EXAMINERS' REPORTS June 2011

Examiners’ Reports – June 2011
B322 Textual Analysis and Media Topic (Moving Image)
Question 1
This was generally well-answered, with less evidence of hopelessly over-long answers than in previous series of this exam. Only a few answers described aspects of the text with little attempt to explain how this reflected the action adventure genre, or were thin with little more than a statement of particular conventions. Most candidates showed a sure grasp of action adventure conventions and could use examples from the extract that illustrated them.
Most candidates could cite the presence of a hero and villain, the conflict between the two, the heroine’s underdog status, the exotic setting, and the danger the setting represented. Better answers used terminology – especially ‘generic convention’, ‘protagonist’, and ‘antagonist’ – and gave some detail from the extract to exemplify their argument. Many answers discussed more than two conventions and were not penalised for this.
Many candidates thought that they had to separately discuss ‘characters’ and ‘events’ and this often led to repetition – the formulation ‘characters and/or events’ is used only in order to avoid using a term – 'narrative' – that might be inaccessible to some candidates. Some only wrote about character and did not comment on narrative – this was only a problem if the candidate struggled to discuss two generic conventions under 'character'. Many answers that covered both 'events' and 'character' improved in quality when they moved on to 'events', so candidates might be best advised to start there.
Many candidates used the conventions listed in previous versions of the mark scheme, but others made good use of simple formulations such as: 'heroes and villains', ‘speed and motion’, ‘suspense and jeopardy’, ‘conflict and combat’, and ‘spectacle’. Many also discussed the significance of the villain as Chinese, and therefore a foreign character, removed from the British heroine.
Some candidates tried to apply theory such as Todorov and Propp in this question, which often detracted from the answer. Candidates can achieve full marks in this exam without quoting any theory, and many weaker responses were undermined by their attempt to apply theory.
Question 2
This was again generally well-answered, if sometimes at a length that left little time for questions 3 and 4.
Candidates should be reminded that the question is asking for answers to concentrate not on generic conventions, which are covered by question 1, but on media language elements and their connotative effects. Some otherwise excellent answers laboured generic elements unnecessarily, explaining at length, for example, how the fast paced editing and cross-cutting during the fight scene which created excitement and thrills (valid example plus valid connotative effect) was a generic convention (unnecessary generic explanation).
Better responses were balanced between all four bullet points; unbalanced responses usually gave detailed analysis of soundtrack and camerawork (often at great length) but paid less attention to editing and mise-en-scène. Better answers concentrated on visual editing for the editing bullet point and did not confuse camera work and editing.

Most candidates found the soundtrack easy to analyse, usually citing the tonal changes in the music, the dialogue between Lara and her Greek helpers, and the sounds of shots and of the temple collapsing. Several responses noted the temporary absence of sound as a precursor to events. Many made reference (not always accurately) to diegetic and non diegetic sounds; better candidates used this terminology as part of a wider connotative analysis of particular examples, rather than simply listing whether a sound was diegetic or non-diegetic – a common fault in weaker answers.
Camerawork was similarly accessible. Many candidates cited several of the following: the long shot use as an establishing shot at the beginning of the scene; the close up on Lara’s face to show her reactions to finding the orb, the arrival of the antagonists, or being shot; the use of a Dutch tilt; the use of high angle and low angle shots to define power; the use of shaky hand held camera; the tracking shot following the falling orb; the underwater tracking shot of Lara swimming. This was the strongest part of the response by far – candidates were clearly confident in the use of a range of media terminology. Many weaker candidates claimed to see extreme close ups (there were none in the extract) describing the shot of the antagonist as he comes out of the water as an ECU which 'expresses emotion'.
Editing, as usual was often a candidate’s Achilles heel, but many cited one or more of the following: the slow pace of editing during the exploration of the cave at the beginning of the scene; the increase in editing pace as the antagonists arrived; the cross-cutting between Lara finding the orb and the antagonists’ arrival; and the shot-reverse-shot during the fight.
Better answers concentrated on purely editing techniques that did not overlap with other bullet points. Many responses referred to CGI, better answers explaining its use as part of the post production editing process and stating this in addition to one or more of the points listed above. Examples of CGI effects cited by candidates were not always clearly CGI (the falling down temple, for example) and it appears to be more difficult for a candidate to spot when a CGI effect is used than it is to discuss the pace of editing, for example, so they might be better advised to concentrate on this aspect of editing. Some weaker answers relied on aspects of the soundtrack as evidence of editing, not always distinguishing between ambient sound and post-production sound effects, or discussed 'the falling down temple'.
Better answers clearly separated their responses to camerawork and editing and did not leave it to the examiner to decide which was which.
Many candidates misidentified ‘jump-cuts’ (there were none in the extract) – this term is nearly always misused by candidates.
Some answers relied on very general descriptions of editing, such as 'there was continuity editing' or 'there was match on action', and thus often failed either to give a specific example or to explain connotative effect.
Mise-en-scène was again accessible, many citing: the setting of the ancient temple; the low key lighting; the differences in the costumes; Lara’s make up and hair do; the weaponry. In yet more bad news for Russell Crowe, not one of the candidates found Angelina Jolie lacking in sexual attractiveness, in stark contrast to the many disparaging comments about Russell’s appearance in the January 2011 examination extract .
Candidates sometimes struggled to discuss connotative effect for mise-en-scène or only made links to generic conventions (exotic location, for example).

Question 3
Responses to this question were generally less successful than those for questions 1 and 2, but many candidates could comment on the representation of a female action heroine (though rather fewer could spell 'heroine').
Many of these answers were very short for a 20 mark question.
Better answers discussed how Lara both challenged gender stereotypes but at the same time reinforced the male gaze with what many candidates referred to as ‘her curves’ (better answers discussed her ‘objectification’). Some answers compared her character productively to other ‘Girls with Guns’ and discussed how this showed that the representation of femininity was changing. Many answers discussed the stereotypical use of ‘foreign’ villains; better answers discussed how the Chinese are represented as ‘others’ in the extract (for its implied Western audience) and are used to connote the threatening ‘unknown’. Some with admirable genre knowledge compared them to Fu Manchu villains. Some answers argued convincingly that the 'friendly but flirty' Greeks fitted another national stereotype. Many answers looked at the Greeks as the damsels in distress and discussed the superior female and the male hand maidens that need to be rescued. Some answers discussed Lara's 'stiff upper lip' Britishness, and the equation of heroism with youth and lack of disability.
Unusually for this paper, some answers were able to use theories – such as Laura Mulvey and John Berger – in a productive manner.
The question asks for a discussion of stereotyping and any other relevant representation issues. Some candidates failed to use the word ‘stereotype’ or 'stereotypical' and were thus confined to the Level 1 mark band, unless there was clear indication of understanding of the concept.
Many answers discussed ‘stereotypical heroes and villains’ in a way that was confined to generic conventions and characterisation. Candidates should be reminded that genre and narrative are covered in question 1, and question 3 is asking for a more wide ranging discussion of media representation issues. Answers that were confined to analysis of characterisation often only demonstrated understanding of the narrative ('the hero is stereotypically agile and quick-witted, for example) and were restricted to Level 2 of the mark scheme. However, many such answers touched upon the way that Lara Croft’s character challenges gender stereotypes and thus could reach Level 3.
Better answers showed that candidates had carried over what they had learned about representation issues in their B321 unit and could apply this learning to any text. Some better answers discussed representation issues at the beginning of the answer, then tended to slip into analysis of characterisation in their textual exemplification, but this was credited when placed within the context of representation analysis.
Pre-prepared answers on 'representation in the media', however, proved much less successful, particularly where candidates seemed to be expecting a strong male protagonist. Candidates must focus on the extract and use it for detailed exemplification.
Question 4(a)
Question 4(a) asked for a detailed discussion of how and why one programme was scheduled on one or more channels. Responses to this were mixed.
Better answers concentrated on one scheduling event, stated the day, time and channel, and discussed both the 'how' and 'why' parts of the question.

Some well constructed answers ensured they covered ‘how’ and ‘why’ by using a two part format: (1) Why that channel? (2) Why that time and day? There were some very strong answers in terms of target audience, ethos and regulation with a very concise awareness of remit (not exclusively BBC). The better answers delved into hammocking and viewing trends/flow. The best responses looked at programmes and channels with a distinctive ethos or demographic (such as E4 or BBC2),
Weaker answers often concentrated on the ‘one or more channels’ part of the question, so 'Friends' was traced from its initial airing on American TV through to Channel 4 and E4, or 'Only Fools and Horses' from its original showing to its present day repeats, or 'The Simpsons' from its start on BBC2 then to Sky and then onto Channel 4. This approach often left little time for detail on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of scheduling. Better answers, if discussing a programme stripped across different channels, concentrated on one scheduling strategy on one channel.
Some candidates appeared to be expecting a question asking for two programmes and seemed to run out of material part way through their answer, often resorting to discussion of audience pleasures that was better suited to 4(b)
The scheduling details of some programmes were not contemporary. Candidates commonly discussed the scheduling of Friends on Channel 4 from 1994, or even the scheduling of Fawlty Towers from 1975. Such answers often lacked the detail of contemporary examples.
Most answers concentrated on the channel and time a programme was scheduled, the day of scheduling was less often seen as significant and sometimes not even mentioned.
Programmes that proved successful include: Gavin and Stacey (an example where following its movement across BBC channels usually worked well) Scrubs, Friends, QI and Have I Got News For You.
Question 4(b)
Question 4(b) was generally answered well. Nearly all candidates appeared comfortable with the idea of audience pleasures and the main differentiators were the range of pleasures covered, the quantity and variety of textual exemplification offered, and the overall sophistication of the answer.
Better candidates chose their case studies wisely (choosing different formats or programmes with different target audiences), and gave a range of pleasures that were exemplified in detail from different episodes of the programmes they had studied. Less successful answers answered question 4(a) again and/or gave a vague description of the programmes and their presumed target audiences with often a one or two word nod towards the audience pleasures they offered, the presence of the latter allowing them to creep just into Level 2.
Some candidates concentrated on differences in humour as an approach to this question, but the more successful answers usually incorporated a wider range of audience pleasures, such as 'familiarity' (for long running series), 'escapism' (for programmes that offered a strongly-defined self-contained fictional world), 'identification' (for programmes with strong and diverse characterisation), and 'narrative resolution'.
Some answers listed pleasures with minimal textual exemplification and thus lost marks. This was a common fault among those candidates who, often (but not always) unwisely, chose to apply uses and gratifications theory. Most failed, for example, to give any textual exemplification for 'social interaction' which requires a sophisticated level of understanding to exemplify effectively. There is no need for any explicit media theory in order to gain full marks for this question.
Some candidates concentrated on differences in scheduling and target audiences to the detriment of addressing audience pleasures.
Some candidates appear to have confused generic conventions with generic pleasures, and instead wrote about ‘4-6 main characters and a central meeting place’, for example.
Successful combinations of programmes included:
'Friday Night Dinner' and 'Come Fly With Me' 'Harry Hill’s TV Burp' and 'Friends' 'Gavin and Stacey' and 'Harry Hill’s TV Burp' 'Scrubs' and 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks' 'Little Britain' and 'The IT crowd'
'The Simpsons' and 'Outnumbered' 'Scrubs' and 'Outnumbered' 'Friends' and 'QI' 'Friends' and 'Have I Got News For You' 'The Simpsons' and 'QI'
'Friends' nearly always worked well for audience pleasures but not so often for scheduling. Some candidates found 'Benidorm' difficult to comment on in terms of audience pleasures, but easy to comment on for scheduling. 'The Inbetweeners' is a popular option and one that few candidates appear to find 'boring' (the kiss of death in this question) but weaker candidates sometimes struggle to explain its pleasures. Analysing programmes with more edgy or subtle or transgressive humour generally appeared to be difficult for weaker candidates; examples included 'Come Fly with Me', 'Peep Show' and 'Celebrity Juice'. However, despite this, 'The Mighty Boosh' often worked well for both scheduling and pleasures.
Candidates who appeared to have been given a completely free choice of texts produced as a rule more generalised and less exemplified answers.
A few candidates chose programmes, such as 'Glee', that were not productive in exhibiting comedic pleasures.