Q1 - Describe how you developed your skills in the use of digital technology for media production and evaluate how these skills contributed to your creative decision making. Refer to a range of examples in your answer to show how these skills developed over time.
Q2 - Apply theories of narrative to one of your coursework productions.
1 )
The question on digital technology appeared to support candidates in finding a range of examples and the better answers reflected critically on the difference digital technology actually made to creative outcomes. This was the strongest set of responses since the introduction of this unit, with the better answers dealing with well chosen examples which ranged across hardware, software and online activity and began to connect these to discuss how they synthesized. The higher achieving answers related clearly candidates’ decisions to the creative potential of digital media. Less accomplished responses tended to fall into two categories – those that were confused about digital technology itself (often simply describing the use of the camera) and those that merely listed examples of technology used without sufficient analysis of how these affordances led to particular kinds of creativity that might not have been possible with analogue processes or with non-technical activities. Where candidates were able to document a journey over time, either in terms of more advanced use of technology or simply making more use of technology in A2, the higher mark bands were accessible. This was extremely difficult for candidates who were only able to speculate on future A2 work as they had not yet completed their coursework – examiners cannot credit this kind of response in a synoptic paper. Level 4 answers typically defined creativity, with references to theoretical work on this much-debated and contested area (for example, Gauntlett, Buckingham, Craft, Csikszentmihalyi, Readman) and then went on to ‘apply’ these definitions to their own use of technologies with a range of specific examples – from how web 2.0 platforms allow the consumer (arguably) to become the producer to identifying particular uses of software such as Final Cut or Dreamweaver that allowed candidates to achieve outcomes that were not possible with simpler software such as iMovie (in the case of video editing). Either, or both, of these approaches allow examiners to award higher marks as long as there is sufficient evidence of critical reflection and evaluation – for which a ‘model’ like Kolb’s cycle might be helpful.
2)
Narrative was handled fairly well by most candidates, often applying one or two ‘classic’ theoretical models from formalist / structuralist approaches to their own work – character types, equilibrium and disruption, action and enigma, semiotic codes and ‘the gaze’. The choice of text to analyse is very important in question 1b and in some cases examiners were surprised with the choices made in this regard (for example, writing about a film in 1a and a magazine in 1b). Some made a brave stab at applying the theory to print based texts, but tended to fall back more on semiotics or genre. Whilst there is no reason why a magazine or a website cannot be a rich text for narrative theory, it would seem more straightforward at A2 level for candidates to make use of the plethora of theories of film narrative at both micro (edits and continuity decisions) and macro (storytelling and culture) levels. Many candidates were able to accurately reference narrative theories – Propp and Todorov, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Goodwin and Mulvey were well described, with some very strong analyses of radio news work and of film trailers and openings.
Narrative was handled fairly well by most candidates, often applying one or two ‘classic’ theoretical models from formalist / structuralist approaches to their own work – character types, equilibrium and disruption, action and enigma, semiotic codes and ‘the gaze’. The choice of text to analyse is very important in question 1b and in some cases examiners were surprised with the choices made in this regard (for example, writing about a film in 1a and a magazine in 1b). Some made a brave stab at applying the theory to print based texts, but tended to fall back more on semiotics or genre. Whilst there is no reason why a magazine or a website cannot be a rich text for narrative theory, it would seem more straightforward at A2 level for candidates to make use of the plethora of theories of film narrative at both micro (edits and continuity decisions) and macro (storytelling and culture) levels. Many candidates were able to accurately reference narrative theories – Propp and Todorov, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Goodwin and Mulvey were well described, with some very strong analyses of radio news work and of film trailers and openings.
Level 4 answers were those that
successfully related these theories to elements of candidates’ own texts. Weak answers were often
just an account of “how we made it” but stronger answers were able to apply some critical
distance. In some cases there was even too much theory (with unsupported references to Fiske and
Adorno) with little, if any, analysis of their own (in cases not yet completed) coursework.
Once again, time management was a
factor and it is crucial that candidates devote the same total time to section A as to B as
both sections carry equal marks.
NARRATIVE Theories -
PROPP - TODOROV - BARTHES - LEVI STRAUSS - GOODWIN - MULVEY.
NARRATIVE Theories -
PROPP - TODOROV - BARTHES - LEVI STRAUSS - GOODWIN - MULVEY.
