Evaluation of Previous Students Ancillary Tasks

In a similar way to my evaluation of previous students short films the only feasible way to judge the ancillary tasks fairly and consistently is to use the marking criteria for print. Again this will enable me to have a critical prospective on my own work as well as pass students as I'll be able to understand what is needed from me to gain the higher levels. Furthermore this will again help me to understand and evaluate previous years but also support and aid my development of my own skills in creating my ancillary media.

I am evaluating these short films on the following criteria:

The candidate's use of technical skills:

• awareness of conventions of layout and page design
• awareness of the need for variety in fonts and text size
• accurate use of language and register
• the appropriate use of ICT for the task set
• appropriate integration of illustration and text
• framing a shot, using a variety of shot distances as appropriate
• shooting material appropriate to the task set; selecting mise-en-scène including colour, figure, lighting, objects and setting
• manipulating photographs as appropriate, including cropping and resizing.

The levelling for these technical skills are as follows:

Level 1 (0-3 Marks) - Work is likely to be unfinished. There is evidence of minimal ability in the creative use of any of the technical skills.

Level 2 (4-6 Marks) - There is evidence of basic ability in the creative use of some of the technical skills.

Level 3 (7-8 Marks) - The candidate is expected to demonstrate proficiency in the creative use of most of the technical skills.

Level 4 (9-10 Marks) - The candidate is expected to demonstrate excellence in the creative use of most of the technical skills.

Lewis Underwood's Ancillary Tasks

Poster

Review

In evaluating both of these ancillary tasks compared to the criteria, I would mark the poster 9/10 which is a Level 4 and the review 8/10 putting it at Level 3. Breaking down the poster I would evaluated the design and layout as being excellent, font and text size proficient and the use of language and integration of illustration and text as also being proficient, I consider the poster as missing some key elements such as names of actors and a tagline to draw the audience in. However the use of ICT, the range of shots, mise en scène and the manipulation of the photo show excellent technical skills.

In regard to the review I really consider the layout, range of font sizes, language, ICT, integration of illustrations and text, and manipulating of photos shows a proficient use of technical skills and the range of shots I believe only shows a basic level of creativity, compare to the poster it doesn't have the same house style or synergy. Though it contains all the codes & conventions for a film review it doesn't have a similar professional quality that the posted as compared to it's counterparts.

Graham Forward's Ancillary Tasks

Poster

Review

After considering both the poster and review I consider both of them to be in a level 2 however the poster to be 5/10 and the review to be 4/10. Both of them in all aspects of the criteria; layout, font size, language, ICT, integration illustrations and text, range of shot types, mise en scène and the manipulation photography is all a basic level of proficiency. The poster is missing a large array of additional codes & conventions such as the actor names, casting crew but most of all a professional and coherent design - to me this poster looks like a DVD cover.

I have a similar problem with the layout and design of the review it doesn't look professional or contains the traditional code & convention that I have associated with a film review. The background is one solid colour, there is not a large image that contains most of the page, the text is interspersed and erratic - the design is not professional and the layout or structure does not abide by the traditional conventions of a review.

Daniel Parslow's Ancillary Tasks

Poster

Review

After I evaluated these ancillary tasks I have come to the conclusion of that poster is Level 3, 8/10 and the review is level 2, 6/10. I decided that the poster is a top of level 3 as the layout, integration of illustrations and text and manipulation of photographs show a higher level of proficiency in creativity where as the use of font sizes, ICT, shots and mise en scène shows an excellent use of creativity and abide by the cost & conventions of a traditional film poster. On the other hand I would have giving this poster a level 4 if the use of language would've been better, I gave a level 2 for the use of language as there was some elements such as a tagline, actors names etc. that were missing from the final poster.

I believe that the review is a level 2 as the design and layout does not abide by the traditional for that is used in film review magazines and shows a basic level of creativity which is the same for the use of ICT, integration of images and text, shot types, mise en scène and manipulation of photographs. however I did awards a proficient understanding for the use of different font sizes and the language that has been used to write a review, for immediate the writing reflected a similar yet unrefined style of review that is not traditional of a magazine's writing style.

Steven Jones' Ancillary Tasks

Poster

Review

After evaluating these ancillary tasks I have decided that the poster deserves a level 4, 9/10 and the review deserves a level 3, 8/10. In regards to the poster the layout and design has a very professional and coherent design and in my opinion definitely shows excellent creative technical skills as well does the font size, ICT skills, integration illustrations and text, choice of shots and manipulation photographs. However the use of language for me and only shows proficiency and there are some elements such as actors and cast & crews names that are missing from the poster and the mise en scène though dramatic does not allude to the genre of the short film.

When evaluating the film review I consider the layout to be showing a proficient use and understanding of the codes & conventions that are traditional for magazine review. A proficient uses also been shown to the use of the language, ICT, integration of illustrations and text, mise en scène, and the manipulation of photographs. However the use of font shows an excellent understanding of the differences in Sideys relativity the importance of the information, on the other hand the choice of s shows a basic level of creativity.

Laura Budden's Ancillary Tasks

Poster

Review

After evaluating the poster and review and comparing them to the other eight ancillary tasks I have decided that the poster deserves level 2, 5/10 and the review deserves level 1, 3/10. I have given the poster a level 2 as I see the layout, font and shot types shows a basic level of creativity, however the editing of photos I believe shows proficiency as the background around the individual has been taken out which is a high level skill. Where as the use of language, ICT, integration of illustrations and text and mise en scène is a minimal level of creativity and is the reason why I believe it did not deserve higher.

When evaluating the review however I believe it only shows a minimal level of creativity, the use font, ICT, shop types and mise en scène all, I believe show a minimal capability and creativity in regards to creating a magazine style. However the layout, language, ICT, range of shot types, and the manipulation of photo, I believe show basic level of creativity and therefore I considered this review to be at the top of a level 1. from me this review is the professional quality to rip there is traditional for magazine review at the amount of content is limited which indicates that it is of a minimal unfinished quality, that is associated with the level one.

After my evaluation of the ancillary tasks from the short film brief, I have come to the conclusion that the areas that are the strongest in terms of the creation of the poster are the layout, ICT, shot types, and manipulation of photos. However the areas that I believe I need to focus on as much as the others are the use of language and the integration of illustration and text. When I was evaluating the posters these are the areas that I consider need more work to create a professional feel, need as much consideration as the layout, ICT, shot types and manipulation of photos have.

In regards to the review of the areas that I consider to be the strongest are the use of font, language, ICT, and the integration of illustrations and text. However the areas that I believe I need to consider when creating my review, as much as the other areas are the inclusion of different shot types and the mise en scène of the shots, to create a professional and coherent review that buys by the traditional codes & conventions of a magazine review.