- Mar 27, 2006
Thankyou - but just one thing. Leni's rise to prominence continued after her de-Nazification. Her photography of the Nuba tribes in the 1960's and her underwater filming of marine life up until her death in 2003, were incredibly important to her rise to prominence. Those later life activities allowed her to reach an entirely new audience. In fact, the second question in the Personalities section which talks about unbalanced interpretations. When you look at the interpretations that are out there now: Susan Sontag, Audrey Salkeld etc... they are from the modern generation who were introduced to Leni by her later life activites.cem said:It will be interesting to see how this works out next week when we start marking Modern History (starts on 11th November).
My reading of the question and knowledge of Leni is that her rise to prominence doesn't end in 33 but really only begins there - it is the making of TOW and Olympia that makes her a prominent figure.
The problem with the question is going to be on interpreting the term 'rise to prominence' and how the examiners when designing the question and the marking guidelines have interpreted that question.
I suspect from marking in the past that we will be expecting to at least take her to the end of 38 and the release of Olympia, if not to end 45.
The problem with this question is the use of the term 'rise to prominence' which as has been pointed out is a section of the syllabus and really no one should be penalised if all they discuss are the four dot points under that heading in each personality but I suspect that we will be expecting students to go further than that with the personalities.
We have two points of view expressed in this thread - one is that the concept 'rise to prominence' is restricted to the points listed in the syllabus and the other is that 'rise to prominence' more realistically covers at the absolute minimum the making of the two films that make her a person worth studying in the first place i.e. whether the term in the question meant only the section of the syllabus or a broader judgement as to when she became prominent.
To those of you who have studied Leni I would expect you to actually include the films at the very least but I wouldn't expect you to go past denazification. However when I see the marking guidelines and have been briefed as to what to give marks for it will become clearer - by that time the examination committee will have briefed the senior markers about what they intended with the question and the senior markers will have read a couple of hundred actual responses and be able to advise us markers accordingly.
I wouldn't get too hung up either way as I suspect that students who take the strict interpretation will be compensated - if done properly with more than 5/10 while those who take the broader interpretation will also be compensated.
At this stage I really don't know what the interpretation will be but I suspect a more liberal interpretation and I will certainly raise the issues mentioned here in the briefing session if necessary once I have seen the marking guideline (assuming that I am put on Personalities again)
Regardless of what the marking centre decides, I am myself confident and unmoved in the belief that Leni's rise to prominence occured throughout the entire course of her life, therefore the length and detail of the narration should be distributed accordingly.