Candidate 1
1a (20 marks) The candidate starts well with an introduction which sets out exactly which projects have been undertaken. He moves on to talk about a program used, immediately explaining particular techniques which the program enabled (desaturation) with a reason for using them (creating a particular atmosphere typical to the genre). Technical terms are used accurately and confidently (temporal editing, cross fades, etc). Throughout, the candidate refers explicitly to examples from his work, to a range of programs and to techniques used. Several different programs are discussed in a succinct and clear way. Most of the essay is confined to programs on the computer and creativity is not explicitly addressed, nor are online technologies. However, overall this is worthy of level 4.
1b (22 marks) Though this response is written as if the project is based on theories, rather than with a critical distance applying those theories, it does meet the criteria of level 4. He attempts to relate Propp, Levi-Strauss, Barthes and Todorov very effectively to the narrative. There is extensive use of relevant terminology and application to examples.
Candidate 2
1a (24 marks) This candidate more explicitly addresses the question, with a good introductory paragraph . There is very clear evidence of reflection on progression and explanation of the ways in which the technology was used to produce work. Precise relevant detail of ways of working and how the candidate tried to improve are included in this answer. iMovie, Final Cut and Photoshop are all referred to, as is online technology with references to social media. His final paragraph concludes the essay well, completing the sense of structure.
1b (23 marks) This response addresses the production in detail and attempts to take examples and relate them to different perspectives around narrative and music video. Levi-Strauss, Goodwin, Todorov and Barthes are all referenced.
No comments:
Post a Comment