Hotel Babylon - examiner's report

These extracts enabled differentiation through the examination of the key concept of the representation of ethnicity and social class and status respectively.

The candidates appeared to have enjoyed responding to the TV drama extract, however at times there was evidence of candidates failing to address the key issue of ethnicity, which is a concern given the specification clearly indicates that this address, is one focus of the concept of representation. Indeed, examiners noted candidates’ responses were at times very good on gender and class and status, but lacked an understanding of ethnicity.

For question one, the majority of candidates addressed the technical features of camera shot, angle and composition and mise en scène well, with some fluency at times. There was also plenty of evidence of students being able to reach the higher end of the marks available. However, the address of the technical features of sound and editing needs to be developed further by candidates. Only a handful of centres had really prepared candidates to address these technical features of television drama.

Finally, as indicated by the mark scheme for this exam paper, the use of media vocabulary is a very important part of the exam at AS level. The mark scheme and syllabi clearly stipulate that a number of marks are available for the use of terminology. Good practice suggests that candidates should be keeping a vocabulary list of technical language for both questions.

There was plenty of evidence that the question set on ethnicity and representation and the extract Hotel Babylon achieved the desired differentiation of candidate responses. The extract was approximately five minutes in length and enabled the candidates to engage with the key skill of textual analysis of the four technical features: Camera shot, angle and composition, mise en scène, editing and sound. Examiners appeared in agreement that this was an excellent extract because it provided candidates with the opportunity to negotiate their own reading which they could justify through analysis of the four technical codes. There were a number of different interpretations provided by candidates; most of these were entirely valid. There was a wealth of technical examples for candidates to analyse.

It is also important that candidates move from description of key technical areas to analysis of how representations are constructed. This will enable candidates to achieve higher notional marks for their responses. Of these technical areas, camera work and mise en scène were by far the most comfortable concepts the candidates addressed, with editing and sound the least, despite improved attempts to address these technical features. Candidate responses which did not link technical analysis to representation often lacked focus in their answers on how ethnicity was constructed through the technical features of the extract.

Candidates structured their responses in a one of two ways for question one. Some began by addressing the concept of representation in the extract and a discussion of the representational differences between the white authority of the police in contrast to the representation of the ethnicity and status of the illegal migrant workers.

Candidates would then analyse chosen examples of representation in a chronological address of the extract, whilst integrating different technical aspects, for example, combining the analysis of camera composition with sound.

On the other hand, and a slightly more popular approach, would see the candidates address the technical areas one by one. Stronger candidates could provide an integrated analysis of the extract through analysis of key examples identified. These candidates explored how the technical features could be applied using a combination of the technical features. Weaker candidates could list many technical aspects, with varying degrees of accuracy, but struggle to say anything meaningful about the representation of ethnicity.

Both of these approaches to the structure of question 1 are valid and centres need to plan and help structure candidate responses in the classroom. It is advised against preparing candidates to word a long and lengthy introduction about what they are going to answer, or give theoretical introductions and/ or historical contexts to television drama. It is good advice for centres to practice with candidates to start the written response with analysis. On occasion in this series, candidates offered quite general textual analysis and these candidates’ responses lacked a focused discussion of ethnicity and thus penalized themselves from gaining a level three or four mark for EAA.

The mark scheme enables credit to be awarded to students at three different levels: Explanation, Analysis and Argument (20 Marks); Use of Examples (20 Marks) and; Use of Terminology (10 Marks). Under the use of examples, the mark scheme does not credit a notional level four (16-20) when only three technical areas are discussed, therefore making it less likely that a candidate can be awarded the highest possible marks.
On the whole the use of media vocabulary was very good, but could centres please note that there are up to 10 marks available for the use of media terminology – hence the previous recommendation that students should be encouraged to use the appropriate media terminology and good advice for centres is to encourage candidates to keep vocabulary lists.

There were a significant number of candidates who still adopted an overly simplistic approach in terms of media vocabulary. Centres need to encourage students to use appropriate technical language for precision in analysis and to make sure that they avoid superficial terms like cameras 'switching' or 'jumping', know the difference between zooms and tracking or avoid describing characters as 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

Finally it is important that candidates address a balance in their responses to all the technical features used in the extract to construct meaning, at times some candidates would focus too much on specific ‘micro’ aspect of the television drama, for example writing a whole side on the use of mise en scène.

Comments on the ‘micro’ aspects of Question one on Television Drama

Representation

The sequence offered plenty of opportunities to discuss the representations of ethnicity. Most candidates were able to discuss differences in the status of various ethnicities within the sequence, though only a very small number of candidates were able to develop their answer further by showing how the audience were positioned in relation to these representations. For example, the police clearly have more status than the immigrant workers, but the audience are encouraged to identify with the workers by putting more emphasis on their points of view.

More confident candidates were able to analyse the ways in which the extract attempted to position the audience in relation to the immigration officials and the immigrants. Many identified the construction of the lead immigration officer as antagonist and argued that the extract positioned the audience to be sympathetic to the plight of the immigrants. A smaller number of more able candidates went further by exploring either the apparent contradiction of an antagonist acting within the law or commenting on the way that the extract challenged typical representations of illegal immigrants in the media.

The majority of candidates attempted to formulate an argument about the representation of ethnicity in the extract with the vast majority moving beyond the minimal descriptor for EAA. Candidates that scored less well tended to make points about the representation of ethnicity in an isolated fashion rather than linking their points as part of a coherent analysis or argument.

Camera Shot, Angle and Composition

This technical feature was overall, well addressed by the candidates. Most candidates had a media vocabulary, which addressed the technical features of television drama. Where candidates used the correct terminology and could describe shot composition, this on the whole, was well done. Stronger responses considered a wide range of shots as well as camera movement and the use of framing and composition to further reinforce representation, for example, the framing of all the characters together in hiding and later through panning in the canteen creating a sense of community. Some candidates confuse the meaning of low and high angles and are reminded to be careful when discussing the connotations of these shot types.

Weaker candidates were able to describe key shots used in exemplification, but would often lack explicit links to how these shots assisted in the construction of the representation of ethnicity. These candidates would also tend to focus on just identifying the narrative flow of the extract through the naming of the shots. As with the past two exam series, please be aware that ‘insert’ shots and ‘wide’ shots and the ‘tilt’ shot and ‘jump’ shot are common misconceptions/ vocabulary used by candidates.
It would be useful to see a wider range of examples of shot sizes and camera movement referenced in relation to a sequence's representations, for example very few candidates were able to recognise the focus pull, for example, when Ibrahim was arrested, or could recognise how it reflected his sudden awareness of danger.

Mise en scène

The majority of candidates discussed this area with confidence. The extract itself was rich in mise en scène that contributed to representation. The contrast of the luxury hotel with the cramped storage room in which the immigrants were hiding was mentioned by many candidates, as were the costume of suits for some characters and cleaners and maid uniforms for others. It was pleasing to see many students making reference to lighting with more able candidates confident in using terms such as high key, artificial and low key. The use of colour with the white suit of the receptionist juxtaposed with the dark suit of other the female character was also well linked to representation. Most candidates were able to talk about the contrasting uniforms and the messages and values implied. Most candidates focused on the clothing as denoting power and where they fitted into the hierarchy.

More able candidates would be able to contrast the ethnic representation of different characters through the mise en scène and how power and status is defined by ethnic relations, the most able could reflect on the cleaner who used to be a doctor and explore the nuances of ethnicity and status through the use of the character of Jackie as a supervisor and carer of the immigrant workers. Candidates are also advised to look for the range of representations within the extract with more able candidates commenting on the characters of ethnic minority that held some status within the scene, for example the well dressed black male employee Ben and in the final scenes the wealthy African couple with the female in traditional dress at the reception.
Weaker candidates are still wedded to simplistic colour analysis and ignore all contradictory evidence to claim that characters dressed in white must be 'pure and innocent' while characters dressed in red are either 'passionate' or 'in danger'. This ‘binary’ approach needs refining by centres in relation to debating how meaning is constructed in an extract and it is suggested that to compare and contrast different elements of representation does involve more examination in the classroom. In addition, too many candidates are still being encouraged to consider the acting/body language/non-verbal communication as part of the mise-en-scène. This leads to candidates spending far too long discussing the acting at the expense of the technical elements, which are constructing representations. Weaker candidates’ responses could identify key aspects of the mise en scène but not always explicitly link this to ethnicity and tended to ‘demonise’ the white characters and over simplify the portrayal of the immigrants.

Sound

The analysis of sound in analysis of the TV drama was satisfactory. Those candidates that could offer a balanced approach to the analysis of the extract did so with a degree of proficiency in relation to identifying the use of diegetic and non-diegetic sound (as opposed to televisual terminology of synchronous and asynchronous sound). Again the analysis of sound was used in contrast to the characters’ different roles in the drama, with more candidates steering away from a reliance of an examination of the dialogue used in the drama; centres seem to be heeding the advice that an analysis of the dialogue in the drama is not sufficient technical analysis.

Most candidates were able to use terminology confidently and could describe the tempo and use of music in relation to the representation of characters. Most made reference to the use of foreign languages and accents to reinforce representation of the characters as different or other. Key dialogue was also referred to such as the line 'I wasn’t always a cleaner' and many candidates examined the significance of this statement.

Often weaker candidates showed confusion with technical terminology, referring to ambient sound where there was none in the part of the sequence they referred to, or simply getting diegetic and non-diegetic sound the wrong way round. The analysis of sound is more than just dialogue and weaker candidate responses may interpret the soundtrack/ use of music in too general analysis.

Editing

As with the January and June 2009 series, this technical area proved to be the most problematic for candidates and the one technical area of analysis that was often omitted in candidates’ answers.

Many candidates ignored editing altogether and only a few of those that did cover it were able to make meaningful links to representations by, for example, showing how the editing created particular viewpoints which we are encouraged to identify with or how screen time indicated the shifting relationship between characters in the sequence, for example through the discussion of the rule of thirds.

Most candidates made reference to the pace of editing to reflect the frantic situation and emotions of the immigrant characters. The use of shot reverse shot and cuts to aid continuity were mentioned by many candidates, as was the use of cross cutting between the two situations to enhance tension. More able candidates demonstrated the ability to link the use of editing to the representation of characters, such as the use of long and short takes to represent power and the use of eye line matches to reinforce a sense of dominance. Most candidates who addressed editing were able to address the type of transitions used and could comment on the pace of the editing. There was evidence on occasion where students engaged with the rule of thirds and juxtaposition of characters in the narrative using editing devices, which is very encouraging.