Examiner's Report 2010

Question 2

This question covered a pleasing variety of case studies, with lots of focus on the areas of Institutions and Audiences. Most pleasingly, these concepts were identified by the vast majority of Candidates as being strongly linked rather than discussed as separate entities. Also pleasing was the fact that only a minority of Candidates chose to ignore the question and present a prepared answer. Terminology was well utilised across all media.
Appropriate differentiation was achieved in the marks for Section B through the detail in which the argument was explored and the detail to the exemplification. The question provoked a range of responses from Candidates who were able to discuss the use of digital technology in the production, distribution, marketing or consumption of media products or a combination of these elements. The most able Candidates were able to create a debate around the benefits and drawbacks of new technology for both audiences and institutions and were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, or mass audience/niche audience targeting.
The best answers tended to come from Candidates who had been well prepared with detailed, contemporary case studies – not historical ones. Many Candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers (and occasionally producers) into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More able Candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that characterise the contemporary media landscape and at times across different media areas.

However, there are still a number of Centres who are preparing Candidates with inappropriate material, for example with potted histories of media companies or textual studies which are unlikely to be useful for the kind of questions which this paper poses. Candidates should be encouraged to take a selective approach to their case study material, concentrating on what is most relevant to the question rather than trying to get entire case studies down into the response to question 2.

Film
The most common approach was to compare major US studios with UK production companies, though technology at times was often interpreted in quite a narrow fashion, concentrating on 3D production and digital distribution, for example ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Avatar’. Some good answers focussed on how major studios like Fox can finance the production of cutting edge films like ‘Avatar’, and how the technology they have at their range of relevant examples. The digital technology used in ‘Avatar’ was succinctly addressed as were the advances in 3D, but also characterised by some simplistic assumptions that digital distribution is cheaper and quicker than conventional film distribution because you do not need reels of film. There was often an assumption that UK cinema is not dependent upon technological advances, which obviously underestimates the importance of home exhibition windows in making UK film viable.

Working Title was the most frequently used UK case study, though many Candidates tended to offer a history of the company and their argument depended upon the relative of success of films such as ‘Four Weddings and A Funeral’, ‘Notting Hill’ or ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’, which clearly are not contemporary examples. Warners, Fox and Paramount were frequently used as US examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as UK production companies. One Centre’s Candidates had been prepared with a comparative textual study of ‘The Cruel Sea’ (1953) and ‘Atonement’ (2007) with which they struggled to answer the question.

Histories of film studios such as Aardman or film biographies of film personnel did not address the question that has been set. Centres should keep taught examples contemporary and varied for the Candidates for future series. There was evidence that a number of Candidates focused solely on digitisation of cinema and did not have a film company as an institutional case study. Where this was the case, answers (whilst detailed in some respects) did not show enough depth, as they were tackling only exhibition.