When you work on completing your report, you will have an opportunity to go back to your research and to iron out any issues that might have occurred. After marking this year's batch, we've been able to form a 'checklist' of things you need to include if you haven't done so already, and things to get rid of if they've snuck in!
The advice in this post can be applied to anything you write in Media Studies, so it's good to get your head around what your teachers are expecting of you right now.
Include key terminology, and put key terms in bold
This one is pretty straightforward. Every time you write anything in Media, with the exception of mock and final exams, you should have the toolkit for textual analysis in front of you. Remember, if you're not using terms like long shot, diegetic sound, rapid-fire editing and enigma codes, you're not writing a Media essay! Make sure your teacher knows where to give you marks by putting all key terms in bold, right now!
Use subheadings and subtitles
If you haven't done so already, take a look at an actual Media Studies book, or get your teacher to show you one. You'll notice use of italics, subtitles, bullet points, words in bold, and box-outs to showcase the most important details. There's absolutely no indication that your essays in Media have to be a block of text, so take this opportunity to really make your work stand out.
Avoid colloquialisms
You're writing an academic essay, not a review for a mainstream film magazine. So avoid any 'casual' language or phrases. This year's winner is "puts the audience on the edge of their seat". If you've written this, I strongly advise getting rid of it, and replacing it with something more scholarly. Why not try
- Uses an array of visual and technical codes to manipulate the emotions of the audience
- The use of rapid fire editing here connotes a frantic sense of excitement
- By positioning audiences with the protagonist through use of extreme close-ups, the producer encodes compassion for the main character, and forces the audience to empathise with them
Proof read, slowly, and out loud
One major way to lose marks is through sloppy grammar that makes your excellent application of the uses and gratifications model completely impossible for the moderator to decipher. We've been giving the same advice for years, and it never stops being relevant: proofread your work out loud. Obviously you're going to look a bit odd if you do this in the middle of the LRC, so at home when everyone's out is a much better option. Without reading your work out loud, things like comma usage and sentence length won't jump out at you. If you run out of breath reading a sentence, you need to cut it down. You'll be surprised how this extremely simple technique completely transforms your essays!
Here's an actual example of a student introduction, and how it can be subtly rewritten to be more clear and succinct:
Before:
When looking at thrillers it is clear that they have featured from the beginning of the film industry, so it was only natural to look at a past one to see the approach to the genre and to draw a comparison between the two. This is due to us creating a thriller opening sequence film so I will be looking at stereotypical and non-stereotypical aspects and how they play into the genre and the narrative. A thriller is a genre of which causes the mood of suspense with elements of excitement, surprise, anticipation and anxiety. In this Essay I will be looking at L.A confidential and blackmail, whilst referencing significant other films by the same director or those around the same time.
After:
The thriller is a genre that has existed since the early days of film. As a genre, it has been so successful as it is able to fill the audience with excitement, anxiety, anticipation and surprise. For our media coursework, we were tasked with making a conventional thriller opening. Before starting production, it was essential that we researched both conventional and non-conventional aspects of the genre, and how these affected the narrative. In this essay I will be looking at L.A Confidential and Blackmail, whilst referencing other significant films by the same directors or those released around the same time.
Film titles generally go in italics
While you're at it, the first time you mention the film, you include the director's surname and the year it was released in brackets. For example: "LA Confidential (Hansen, 1997) displays many paradigms of the thriller genre through its use of generic iconography. The use of setting is especially evocative..."
Make reference to 'the audience' and 'the producer', not 'you' and 'they'
This one's really important, as you're using standard language when there's Media language you should be using instead. "it makes you feel like you're in the film' or any reference to 'you' is simply not good enough at this level. "The use of pleonastic sound involves the audience, positioning them directly in the crime scene" is far more elegant, and it also makes reference to key terminology!
Examples for everything...
Every significant point you make should be backed up with a significant example. You you're trying to demonstrate how thrillers use exposition, then referring to the scene in which White tears down the Christmas decorations in LA Confidential is a great way to backup your point about typical thriller characters and narratives.
...but analyse, don't describe
Thinking about the example above, it's really tempting to describe the scene where White is introduced in LA Confidential in minute detail. You can discuss the conversation between Bud and his co-worker, the brusque manner in which he jumps out the car, the way in which he is introduced through his name being 'printed' below him on screen. However, what you really want to talk about is how thrillers use effective exposition. Here's an example of how you can briefly but effectively refer to a scene to make this point, all the while getting in key terminology to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding.
"Thrillers often have complicated, involved narratives that require concentration on behalf of the audience. In order to ensure that audiences respond in the intended way, Hansen makes extensive use of exposition in the opening act of La Confidential. Bud's character in particular is quickly introduced through a series of mid-shots that confirm his personality. Cutting back and forth between his stern expression and a POV shot of a domestic disturbance, Bud violently rips down a string of Christmas lights. The violence of this act is emphasised through pleonastic, diegetic smashing sounds. Furthermore, the violence of the gesture contrasts with the mise-en-scene of the Christmas lights. This connotes to the audience that Bud is a brutish character, not afraid to use intimidation to get his way. Therefore Bud is a typical anti-hero, a character type common in thriller films, and audiences are aware of this from the outset".
Use pictures
Pictures don't just look nice (though great presentation is essential for securing the very highest marks), they can illustrate your points effectively. The following four images can be used for the paragraph above:
"Cutting back and forth between his stern expression and a POV shot of a domestic disturbance, Bud violently rips down a string of Christmas lights. The violence of this act is emphasised through pleonastic, diegetic smashing sounds. Furthermore, the violence of the gesture contrasts with the mise-en-scene of the Christmas lights."
You can link text to images by using 'see fig one', or 'see the screenshots to the right for an illustration of how this occurs', or just by putting the images right next to the appropriate text. It's completely up to you!
There's no such thing as 'dark lighting'
Please nip this in the bud now: 'dark lighting' is an oxymoron! However, if you are referring to a dingy mise-en-scene and a deliberately less powerful light being used, you can make reference to low key lighting. Essentially here the key (main) light is dimmed or switched off altogether leaving the cinematographer to use fill and back lighting instead.
Age certificate do not always infer target audience
This can be a tricky thing to wrap your head around. If a Blu-Ray cover has a huge red '18' certificate on it, then it stands to reason it's 'adult' in it's mode of address. Likewise, seeing a 'PG' certificate might tell audiences this film is for a younger audience. However, things rarely work like this. For example the Call of Duty franchise of videogames generally are rated 18, yet their target audience is far younger. Likewise Pokemon is an all ages franchise with a huge secondary audience of twenty-somethings (the amount of Pokemon cards hanging around the Lens Based Media office right now is unseemly!). So never say something as blunt as 'the 18 certificate means the target audience is adults over the age of 18'. Instead, look within the text for clues. LA Confidential is definitely intended for adult audiences, which we know through it's convoluted, enigmatic narrative and themes of racism, homophobia, misogyny (literally the hatred of women) and corruption. Even if you removed most of the bad language, violence and sex, younger teenagers would probably be bored out of their skulls, despite it now being a '12' certificate!