such as emails, phone calls, visits, experiments and a wide range of other approaches). Similarly, secondary research could be used both quantitatively as well as qualitatively to support a project. Whatever research method is used, a variety of sources for the secondary research in particular should be used (e.g., books, magazines, articles and internet sources). Over-reliance on generalist internet items does not represent wide research. Equally, the annotated catalogue should clearly demonstrate how the item contributed to the development of the research. Several moderators commented that © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

questionnaires of individual responses to films did not appear to contribute significantly to research. Please note the following in relation to secondary research:  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 and related films should not be included in the annotated catalogue as they do not represent additional items to the focus or related films  Other YouTube clips (such as directors speaking, clips from documentaries) are to be encouraged. The annotated catalogues were generally widely sourced though at the weaker end of the range many were over-reliant on generalist sources such as Wiikipedia or IMDb. At the very top of the range, the annotation offered clear and valuable analysis of the research material (and source), indicating how items contributed to the development of the research project. At the lower end of the range the annotation was often weak, descriptive of the material (rather than evaluative) and unable to account for the value of the source to the research. A small number of candidates do not offer any deselected items (or do not adequately address this requirement). Centres need to encourage their candidates to undertake a considered selection process of items based on how far they contribute to the development of their research. (Some appear to seek out items deliberately intended to be 'deselected'.) Academic referencing (Harvard Referencing or similar) is not always strongly evident and an early introduction to such a system for candidates will enable them to reference the catalogue items effectively. Most centres were effective in enabling their candidates to develop effective presentation scripts, although some still advise their candidates to submit this in an essay form. It should be stressed that the presentation script is not an essay but a script for a presentation using an appropriate form (e.g. subheadings, combination of continuous prose and bullet points to allow for a focused way of developing ideas – examples are available on the WJEC website). The majority of candidates, however, created some very effective presentations using a variety of presentation approaches. Creative Project The creative project work was strong this year with high quality work produced across all options, some of which transcended the level expected. The film production and the screenwriting options were again dominant, though there were some interesting documentary step outlines produced. The application of a wide range of knowledge and understanding was demonstrated through the creative project, with candidates able to apply their knowledge and understanding of film to the construction of creative work. (See WJEC website for an example). As mentioned in last year’s report, centres need to work further on ensuring candidates set out clear aims and contexts of their work on the FM3a form – a simple set of bullet points with some considered aims (beyond wanting to 'make a film') will provide a suitable context for more accurate marking and differentiation between candidates collaborating on a creative project. The screenwriting option continues to produce a lot of dialogue-heavy scripts. Centres should encourage their candidates to study some texts on screenwriting and aim to use cinematic devices as an alternative to dialogue. The 'master scene script' form was used by the majority this year with relatively few using an inappropriate 'shooting script' form.

The majority of candidates undertaking the documentary step outline developed ideas from their research projects with the strongest candidates researching into documentary techniques and theories to help shape their work. The film production option resulted in some very effective filmmaking and it was good to see some experimental material that set out to challenge the form. At the lower end of the range, there was some derivative genre-based material which would have benefited from a clearer understanding of the relevant codes and conventions in order to use them effectively (or even move beyond their normal use). There were some issues with material being submitted in a format that could not be played or 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 and centred on their own role in filmmaking. With group projects, it is essential that candidates focus on their own individual role and decision-making showing how that leads to the making of meaning. Centres should encourage candidates to move away from a more traditional evaluative approach and towards a more closely focused reflective, analytical approach that demonstrates how key aspects of their chosen option make meaning.

ÂŠ WJEC CBAC Ltd.

FILM STUDIES General Certificate of Education Summer 2016 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced FM4: VARIETIES OF FILM EXPERIENCE: ISSUES AND DEBATES

Introduction The 2016 FM4 examination offered some challenges. Candidates were generally wellprepared in terms of knowledge and understanding of their chosen films, but were not always able to adapt this to the requirements of the questions set. While the best answers were able to engage directly with the question and shape an answer, many involved the candidate presenting what they knew and hoping for the best! Generally, candidates are not well served in Section A and B by writing on more than two films. Focusing in depth on two films allows a response to the question through detailed and sustained discussion – as opposed to relatively more superficial writing on a greater body of material. Centres may of course want to teach three films and possibly extracts from more but candidates need to be encouraged to focus on the two films which are most appropriate for the question. In Section C, the perceived predictability of questions 17 and 18 is encouraging some centres to prepare answers. This is never recommendable as the question will always offer a particular steer that the candidate must be responsive to. The best work is always that in which the candidate has been encouraged and trained to take their knowledge and understanding as the raw material for an answer that offers a fresh and lively engagement with the issues the question is assessing. Section A Questions 1 & 2: This section is always challenging as candidates have to attempt to make meaningful comment on some aspect of a national cinema from a small sample of films. With regard to gender and sexuality, there were some interesting answers based on Iranian and Mexican films, although Japanese films seemed to encourage a greater resort to stereotypes. By far the strongest answers were from candidates who wrote on Bollywood. Indeed, the level of engagement here was often exemplary. Considering issues of international appeal proved difficult. What was clear was that candidates could answer the question if they thought about it – but many lacked the confidence and independence to do so. Questions 3 & 4: Neo-Realism and New Wave cinemas dominated responses to this section. Some candidates were able to look at widely differing films from widely differing periods or national contexts, with others restricting themselves to 1940s Italy or early 1960s France respectively. Some struggled with a third film which was difficult to integrate with the first two – perhaps because of very different production and cultural contexts. This was most obviously the case when candidates considered 'the times in which [the films] were made'. There were some solid answers on German/Soviet and Surrealist film, although possibly less obvious candidate engagement!

Questions 5 & 6: La Haine, City of God, and Tsotsi dominated here. Answers to the narrative structure question were often quite disappointing with candidates preferring to write about almost any other feature of their chosen films instead. Description, sometimes quite detailed, dominated. The best candidates had a clear understanding of the significance of narrative structure (especially in comparing La Haine and City of God) and were able to elaborate on how structuring devices enabled the themes of their chosen films to be communicated effectively. The majority of answers on the stereotype question tended to be basic. Some candidates, however, were able to explore the concept of film as a medium of stereotypes and produced some interesting arguments. Questions 7 & 8: Both questions offered the opportunity for telling contrasts between films to be identified and discussed but many candidates seemed unable or unwilling to deviate from a very safe approach. Some centres may find it useful to revise their choice of films, perhaps moving to films which offer more possibility for debate and discussion rather than working with films that are relatively unambiguous in their assertion of women’s victory over some form of oppression, whether domestic or political. Section B Questions 9 & 10: Of all the spectatorship topics, the Early Cinema one allows candidates the clearest engagement with spectatorship. Indeed early cinema often seems to be about spectatorship. In responding to both questions, candidates were able to demonstrate good knowledge of Early Cinema and many were able to discuss the spectator in ways that demonstrated a good understanding of the symbiotic relationship between evolving production and viewing behaviours. A considerable amount of film history was displayed by some candidates – although centres must be aware of the need to focus on spectatorship rather than film history, even if this knowledge provides an excellent contextual framework. Questions 11 & 12: Documentary becomes more and more popular with a range of excellent films chosen, characterised by their variety and inherently interesting content. However, there is sometimes a problem when a broader-based documentary topic dominates over a specific and focused study of spectatorship – and indeed of what is distinctive about the viewing of documentary films. There were some excellent answers on the emotional response generated by documentary films. There were also some excellent answers on how important the presentation of evidence is in a documentary in relation both to issues of suspense and issues of trust. As in the other topics in Section B, but most pronounced here, there were some excellent explorations of filmmakers' creative techniques and the polysemic nature of response. At the lower end, there were descriptive responses with a quite basic cause-and-effect address of spectatorship. Questions 13 & 14: Relatively few centres are offering the experimental film topic. Candidates found the first question on watching and listening in different ways quite challenging at first but then recognised that their films offered much opportunity for discussion and exploration. There were fewer responses to the question on lack of narrative, partly because many of the films chosen by centres tend to be ones that do have narratives. Where possible, centres are encouraged to explore the non-narrative film as well. Questions 15 & 16: This topic is very widely chosen and is the one where there is the greatest variety of films chosen across centres. A surprising number do not take literally the call to study popular films, with the clear implication that these are mainstream, multiplex movies. The choice of relatively quirky auteur films proved a problem for some candidates attempting the question on predictability and emotional response. While there were some very interesting answers from candidates who were prepared to think on their feet, the majority of candidates struggled to identify the ‘predictable’, let alone discuss the relationship between this and spectatorship. The narrative technique answer was addressed directly, with candidates largely focusing on narrative at a macro level, although some were able to look at narrative tools on a micro level.

Section C Question 17: Different critical approaches were nominated, depending on the chosen film. Some centres need to remind themselves of the critical approaches identified in the specification (listed under FM3). These include popular choices such as the Auteur, Genre and Gender critical approaches. A particular ‘reading’ of the film by an academic or critic is, for sure, a critical approach, but centres are encouraged not to teach this exclusively but rather to place it within one of the larger frameworks suggested. Most answers took the direction of how the application of the critical approach led to an expanding rather than a limiting response to the film, though at the upper end candidates were able to address the complexities of this issue very impressively. Question 18: There has been a great improvement over the last three years in answering this question in as much as a number of named critics are now referred to in detail and their responses to the chosen film are compared. Indeed a new problem is of too many references to too many critical views, with the consequence that each is presented too superficially. Perhaps an optimum number is four. This year the best candidates were able to address both “agreement” and “disagreement” very effectively, with reference to four critical responses – with Ebert the most popular critic/reviewer. Questions 19-28: There has been an increasing move away from the specific question toward questions 17 and 18 and there are comments on this in the introductory section of this report. Clearly candidates must make a choice based on the specific question asked but in nearly all cases this year, the specific question was accessible and encouraging of discussion and debate. There were very strong answers to the Vertigo question on control and to narration in Fight Club. There was also good work on the other most popular film choices: Talk to Her, Battle of Algiers and Morvern Callar. It is recommended that centres encourage candidates to start by considering the attractiveness of the specific question set for their film before reverting to the general question if the specific question is not felt to be suitable. Many of the specific questions are eliciting a very high quality of response.