Topic and research question are communicated clearly and maintained throughout the investigation
Purpose and focus are appropriate and consistently linked back to Marxist film theory
Sections remain tightly anchored to the research question with effective transitions
Methodological rationale for selecting specific shots and secondary texts is never made explicit
Occasional contextual digressions (e.g. Korean poverty statistics) are not consistently tied back to technique analysis
Excellent integration of film-analysis concepts (e.g., mise-en-scène, chiaroscuro, deep focus) with Marxist theory
Terminology is accurate, consistent, and used with nuance
Discussion shows strong subject knowledge and effective application of secondary sources
A few passages rely on narrative recap rather than deeper theoretical synthesis
Use of non-scholarly sources (SparkNotes, Medium articles) slightly weakens academic rigor
Research is consistently relevant and draws on a broad range of primary and secondary materials
Analysis is well structured, linking visual evidence to ideological arguments effectively
Discussion is coherent, with a sustained, critical argument culminating in a concise conclusion
Reliance on some popular-media sources limits academic depth
Evaluation of alternative interpretations and explicit reflection on limitations are minimal
Document structure fully meets IB requirements, with all key sections and consistent pagination
Layout (font, spacing, headings, figure captions) follows conventions correctly
Word count and title page are properly presented
Minor formatting inconsistencies (broken citation styles, figure placement)
Some dense paragraphs could be better subdivided for readability