A2 Section A: 1a&1b Mock examiner report

Section A: 1A

Where candidates were able to offer detailed and sustained examples of post-production decisions and outcomes, answers were strong and well rewarded. These details included editing, image manipulation, changes after evaluation and feedback, title design, sound editing and marketing. Those that offered merely a narrative account of these were rewarded in level 2. Those that linked these creative decisions to outcomes, combined with a critical reflection on progress made over time, were rewarded in levels 3 and 4. There was frequently a fair discussion of creative decisions, but these were often concerned with storyboards, camera angles, planning and general research, and this did not answer the post-production root of the question.

Unfortunately a significant number of candidates attempted to ‘redirect’ the question to a prepared answer on something else – research and planning and / or conventions of media texts, which in most cases couldn’t work. And a significant minority mistook POST production for PRE production, leading to very low marks being available to them.

Summary:
Answer the question, don't try to change it to another skill such as research and planning.  Provide examples of post production decisions and outcomes link to creativity with a critical reflection of your skills progression over the whole course.
Post production is after you have filmed or taken your images. 


Section A:1B

Media language is an ‘umbrella term’ and hence gives candidates a range of options for responding to the question. The key distinguishing criteria was their ability to relate the broad conceptual notion of media language to the medium of their selected coursework production – the language of film, the language of web design, the visual language of magazines. A large percentage of candidates identified semiotics as a central theory for media language, but only in the strongest answers was semiotics applied to the medium at work. A range of writers were utilised here – Goodwin, Barthes, Saussure and Neale were all used well. Laura Mulvey often used in an unfortunately instrumental manner, unintentionally but problematically nonetheless – ‘we used Mulvey’s male gaze’. Perhaps surprisingly, many candidates appeared to be reaching to demonstrate an understanding of what the concept of media language actually referred to. This key concept has been tackled in a range of publications specifically tailored to this specification, both in its current and previous form. All too often, lost in the mix was enough discussion of the actual outcomes of the project chosen as the basis for response – too many candidates took extended excursions into discussing / explaining theory or discussing the applications of theory to professional products.

The weakest answers either ignored the question and responded with a prepared answer on genre or representation, with little attempt to contextualise this in a broader understanding of media language or saw candidates writing about the words used in their magazine articles and movie scripts. A number of candidates gave ‘short answers’ to this question, suggesting they found it challenging.

The more sophisticated responses discussed polysemy, juxtaposition and anchorage of media messages using the appropriate micro aspects of the production work - for example in the shot construction or editing process or narrative structure.
The most important advice to impart here is that candidates need to ‘step back’ from the work and assess it as a media text, using conceptual tools in so doing.  

Summary:
Critically analyse your AS or A2 coursework, take a step back from it and pretend its not your work.  Imagine you are deconstructing someone else's work.