A2 film examiners' report 2015 by tallis media

GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS

FILM STUDIES

AS/Advanced

SUMMER 2015

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.