CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Examiner's Report 2016

Question No. 1

This question was answered well with increasing use of terminology meaning that many candidates gained level 4 marks. Most candidates could identify two conventions within the extract. Common examples were: a race against time, heroes versus villains, good versus evil, conflict expressed through violence, a chase, jeopardy and peril, a resourceful hero, and an exotic location. Tom Hanks might be dismayed, however, by the number of candidates who commented that he was rather old and overweight for an action/adventure hero. Weaker candidates typically concentrated at length on only one convention or cited elements - such as 'protagonist' and 'antagonist'– that are typical of all films (and failed to add 'heroic' or villainous' to make these generic). Very few answers were simply descriptive, suggesting that candidates are well prepared for this question.

Question No. 2

An effective procedure used by many better answers to this question was to identify a media language technique using the correct terminology and giving a precise identification of where this occurred in the extract then to add concise analysis of what this connotes without any unnecessary reference to generic conventions or supposed effects on the audience. Answers do not need to be lengthy to achieve high marks – those gaining level 4 marks typically did not

require additional answer sheets for this question.
Weaker answers often made generalised comments with no specific example (such as ‘there are lots of close ups’), confused camerawork and editing, offered vague effect on the audience (such as ‘making the audience tense’ or ‘raising th

e audience’s adrenaline level’), or offered generic conventions in place of connotations. Only two techniques were required for each bullet point, though answers that gave more than two often gained an advantage if a later effective example proved superior to a more weakly made earlier one. 

Soundtrack Candidates were generally able to give examples of soundtrack with connotations. Better answers were specific about the elements of soundtrack being analysed and the meaningcreated, weaker answers simply referred to ‘diegetic’ or ‘non-diegetic soundtrack’ or commented on an effect on the audience. Common elements identified included: the enhanced sound of the gunshots, the use of the alarm as a sound bridge, and the changing tone and pace in the music as the action escalated. Weaker answers did not distinguish between soundtrack and an example of sound, such as music, and some referred in a vague manner to the ‘non-diegetic soundtrack’ without specifying whether or not this referred to the music.

Editing was still often the weakest part of the answer, with many answers struggling to give connotations for continuity editing, eyeline matches, or match on action. Many candidates picked up on the cross-cutting, but fewer established connotative effect, with the better answers linking the multiple perspectives to increasing tension or danger. Many good responses noted

the increasing pace of editing at named parts of the extract (such as when the fighting started) and linked this to a sense of urgency, chaos, or danger.

Some weaker answers commented on sound, reported non-existent slow motion and jump cuts (the latter usually to erroneously describe cross-cutting), or assumed that a particular element was computer generated imagery and then failed to provide a connotative effect.

Mise-en-scène was usually accessible for candidates. Many noted the effect of the differing costumes, the isolating location, the technological differences between the two vessels, and the use of guns. Better answers gave interesting connotations for the bright, natural lighting– often in terms of naturalism or as an ironic counterpart to the events taking place –but weaker answers struggled with this.  
Camerawork, as usual, was often the best-answered bullet point. Better answers picked specific examples; weaker answers discussed, for example, the handheld camera ‘throughout the extract’. Very few answers could not identify a camerawork technique. Most common were examples of: handheld camera, point of view, fast pans, low and high angles, close ups, and aerial shots. Most responses gave connotative effects;a few answers simply described the shots.

Question No. 3

This question proved slightly more difficult this year if candidates chose to explore the full range of suggested social groups that were being represented. Most candidates could attempt an analysis of representation in relation to gender and race (and some also wrote about age fairly convincingly). The specific groups suggested in the question – Africans, Americans and Pirates–required candidates to think on their feet and demonstrate critical autonomy, so while better answers produced level 4 sophisticated analysis, weaker answers struggled with the stereotypes for these groups. However, many successfully noted that Africans are stereotyped as poor, Americans as technologically superior, and pirates are often romantically stereotyped as colourful characters with historical costumes, wooden legs and eye patches.

There were fewer candidates this year who discussed generic conventions (e.g. construction of heroes and villains) rather than representations and fewer very short answers, though many candidates wrote much less for question 3 than for question 2. Many weaker answers, however, failed to move beyond characterisation and were limited to level 2 marks.