Many candidates still appeared confused about which key concepts are tested by which questions. Many discussed generic conventions in questions two and three, for example. Thus a number of small changes are proposed for future examinations to focus candidates on genre for question 1, media language for question two, and representation for question 3.
In question one the reference to ‘characters and events’ is to be phased out, as it often leads candidates to cover ‘events’ in one explanation and ‘characters’ in another. It will be replaced by the key concept ‘narrative’, which is what the ‘characters and events’ formulation was originally designed to suggest.
In question one the space for ‘explanation 1’ and ‘explanation 2’ is to be merged into one answer space, as the present split format does not seem to aid candidates.
In question two the requirement for effects ‘that fit the action adventure genre’ too often leads candidates into irrelevant discussion of generic conventions, so this requirement will be lost.
In question three there will be a list of suggested social groups and institutions whose representation and stereotyping the candidates might usefully analyse. This is designed to steer candidates away from what is essentially descriptive characterisation analysis (e.g. ‘the hero is big and strong’) or reproduction of generic conventions from question one (e.g. ‘there is a sidekick’). This list may be quite long as better answers usually explore the representation of a range of groups, but candidates will not be required or expected to cover every item in the list. Some items will be more challenging than others. The list for the current examination might have included, for example: ‘gender’, ‘nationality’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘class’, ‘the US army’, and ‘Iraq’. Sophisticated (level 4) answers might have explored the stereotyping of Iraq as exotic and threatening to an implied western audience. The majority of answers might not have explored much beyond gender and nationality.
Candidates will be expected to make notes on separate sheets of paper. These are to be destroyed at the end of the examination and are not to be sent off with the scripts.
Section A
Question 1
This was generally well answered with most candidates able to identify two conventions, such as the ‘race against time’, the ‘hero and villain’, the ‘violence and danger’, the ‘teamwork among the heroes’.
Level four answers were characterised by accurate use of terminology, such as ‘protagonist’, antagonist’ and ‘generic conventions’. Some usefully mentioned how the war film is a sub-genre of action adventure. Theory is not required and can sometimes distract a candidate from answering the question.
Less successful answers often consisted of a long description of the extract which, in the case of level two and three answers, occasionally mentioned elements that happened to be generic. These answers appeared to cry out for the application of a ‘genre toolkit’. Candidates who had learned a set of generic conventions that they could apply to any extract appeared to be at a significant advantage over those who started from the fine detail of the extract and then, in the more successful version of these answers, tried to explain how this created action and/or adventure.
Question 2
Better answers discussed at least two or three examples for each bullet point, taking care to make these specific examples, and to discuss the connotative effect for each example (e.g. ‘the camera is hand held as Sanborn runs up the stairs connoting the rush he is in’, ‘there is fast paced editing after the car explodes connoting the panic caused’). Some less successful answers might discuss a media language element in general terms without quoting a specific example (e.g. ‘there is hand held camera’, ‘there is fast paced editing’). Other less successful answers might give a long list of specific examples but fail to discuss the connotative effect for any example.
Soundtrack was generally answered well, apart from much confusion over the difference between ‘diegetic’ and ‘non-diegetic’ sound (these concepts cause so much error that weaker answers might be better off without them). Many candidates discussed the use of music, the emphasis on gunshots, the fire and the shouting, James’s breathing, and the effect of the siren. Some less successful answers applied pre-learned ideas (e.g. that the music climaxes with the action) which did not apply in this case.
Editing was answered well, with many answers contrasting the slower pace of editing in the early part of the extract to the faster pace during the action. Many candidates noted the use of shot reverse shot in the bathroom scene and the use of cross-cutting as Sanborn runs up the building. The terms ‘eyeline match’ and ‘jump cut’, however, were very commonly misapplied and, like ‘diegetic sound’, might be concepts that typically lead to more confusion than clarity. Unusually, there was one small jump cut in the extract (two shots on Sanborn from the same angle), but it was very seldom spotted by candidates. Better answers showed a clear awareness of the distinction between camerawork and editing and were not distracted by analysing camera shots such as tracking under editing.
Mise en scene caused more difficulties than usual, perhaps because of the naturalistic setting and lighting. Many candidates listed props and costumes but fewer effectively discussed connotations, leading to often quite descriptive answers. Better answers linked the mise en scene to connotations of danger, realism and masculinity.
Camerawork was very often the strongest part of a candidate’s answer. There were many references to specific uses of hand held camera, point of view shots (surprisingly accurately, as this is often a very misapplied term), tracking, low angle and high angle shots, close ups, establishing shots, and zooms (again this is a term often misapplied but zooms were present in this extract). Better answers showed a clear awareness of the distinction between camerawork and editing and were not distracted by analysing editing techniques such as cross cutting under camerawork.
Question 3
This is the most challenging question on the paper. There were many good answers that discussed such representation issues as the stereotypical masculinity of the protagonists, the stereotypical vulnerability of the women running from the UN offices, the stereotypical equation of Arab with terrorist, the stereotypical representation of the US army as the men in charge and of the Iraqi police as inadequate, the positioning of the audience as American and thus the representation of Iraq and Iraqis as ‘foreign’, and the value placed on self-sacrifice and teamwork. Better answers often noted the contradictory and slightly difficult representation of Colonel Reed as a smug and heartless American.
Many weaker responses seemed very short, often less than a page. Some were very descriptive responses focusing on characterisation and/or generic conventions (what makes James a typical 'hero', Sanborn a ‘sidekick’, or the civilians the typical 'damsel in distress') with no attempt to consider the representation of social groups.
Some answers made no reference to the term 'stereotype'. This restricted their mark to level two even for those demonstrating understanding of the concept.
Again, candidates who had appeared to have learned to apply a ‘representation toolkit’ were usually at a significant advantage. Doggedly working through a list of social groups did not always succeed – many candidates struggled with sexuality in this extract, and to only analyse groups that were absent (such as people with disabilities) was a limited exercise – but at demonstrated some understanding of representation issues.
Candidates should always demonstrate that they are discussing media stereotypes, not matters of fact. There were some discussions of the army’s masculinity that failed to make this distinction (e.g. ‘the army are all male as women wouldn’t be able to fight’) or for whom the distinction was unclear (e.g. ‘we wouldn’t expect women to fight’). Some of the comments on Sanborn’s anger may have been discussing racial stereotyping, or may just have been racial stereotypes themselves.
We watch an exam extract and analyse mise-en-scene, camerawork, sound and editing.
Text: The Hurt Locker (directed by Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)
Official trailer HERE ON YOUTUBE with most of the scene from the exam extract.
Below are stills to jog your memory.
TONIGHT'S PREP: On your blog, write as much as you can in answer to this question:
How is the mise-en-scene used to create effects?
No comments:
Post a Comment