Moderator's report

I'll copy in below the exam board report on some resubmitted coursework from this January. If you read through this you should pick up some useful points which have been highlighted in the guides given to you: the importance of coverage (taking the same shot from multiple angles) to overcome problems you later discover with some shots; the need for care with sound; considering the use of titles quite specifically; the importance of planning materials such as animatics and storyboards; and the use of multimedia within your blog (images, links, podcasts, vodcasts and other video) ...

The sample was well packaged. Thank you. The construction was submitted on DVD whilst an active url was provided to access the candidate’s blog.
The Centre chose the Video brief and the candidate produced a film opening in the horror/thriller genre. It is clear that a detailed framework was accessible by the candidate and that they have enjoyed following it.
The candidate used a blog to present their research and planning. This material was comprehensive with some detailed research demonstrated. However, the candidate could have made more use of this research in their construction, especially with respect to titling. Planning materials were included, but a full storyboard or animatic would have benefited the candidate. The Centre's comments were clear and related to the mark scheme, taking into account weaknesses. Therefore, it was felt that the marking of this element was in line with agreed standards.
The construction was proficient and used the forms and conventions which made it readable as a  horror/thriller. It is clear that candidates are taught to carefully consider aspects of framing, mise-en-scene, and the institutional conventions of titling. However, these were not fully proficient throughout the construction. Some of the framing was not fully considered. In one shot the camera-person could be seen in shadow. Some shots were held too long, whilst others were not cleanly edited. Sound was generally effective, especially non-diegetic, but at times it was clear that diegetic sound had not been monitored – camera noise was audible on some shots. ...
The evaluation covered the set questions and made some attempt to use the available technology. Still images were included in the body of the evaluation and a “podcast” comparing the construction to another candidate’s work was embed in the blog. The Centre could explore presenting the answers to the key questions in a multimedia format in order to allow access to the top level marks. Once again the Centre recognised the shortcomings with this element and marks were agreed.
Overall, the Centre has submitted an enjoyable portfolio of work. It is clear that candidates are well supported and that they respond positively to this. Thank you.