The exam paper
 |
| That didn't take long! |
Please answer all the following questions. Question one requires an extended response and will be marked appropriately.
Total time allowed: 48 minutes. With extra time: 60 minutes
For question one you will be shown the 2023 John Lewis Christmas advert twice. Between showings there will be one minute pause. The first time you watch the advert, you should simply watch it. The second time you watch it, and during the pause, you may wish to make notes. After the advert has finished for the second time, the exam time shall begin.
1 - Explore how the combination of elements of media language influences meaning in the 2023 John Lewis Christmas advert [15, 30 minutes]
2 - Briefly explain the function of the BBFC in the film industry. [2, 2 minutes]
3 - Explain the role of regulation in the production and distribution of mainstream films. Refer to Black Panther to support your answer [16, 16 minutes]
Mark scheme
Question one
Question two
Question 3
Grade boundaries
Indicative content
Teacher 'exemplar' (sort of)
1 – Polysemy refers to the ways in which media products can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Producers will typically ensure that their products have polysemic interpretations in order to encourage audience engagement. In this essay, I shall argue that the John Lewis advert (JLA) uses a range of contradictory media language to construct a range of different meanings, including subverting traditional holiday values, while also appealing to a resolutely middle class, white British target audience.
One meaning that is upheld throughout the advert is the ideological perspective of traditionalism. This is introduced through the opening montage, which sees a young, white, middle class boy in a stereotypical ‘Christmas shop’ finding an ideal present for himself. The MES of the shop links to traditional values, and includes such elements as warm low-key lighting, a snow-covered setting, and most importantly, the MES of a traditional ‘grow your own plant’ kit in an old fashioned looking tin. This tin functions as both a hermeneutic and proairetic code. It clearly communicates to the target audience not only the idea of mysterious contents, but also suggests an impending exciting resolution. The narrative is swiftly continued as the plant that is grown quickly exhibits violent tendencies. At this stage the genre of the advert becomes somewhat unclear, and actually begins to utilise the generic conventions of the horror genre. An excellent example of this can be seen in the polysemic utilisation of the POV shot, which sees the Venus fly trap chasing a small dog to eat it. This combination of paradigmatic conventions and media language that suggests horror films presents the audience a complex and polysemic mode of address, and they may in fact interpret the scene as either being humorous, or perhaps scary and distasteful. Nonetheless, it also upholds traditional values, through the cliched narrative of the boy teaching the ferocious plant the true meaning of Christmas. This hyperreal pastiche will clearly appeal to the white, middle class target audience of the advert.
Traditional middle class values are further encoded throughout the advert, notably in the binary opposition that exists between the well-to-do family and the terrifying threat that the Venus fly trap evidences. The family are permanently clad in the wholesome MES of expensive yet relatable costumes, including thick woollen jumpers and oversized glasses. This constructs a representation of the family as both being approachable, yet relatable to a middle class audience, a fact which is further emphasised through the stereotypical middle class MES of their house, which is perhaps significantly larger than average. As the plant expands in size and commits chaotic and naughty acts, it is presented as a clear binary opposition to the middle class family, which poses many narrative problems, and constructs an exciting storyline for the target audience to follow. It is worth noting at this point that this scary representation of a plant gone wild not only references famous horror films such as Little Shop Of Horrors, but in doing so, through this intertextual relays outlines this advert as being both subversive and atypical of the Christmas advert genre that audiences now expect to see year after year. In short, by combining generic elements of the horror genre and the Christmas advert genre, audiences are presented with a symbolically complex and surprising mode of address. Ultimately, this combination of media language is presented to increase word of mouth conversations between JL’s middle class audience, and therefore to minimise risk and maximise profit.
A further meaning that is constructed through the advert is one of modern and even subversive values and ideologies. The family is not a stereotypical nuclear family, which is evidenced through the complete lack of representation of a father figure. Instead audiences are left to infer, through the combination of performance, costume and MES, that the older woman in this advert is a grandmother figure, which suggests a more complex family arrangement. Additionally, the older sister character is somewhat androgynous, and, with her oversized glasses and hat, presents a non-gender conforming representation of gender. This representation, once more encoded through MES, is perhaps surprising to the target audience, and the combination of elements of media language here construct a complex meaning of what it means to be British in the year 2023. Clearly some audiences may reject this ideological representation, and feel that a traditional advert featuring a stereotypical nuclear family may be preferable. However, this shifting of values also allows JL to target a different and more diverse (though still admittedly white and middle class) target audience.
In addition to these broad meanings, a more specific binary opposition between fantasy and reality is constructed. The MES of the household, though clearly middle class and somewhat affluent, is still relatable to many audience members. It is constructed through the MES of large rooms with white painted walls, and soft though also artificially produced lighting. The inclusion of a small family dog also grounds the advert in reality, and confirms to the target audience that the advert is clearly taking place in our world. The inclusion of the oversized Venus flytrap clearly breaks the diegesis of this advert. The MES of its sharp teeth and prehensile snaking ‘heads’ are clearly constructed through CG, and suggest a monster that does not belong in our world. In one scene the mother forces the boy to remove the flytrap from the house. At this stage an exploratory montage of close up shots emphasises the upsetting nature of this scene, and reinforces the dominant ideology that this scene is sad and emotionally affecting, which of course presents a binary opposition with the violent and scary nature of the Venus fly trap. By making generic reference to other family films where a child must say goodbye to an animal, the advert utilises the ‘tear-jerker’ genre in order to construct a clear, if confusing set of meanings for the target audience. This is further reinforced in the conclusion of the narrative, where the Venus flytrap, apparently learning the ‘true meaning of Christmas’, eats the presents, and, far from eating the contents, instead vomits them forcibly on the middle class family. This surprising and satisfying montage s made more forcible through the sudden and brief removal of the non-diegetic soundtrack, which, after this cliched ‘record scratch’ moment, suddenly reconvenes in an exciting rapid fire montage of close ups of facial expressions and the exciting MES of torn wrapping paper and snow. This chaotic scene is reminiscent of many families Christmas, where children will quickly and messily unwrap presents, and uses fantastical elements to present to the tart audience a delightful, surprisingly, and ultimately heartwarming mode of address that uses media language to present a highly polysemic range of interpretations, while still appealing to an exclusively middle-class target audience.
COMMENTARY
Because I was fiddling with sound and making sure the video played here, I was only half watching the video. However when I watched it properly later on before starting to mark, I couldn’t believe how much I missed out on! Here’s some stuff I WISH I’d mentioned…
- The soundtrack is both dramatic and humorous, giving the advert a quirky mode of address.
- The young boy explicitly says, ‘can I have this Gran’, confirming my speculation. I should have heard this!
- The Venus flytrap has an interesting and highly characterful performance, with its drooping heads, and constructs a very sad and affecting mode of address.
- I wish I’d mentioned anchorage! For example, “this sad and affecting mode of address is further anchored through the use of close up, which draws attention to the MES of thick ice covering the Venus fly trap, and emphasises the hardships that it has been through’
- On the third and fourth viewing, while I still believe the family are middle class, their house isn’t as stereotypically luxurious as I first thought, which may be an attempt for the traditionally middle-class department store John Lewis trying to appeal to a slightly less well-off audience. If I’d been feeling clever, I’d have bought in some context about the financial crisis the UK is currently going through, and how many families are going through hard times, although frankly this family is far from poor!
- The cliched ‘reaction shots’ of the family looking through the patio windows lovingly in their dressing gowns was very conventional of the Christmas advert genre, with this montage being designed to provoke a heartwarming reaction before the final, surprising rapid-fire montage.
- The final shot of the Venus flytrap head ‘singing’ the operatic non-diegetic theme song technically breaks the fourth wall by ‘looking’ directly at the audience. This break in the diegesis (or the world of the narrative) is surprising and the preferred reading here is one of delight and humour. Clearly John Lewis is constructing a new mascot character for audiences to identify with!
- I ended up using some theory and concepts we have either barely covered or not covered at all. So the notion of hyperreality fits perfectly here, but we won’t look at it until next academic year. Therefore something to keep in mind is that though we are done with advertising now, you can still use stuff you learn from future units to help you with your analysis in the final exam! This is because media studies is a ‘synoptic’ subject. You are expected to pull everything together from two years when you sit the final exam. It’s a tall order, but if you revise just a little bit every day, you’ll absolutely smash it!
2 – The BBFC (the British Board of Film Classification) exists to regulate films in the United Kingdom. They do so primarily by assigning age certificates to films, that not only provide context and information to parents and caregivers, but also legally stop younger audiences from seeing certain films, therefore limiting potential harm and offence.
COMMENTARY
- Perhaps this is a bit wordy -__-
3 – Regulation is an essential process for every media product, as it sets out the rules and restrictions every media product must follow. Mainstream films are typically big budget, and must therefore appeal to massive audiences to make as much money as possible. In this essay I shall explore the relationship between regulation, production and distribution of mainstream cinema, drawing specific attention to the Marvel Studios production Black Panther (2018), distributed by Walt Disney pictures.
Black Panther was distributed using a range of traditional forms of distribution, including theatrical distribution, digital distribution and physical distribution. This ensured that the film reached the largest audience possible. For example, BP was shown in over 4000 US cinemas in the first week of its exhibition. Its ability to appeal to such mass audiences was no doubt helped by its lower age certificate (PG-13 in America, and the theatrical 12A certificate in the UK). Through this 12A certificate, the producers were able to ensure that the film appealed to and was accessed by the largest audience possible.
The BBFC states that BP was assigned a 12a Rating for its moderate fantasy violence, some brief injury detail, mild bad language and a ‘rude gesture’. The use of words such a ‘fuck’ may not only ensure a higher age restriction, but may also alienate certain audiences, and therefore a decision has clearly been made to appeal to a younger teenage audience. This is reflected in the nature of violence in this film, which is typically carried out using swords and fantasy machinery, and is typically carried out by ‘good guys’ vs ‘bad guys’, who have names like ‘Killmonger’. The BBFC stipulates that every age certificate is given based on context, and within the fantasy sci fi superhero context of BP, the violence of the film is clearly acceptable to many audiences.
However, it could also be argued that regulation has become less important in the distribution of mainstream films, in particular through digital distributions. While theatres and DVD shops must legally challenge audiences, ensuring that non-one under the age of 12 without an ‘adult’ may see black panther, this regulation can safely be ignored for many audience members who view the film on the online streaming platform Disney Plus. While the film here is streamed with a small advisory certificate, there are no checks and balances that may top a younger child from seeing this undeniably violent film. Here, Disney is able to sidestep the regulation of the film. Livingstone and Lunt argue that regulation of films has essentially become impossible in the online age, as digitally convergent technology allows audiences to view films despite their age. And while emphasis here will be on parents to effectively self-regulate it is clear that there will be very different experiences between households. Ultimately, we can understand this decision of not to provide stringent regulation though Curran and Seaton’s theory of power and profit, that suggests that vast, vertically and horizontally integrated conglomerates such as Disney are far more concerned with profit than working with regulation to ensure that young audiences are not harmed or offended.
Yet ultimately it can also be argued that Disney has voluntarily self regulated this product. As stated above, there is very little to harm or offend the audience. In fact, BP makes every effort to appeal to a diverse and broad target audience. This can most clearly be seen in the representation of the film, which sees a predominantly black cast of heroes, villains, and young and old men and women fighting fantasy battles in the fictitious fantasy African city of Wakanda. This powerful and emancipatory message resonated with black audiences in America, and saw 37% of audience members being black, as opposed to 35% black audiences that choose to see previous ‘traditional’ Marvel films such as Iron Man 2. In doing so, Disney deliberately worked within regulatory guidelines to produce a film that could be seen by the largest audiences possible. A criticism, once more by Curran and Seaton, would be that by appealing to such a vast audience, the film itself is bland, uninteresting and derivative, as it must simultaneously speak to ideas such as black power and anti racism, while also being as offensive as possible. This fact was clearly made essential through the huge budget of the film, which as 400 million including advertising and marketing was clearly too big to fail
As we have seen, regulation is an essential factor to the production and distribution of this film. In order to achieve the lucrative 12A rating, BP was made to minimise realistic and ‘high impact’ scenes of violence and injury detail, and every shot involving an injury was not depicted in close up. This was ultimately reflected in the vast distribution of the film which saw the film making significant amounts of money, not least because of high profile casting from actors such as Chadwick Boseman and Michael B Jordan
COMMENTARY
- For some reason I found this easier than the John Lewis analysis! However, I will be frank: making this question a 16-marker was pretty cruel! I ended up waffling a bit to fill the time, and lost some focus as a result. However, I feel I hit all the main points!