English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[anotherworld2b]

it is worth 25 marks so I assume it would be a extended answer (essay)
I am not sure how to further elaborate my points :/

Sure thing

Spoiler

Q4. The positioning of audience in relation to an idea (or purpose) is often through emotional engagement. Discuss with reference to at least one text you have studied.

In 1963, King’s renowned speech ‘I Have a Dream’ resonated with the emotions of the African American population who called for civil and economic rights at the March of Washington. Use the full name of a composer the first time you use it - Just a convention. It was undeniably one of the most memorable moments in American history as one of the largest political rallies for human rights in the United States. Irrelevant info without linking it to emotional engagement. King’s use of emotive language, inclusive language and metaphors evoked strong emotional engagement from the audience enhancing its overall impact. Good intro - But I'm still looking for a bit more clarification on how an audience is positioned to view an idea through emotional engagement (the question). This means, how does the composer use emotion to get the audience to agree with them? Some stronger links between the civil/economic rights and the emotional engagement is needed.

King’s use of powerful emotive language throughout his speech enables him to accentuate its effect on the audience through emotional engagement. Nice simple start. The use of emotive language in ‘sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent’ adds emphasis by evoking a strong emotional response from the audience to encourage acknowledgement towards the injustice suffered by the African American population. In addition, the use of emotive language such as ‘dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice’ resonates with the African American population and encourages acknowledgement from other Americans towards the need for racial equality. Thus showing that the effective use of emotional language can strongly emphasise the impact of King’s speech by evoking strong emotional response so as to force agreement from the reader. Having a whole paragraph on a single technique seems very strange and a little pointless to me - You could do this whole paragraph in two sentences otherwise. Did your teacher suggest this structure of 'per technique'? Just wary on saying not to do it, I don't know WACE very well

In addition, King’s use of inclusive language enhanced the mid 20th century zeitgeist of racism, segregation and discrimination inflicted on the ‘negroes’. Be sure to link to emotional engagement in every first sentence. The use of inclusive language in the iconic repetition ‘I have a Dream’ engages the reader by persuading readers to support Martin Luther King’s view. Furthermore, King’s use of inclusive language accentuates the personal appeal created towards the audience by evoking shame and guilt. Nice analysis in this paragraph! Nice consideration of audience impact. Through the effective use of inclusive language King is able to position towards accepting his view through emotional engagement.

Furthermore, King’s use of simile allows vibrant imageries to crafted in the minds of the audience to accentuated the impact of King’s speech. Again, link to emotional impact. Through the use of metaphors such as ‘a beacon light of hope’ reinforces a point without repetition. The use of metaphors such as ‘joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity’ engages the reader highlighting the point that action against racism, segregation and discrimination must be taken. Ensure all your paragraphs have a proper conclusion - Again, just a structural convention to keep things organised.

Hence, the impact of King’s ‘I have a Dream’ speech being embodiment of the African American population's demand for the ‘unalienable rights of life’ promised with the signing of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was enhanced by emotional engagement.

So your analysis/ideas are good here, but I'm a little thrown by the structure. You've structured it like an essay, but you don't have that much to discuss. This leads to short paragraphs that would probably be better off as sentences in a larger paragraph. The way it is now, your ideas are better expressed as one single, long, but super effective paragraph.

So either you need to consolidate these ideas into a single paragraph, OR you need more to discuss. I'm not sure which because I have no clue how much would be expected in WACE for this question. Given its part of a bundle, I wager this is a short answer question?

[jamonwindeyer]

it is worth 25 marks so I assume it would be a extended answer (essay)
I am not sure how to further elaborate my points :/

Oh yep for sure it would have to be

So I would suggest, instead of focusing on one paragraph per technique, try setting up a more conceptual approach. Have one paragraph per concept - The speech you have chosen has a heap of them. There are of course the civil rights aspects, but also more general concepts of equality, love, history, and more. You can do a bit of a Google to see what is out there for this speech (there is loads).

SO the idea would be, with one concept per paragraph, to separately explore how King engages emotionally with the audience to influence their perspective on that concept. This will let you explore a variety of techniques per paragraph, which will be more effective than what you have in place right now, which is just the same technique on repeat. The conceptual approach is what I push in the HSC, so I reckon it will work just as well in WACE.

So to start, try and brainstorm three interrelated themes (or however many), and try and find some quotes that re-enforce that concept

(Alternatively, if you're on a limited time frame for any reason, of course just add more quotes to your current structure. But I do think, if time is no object, then a change will improve the piece substantially. It's just whether you can invest the extra hours to completely swap it or not)

[kb123]

Hi! This is my essay for Module A. We haven't had our exam for Mod A yet, so I don't have any specific questions on where I could in improve from exam feedback.
It needs some word cutting, so if you see anything that could be cut while reading, please let me know
I don't have any particular concerns at the moment, so I would just like some tips on areas to improve (however I was wondering if my first and second paragraph link to each other enough in terms of the discussion of the theme).

Here it is:

Spoiler

Distinction in the represented values within texts intensifies how context shapes composers’ perspectives (or answer to question). A comparison of ideas and textual features between Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927) and George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948) develops the audience’s understanding of the unique political and personal threats faced within Lang’s and Orwell’s respective societies. Reflecting the hardships following the First World War, Metropolis reveals the way authoritarian regimes limit one’s freedom and individuality, though influenced by Weimar Germany’s Golden Era, is optimistic about social reform catalysed by rebellion. However, due Orwell’s experiences of the precarious geopolitical climate post-WWII, Nineteen Eighty-Four offers no hope for individuality to survive in or humanity to overcome a totalitarian society.

Influenced by the suffering of the proletariat in the early Weimer Republic, Lang reveals his negative attitude towards the way hierarchal totalitarian societies restrict individuality. The recent Industrial Revolution increased income and class inequality, the chiaroscuro between the shots of the upper and lower class, characteristic of German Expressionist film, elucidating Lang’s negative opinion towards the way each class conforms to the status quo by sacrificing their individuality. The mise-en-scene of the workers, costumed in identical, dark uniforms, reveals their induced conformity by capitalist ruler Fredersen, reflective of the suppression of the proletariat’s individuality within the Weimer context in addition to Lang’s critical opinions of capitalism that were strongly upheld at the time. Furthermore, Lang’s use of dull lighting in the medium shots of workers within the opening scenes creates a sombre mood to convey the oppression and dehumanisation felt by the men, resonating the restrictive impact of excessive industrialisation on the voice of the working class within Weimer Germany. Lang’s use of contrast between the tone of the non-diegetic music used to characterise emphasises each class’ non-individualistic submission to their roles within “Metropolis”, emulating the hierarchal social structure of the Weimer Republic, assisting Lang in warning his audience of a future where individuality is not valued. Thus, Lang visually examines his era in which the individuality of the lower class is sacrificed for social stability.

Whilst both Lang and Orwell’s texts depict societies where state power suppresses individuality, they differ both in medium and context, resulting in Orwell’s analysis of the way totalitarian manipulation of language and power present during post-WWII Stalinist USSR abolishes individuality within a society. Orwell reflects the way human spirit is rendered worthless in a totalitarian system through his use of paradox “Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death? The Party is immortal”. The personification of “The Party” as “immortal” further emphasises the domination of the Soviet Government over human freedom and life, particularly during the Great Purges of 1936, portraying how the author’s personal experiences of totalitarian USSR have shaped his resentful perspective towards their diminution of the individual. Additionally, Orwell’s inclusion of Newspeak jargon, “ownlife… meaning individuality and eccentricity”, negatively connotating ‘individuality’ and ‘eccentricity’, reveals how Orwell satirises the way unique human expression was suppressed by the Soviet government. The characterisation of Julia parallels Metropolis’ protagonist Freder, both of whom do not “accept it as a law of nature that the individual is always defeated”, metaphorically capturing the vulnerability of human individuality within authoritarian regimes. Similarly to Lang, Orwell stresses the abandonment of individuality in an authoritarian regime, with his projection of a dystopic future in a totalitarian world intensified by his experiences of the extreme political paradigms post-WWII.

In “Metropolis”, Lang reveals his negative attitude towards industrialised classist societies of capitalist nations, promoting peaceful social reform in place of rebellion against authority. Influenced by the failure of the Kapp Pusch in the overthrowal of the Weimar Republic, Lang portrays his perspective that change can be independent of rebellion. The confronting tone of the dialogue card “And if those in the depths one day rise against you?” foreshadows the revolt of the lower class, capturing the sense of dissatisfaction the working class of the Weimer Republic felt towards their rulers. Thus, the mise-en-scene of the Tower of Babel scene, capturing myriad workers filling the frame and overwhelming their oppressive masters, depicts Lang’s warning to society that rebellion is inevitable if capitalists continue to abuse workers for their own profit. Mirroring the failure of the Kapp Pusch, Lang portrays the unsuccessfulness the worker’s revolution after their destruction of the Heart Machine through a montage of clips juxtaposing between the workers dancing at a medium shot to shots of their forgotten children drowning, thus condemning the notion of spontaneous rebellion. Furthermore, Lang’s hopeful perspective towards conscientious social reform is visually displayed in the mid-shot of worker Grot and ruler Fredersen linking hands in a symbol of reconciliation of labour and capital, completing the extended metaphor of the intertitle: ‘the mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart.’ The political tension in Lang’s Weimer Germany context influenced his shaping of the film to portray rebellion as inferior to peaceful social amendment.

Where Lang portrays an optimistic attitude towards social revolution, Orwell’s differs in that he presents the futility of rebellion in within a totalitarian regime, having witnessed both world wars and the dawn of the nuclear age. Orwell’s choice of the dystopian genre in writing “1984” depicts the way the sceptical style of elite literature of the Cold War shaped Orwell’s antagonistic perspective towards the nature of politics of his time. In contrast to Metropolis’ demonstrative protagonist, Winston’s omniscient narration conveys how he can only mutely challenge the Party’s prohibition of individuality: “always in your stomach there was a dull protest”. The metaphor of a “protest” in a “stomach” exemplifies the limit of rebellion in the light of the “Party”, Orwell’s parody of the despotic government of the USSR spotlighting his disgusted attitude towards such a regime. The repetition and capitalisation of “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” in Winston’s stream of consciousness in his diary, further characterises him as an individual supressed, yet defiant attitude towards “The Party”, paralleling Orwell’s personal abhorrence towards totalitarianism within Fascist Spain and Stalinist USSR. The metaphor “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”, reflects the way political insurgence was liquidated during the Great Purges of the Soviet Union, highlighting how Orwell’s context influenced his perspective that resistance against totalitarian power is futile. Hence, the contrast between Orwell’s austere predictions for the future of humanity and Lang’s idealistic visions highlights their differing views towards the plausibility of rebellion within their contextual societies shaped by their distinct contexts.

Comparing Fritz Lang’s silent film Metropolis and George Orwell’s satirical novel Nineteen Eighty-Four reveals the contiguity of context, ideas and values present in each text, revealing how the contextual fears regarding social structure and politics shape Lang’s and Orwell’s perspectives about the future of humanity. Both texts depict the extreme tension between the desire of individuality and totalitarianism, however due to the composers’ difference in context, present contrasting attitudes towards rebellion against authority.

My teacher also said that I cannot start my sentences with verbs such as "mirroring", or words such as "thus" and "hence". Do I really have to change it?? Like is this only her opinion or a rule in general?

[elysepopplewell]

Hi! This is my essay for Module A. We haven't had our exam for Mod A yet, so I don't have any specific questions on where I could in improve from exam feedback.
It needs some word cutting, so if you see anything that could be cut while reading, please let me know
I don't have any particular concerns at the moment, so I would just like some tips on areas to improve (however I was wondering if my first and second paragraph link to each other enough in terms of the discussion of the theme).

My teacher also said that I cannot start my sentences with verbs such as "mirroring", or words such as "thus" and "hence". Do I really have to change it?? Like is this only her opinion or a rule in general?

Hey there! I'll write some comments in bold font throughout and then I'll chat at the end outside the spoiler

Spoiler

Distinction in the represented values within texts intensifies how context shapes composers’ perspectives (or answer to question).

A comparison of ideas and textual features between Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927) and George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948) develops the audience’s understanding of the unique political and personal threats faced within Lang’s and Orwell’s respective societies. Already it's great to see the way you've talked about textual features as well, this is important in module A and is often overlooked. Reflecting the hardships following the First World War, Metropolis reveals the way authoritarian regimes limit one’s freedom and individuality, though influenced by Weimar Germany’s Golden Era, is optimistic about social reform catalysed by rebellion. However, due Orwell’s experiences of the precarious geopolitical climate post-WWII, Nineteen Eighty-Four offers no hope for individuality to survive in or humanity to overcome a totalitarian society. I feel like one more sentence here to tie together the way the two texts work comparatively would be to your advantage. In a way, bringing a more unique thesis to the table. You've brought up excellent and unique ideas for the text respectively, but now something that brings the two together that you will follow throughout your entire argument. Perhaps it is that the manipulation of form is the most distinct difference between the two, or perhaps it is the treatment of humanity as still pure despite the circumstances...these are just random ideas. A unique thesis will separate you from the rest.

Influenced by the suffering of the proletariat in the early Weimer Republic, Lang reveals his negative attitude towards the way hierarchal totalitarian societies restrict individuality. The recent Industrial Revolution increased income and class inequality, the chiaroscuro between the shots of the upper and lower class, characteristic of German Expressionist film, elucidating Lang’s negative opinion towards the way each class conforms to the status quo by sacrificing their individuality. This is a long sentence and because of the comma splices, it gets a bit confusing. If possible, I'd cut this into two. You have great information in here, I don't want to lose any of it. The mise-en-scene of the workers, costumed in identical, dark uniforms, reveals their induced conformity by capitalist ruler Fredersen, reflective of the suppression of the proletariat’s individuality within the Weimer context in addition to Lang’s critical opinions of capitalism that were strongly upheld at the time. Furthermore, Lang’s use of dull lighting in the medium shots of workers within the opening scenes creates a sombre mood to convey the oppression and dehumanisation felt by the men, resonating the restrictive impact of excessive industrialisation on the voice of the working class within Weimer Germany. Lang’s use of contrast between the tone of the non-diegetic music used to characterise emphasises each class’ non-individualistic submission to their roles within “Metropolis”, emulating the hierarchal social structure of the Weimer Republic, assisting Lang in warning his audience of a future where individuality is not valued. Thus, Lang visually examines his era in which the individuality of the lower class is sacrificed for social stability. You do a great job of linking textual evidence to technique to effect.

Whilst both Lang and Orwell’s texts depict societies where state power suppresses individuality, they differ both in medium and context, resulting in Orwell’s analysis of the way totalitarian manipulation of language and power present during post-WWII Stalinist USSR abolishes individuality within a society. Yes, great link. Really solid! Orwell reflects the way human spirit is rendered worthless in a totalitarian system This bit, is incredible. through his use of paradox “Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death? The Party is immortal”. The personification of “The Party” as “immortal” further emphasises the domination of the Soviet Government over human freedom and life, particularly during the Great Purges of 1936, portraying how the author’s personal experiences of totalitarian USSR have shaped his resentful perspective towards their diminution of the individual. Additionally, Orwell’s inclusion of Newspeak jargon, “ownlife… meaning individuality and eccentricity”, negatively connotating ‘individuality’ and ‘eccentricity’, reveals how Orwell satirises the way unique human expression was suppressed by the Soviet government. The characterisation of Julia parallels Metropolis’ protagonist Freder, both of whom do not “accept it as a law of nature that the individual is always defeated”, metaphorically capturing the vulnerability of human individuality within authoritarian regimes. Similarly to Lang, Orwell stresses the abandonment of individuality in an authoritarian regime, with his projection of a dystopic future in a totalitarian world intensified by his experiences of the extreme political paradigms post-WWII. Again, no issues with linking evidence to effect. Your writing style is really effective.

In “Metropolis”, Lang reveals his negative attitude towards industrialised classist societies of capitalist nations, promoting peaceful social reform in place of rebellion against authority. Influenced by the failure of the Kapp Pusch in the overthrowal of the Weimar Republic, Lang portrays his perspective that change can be independent of rebellion. The confronting tone of the dialogue card “And if those in the depths one day rise against you?” foreshadows the revolt of the lower class, capturing the sense of dissatisfaction the working class of the Weimer Republic felt towards their rulers. Excellent analysis. Thus, the mise-en-scene of the Tower of Babel scene, capturing myriad workers filling the frame and overwhelming their oppressive masters, depicts Lang’s warning to society that rebellion is inevitable if capitalists continue to abuse workers for their own profit. Mirroring the failure of the Kapp Pusch, Lang portrays the unsuccessfulness the worker’s revolution after their destruction of the Heart Machine through a montage of clips juxtaposing between the workers dancing at a medium shot to shots of their forgotten children drowning, thus condemning the notion of spontaneous rebellion. This is a really long sentence, but also don't think that mirroring is a problem here. It's more just that you've flipped typical syntax around. I start some sentences with "mirroring" as well, and I think it works. In this particular incidence, I don't even think that you would benefit from moving "mirroring" out of it's primary position. I think it works perfectly. Furthermore, Lang’s hopeful perspective towards conscientious social reform is visually displayed in the mid-shot of worker Grot and ruler Fredersen linking hands in a symbol of reconciliation of labour and capital, completing the extended metaphor of the intertitle: ‘the mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart.’ The political tension in Lang’s Weimer Germany context influenced his shaping of the film to portray rebellion as inferior to peaceful social amendment.

Where Lang portrays an optimistic attitude towards social revolution, Orwell’s differs in that he presents the futility of rebellion in within a totalitarian regime, having witnessed both world wars and the dawn of the nuclear age. Orwell’s choice of the dystopian genre in writing “1984” depicts the way the sceptical style of elite literature of the Cold War shaped Orwell’s antagonistic perspective towards the nature of politics of his time. In contrast to Metropolis’ demonstrative protagonist, Winston’s omniscient narration conveys how he can only mutely challenge the Party’s prohibition of individuality: “always in your stomach there was a dull protest”. The metaphor of a “protest” in a “stomach” exemplifies the limit of rebellion in the light of the “Party”, Orwell’s parody of the despotic government of the USSR spotlighting his disgusted attitude towards such a regime. The repetition and capitalisation of “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” in Winston’s stream of consciousness in his diary, further characterises him as an individual supressed, yet defiant attitude towards “The Party”, paralleling Orwell’s personal abhorrence towards totalitarianism within Fascist Spain and Stalinist USSR. The metaphor “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”, reflects the way political insurgence was liquidated during the Great Purges of the Soviet Union, highlighting how Orwell’s context influenced his perspective that resistance against totalitarian power is futile. Hence, the contrast between Orwell’s austere predictions for the future of humanity and Lang’s idealistic visions highlights their differing views towards the plausibility of rebellion within their contextual societies shaped by their distinct contexts.

Comparing Fritz Lang’s silent film Metropolis and George Orwell’s satirical novel Nineteen Eighty-Four reveals the contiguity of context, ideas and values present in each text, revealing how the contextual fears regarding social structure and politics shape Lang’s and Orwell’s perspectives about the future of humanity. Both texts depict the extreme tension between the desire of individuality and totalitarianism, however due to the composers’ difference in context, present contrasting attitudes towards rebellion against authority.

This is just wonderful, amazing. I think you are a really great writer and you have captured the link between context and text magnificently. I mentioned in the intro about your thesis. I see that as we go on there is an argument about rebellion against authority. That's awesome. I think you raise a really unique idea in your second body paragraph. You talk about the human spirit being rendered worthless. That's an idea that you could make more prominent in your essay, its' very strong, and it links well with your idea about authority anyway. Usually, a Module A essay question would suggest something more in the way of a theme for you to deal with anyway, so you'd already be forced to talk about another major thematic aspect (although sometimes you do get broad ones like this!). So, I apologise I don't have much feedback on your writing style at all because everything is tight and well supported (a few long sentences, but I pointed them out). But I think your conceptual approach has room for improvement. The understanding of authority and rebellion persists in all of the analysis available online for these texts - but the human spirit being rendered worthless? Very original. Pairing it with the authority and rebellion idea could be very powerful. I think it's worth a shot! What do you think?

To reiterate, you're a brilliant writer and this is a marvellous piece. Everything flows beautifully and nothing jars. The next step, in my opinion, is conceptual work.

[Nialllovespie]

Hiya,

Just wondering if I can get my essay marked

Thanks so much in advance!! Also I am aware that I still need to make links between the texts in each paragraphs but I need advice on the rest of it hahah

The dominant contextual concerns arising during the composure of an author's texts enables the author to expose their perspectives of the prevalent ideologies, thus warning their audience of future ramifications. In response to the post World War 2 context, George Orwell's prose fiction, “1984” (1949) satirically condemns the universal concerns regarding the corrosive implications of totalitarian regimes similar to those of Stalin, Franco and Mussolini and the utilisation of technology as an extremist tool for manipulation. Fritz Lang’s German Expressionist film “Metropolis” (1927) operates as a social commentary by criticising the unrestrained capitalist society, creating a corrupting influence on humanity, characterised by labour exploitation and socioeconomic disparity in the Weimar Republic.


The social stratification in “Metropolis” enables Lang to characterise a political model that emphasises the pervasive inequity which stems from class division. Lang's perspectives are conditioned by the Weimar Republic where the repatriations post world war 1, entrenched political and economic instability creating German anxiety and socio economic disparity that occurred from burgeoning capitalistic values. Lang creates a societal subordination through a dystopian perspective of society in order to juxtapose the prosperous minority of the upper class with the majority of impecunious working class. In addition, the prevalent class disparity is further presented through the use of parallel editing, accentuating the workers collective disempowerment from the commodification of the underclass, supported by capitalism. The workers stark uniformity consisting of black overalls symbolic of their diminished identity and value as individuals, juxtaposed with the white clothing garments of the upper class, symbolises their purity and illustrious wealth. Lang’s depiction of a dystopian society uses stylistic features of German Expressionism to highlight the exploitation of the underclass contrasted to the benefits received by the rich in Metropolis, emphasising the social and economic disparity in Metropolis, similar to that of the Weimar Republic. Lang’s composition of Metropolis critiques the burgeoning capitalist values of labour exploitation and socio-economic disparity employed in Weimar Germany causing a scarred national psyche as a result of the capitalist values, similar to the dehumanising effects evident in 1984.

Fundamentally, Orwell deploys 1984 to model a warning against the psychological forms of control, exposing his opposition to totalitarianism in fascist Spain and Stalinist Russia. In reminiscence of the extreme fascist and totalitarian regimes imposed by the purges of Stalinist Russia and Hitler’s Nazi Party (specifically the Night of Long Knives), the immediate composure of 1984 subsequently to World War 2, allows Orwell's ideas to be voiced through rhetoric in “the past is dead, the future is unimaginable” warning the British of the destructive ramifications that would occur in the society if a totalitarian authoritarian government were to take place in England. The paradoxical observations made by Orwell of the totalitarianism and fascist societies during his time is reinforced through the manipulation of language illustrated throughout 1984 such as the Party’s delicate engineering of false information such as “two and two makes five” empowering them to indoctrinate and alter the psyche in order to eradicate individual thought and permitting them to subjugate society. Furthermore, the metaphor “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever” encapsulates the marginalisation of society prompted by the oppressive political regimes dominating a society, thus warning his audience of the catastrophic ramifications of absolute power, similar to the totalitarian regimes employed by Stalin. Orwell's purpose of 1984 is explored through his satirical warning of political paradigms and totalitarian regimes stressing the vulnerability of human psyche as a result of the oligarchical movements post WW2.

Langs perspective of Weimar Germany is paradoxically reflective throughout Metropolis as he warns against the corruptive influence of class disparity resulting in the lower class being abused by the use of technological forms, similarly to the repatriations of World War 1. The mis-en-scene during the “shift change” scene in Metropolis symbolises conformity and the treatment of workers as extensions to the machines as the workers despondent and slouched body language suggest the restrictive social repercussions of industrialisation. Furthermore, the “shift change” foreshadows the deteriorating economic environment in Germany post WW1 as they approach the Great Depression. Freder’s vision of the M-Machine becoming a monster by killing the workers being thrown into the machine is symbolic of the slaves fed to Moloch, the God of Fire, in the ancient Middle East. The films allegorical nature, foreshadows the dangers of society growing dependence on technology, contextually respective of the industrialisation of world cities of the time. The growing dangers can further be seen through the intertextual allusion to the Semitic deity that establishes a socially polarised world where there value of workers is equalised to that of the machines they operate. In addition, the montage of moving machinery such as the gears and cogs, introduces the notion that society works like a machine in order to keep moving, they all must fit together and run smoothly. Lang's critique of capitalist exploitation in Weimar Germany is enriched through the oppression of humanity exercised through technology, similar to Orwell's fear of technology causing dehumanising effects.


Orwell’s composure of 1984, post World War 2, satirically exposes his perspectives, influenced by the ability of political paradigms to indoctrinate individuals through abusing technology as observed in fascist Spain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The control manifested in the desolate characterisation of Big Brother constantly observing individuals actions through the telescreens coupled with the recurring motif, “Big Brother is watching you” exposes political paradigms abusing technology to control the human spirit. Furthermore, the motif presented by the telescreens, “you had to assume every sound you make was overheard” reveals Orwell's perpetual fear of technology as he foreshadows Britain's behaviour to be similar to that of the Outer Party, subjecting individuals to constant observation and reflecting the inhibition of free speech that was enforced by totalitarianism and Stalin in the Soviet Russia. Orwell's opposition to technology, provoked by his era, reveals his fear of governments seizing their power in order to gain access to individuals private lives, without the individual knowing if they were being subjected to observation at any given moment. The emphatic and direct language communicated in, “technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty.” exposes the impact of technological forces on a regimented society, exacerbating lack of freedom leading to catastrophic consequences. Orwell enriches the audience's understanding of the detrimental and explicit methods that control can be abused through the use of technology in 1984, resulting in the oppression of humanity, as similarly explored in Metropolis.


A comparison of Metropolis and 1984 provides the representation of common values and ideas presented in texts, despite differing compositional milieus. The exploration of social stratification and indoctrination through the abuse of technology provides insight of their composers perspectives, and thus the importance of context shaping meaning of a text.

[jamonwindeyer]

Hiya,

Just wondering if I can get my essay marked

Thanks so much in advance!! Also I am aware that I still need to make links between the texts in each paragraphs but I need advice on the rest of it hahah

Hey! You certainly can

Essay with Feedback

The dominant contextual concerns arising during the composure of an author's texts enables the author to expose their perspectives of the prevalent ideologies, thus warning their audience of future ramifications. I know what you are trying to say with this Thesis but it seems a little roundabout - You are saying that the concerns of the authors context allows them to explore their perspectives of the concerns of their context. See how it loops on itself? In response to the post World War 2 context, George Orwell's prose fiction, “1984” (1949) satirically condemns the universal concerns regarding the corrosive implications of totalitarian regimes similar to those of Stalin, Franco and Mussolini and the utilisation of technology as an extremist tool for manipulation. Fritz Lang’s German Expressionist film “Metropolis” (1927) operates as a social commentary by criticising the unrestrained capitalist society, creating a corrupting influence on humanity, characterised by labour exploitation and socioeconomic disparity in the Weimar Republic. Nice introduction of texts - I'm looking for a conclusive statement of what we get by studying these TOGETHER. This is a comparative module, I need more comparison.

The social stratification in “Metropolis” enables Lang to characterise a political model that emphasises the pervasive inequity which stems from class division. Good! Nice concept and link to context. Lang's perspectives are conditioned by the Weimar Republic where the repatriations post world war 1, entrenched political and economic instability creating German anxiety and socio economic disparity that occurred from burgeoning capitalistic values. Perhaps a little too much set up for the context, but definitely not too bad. Lang creates a societal subordination through a dystopian perspective of society in order to juxtapose the prosperous minority of the upper class with the majority of impecunious working class. What does this show the audience specifically? In addition, the prevalent class disparity is further presented through the use of parallel editing, accentuating the workers collective disempowerment from the commodification of the underclass, supported by capitalism. What do you mean by, "supported by capitalism?" Watch that your vocabulary and verbose expression doesn't impact on the clarity of your ideas. The workers stark uniformity consisting of black overalls symbolic of their diminished identity and value as individuals, juxtaposed with the white clothing garments of the upper class, symbolises their purity and illustrious wealth. Careful - Be sure to attribute this to Lang, don't talk about the workers by themselves (too close to retell). Lang’s depiction of a dystopian society uses stylistic features of German Expressionism to highlight the exploitation of the underclass contrasted to the benefits received by the rich in Metropolis, emphasising the social and economic disparity in Metropolis, similar to that of the Weimar Republic. Lang’s composition of Metropolis critiques the burgeoning capitalist values of labour exploitation and socio-economic disparity employed in Weimar Germany causing a scarred national psyche as a result of the capitalist values, similar to the dehumanising effects evident in 1984. That last reference to 1984 is empty since it didn't appear in the rest of the paragraph (but I know you are working on this). Solid paragraph, but you need to be referencing the audience a little more - What is it we are taught specifically?

Fundamentally, Orwell deploys 1984 to model a warning against the psychological forms of control, exposing his opposition to totalitarianism in fascist Spain and Stalinist Russia. Perfect topic sentence. In reminiscence of the extreme fascist and totalitarian regimes imposed by the purges of Stalinist Russia and Hitler’s Nazi Party (specifically the Night of Long Knives), the immediate composure of 1984 subsequently to World War 2, allows Orwell's ideas to be voiced through rhetoric in “the past is dead, the future is unimaginable” warning the British of the destructive ramifications that would occur in the society if a totalitarian authoritarian government were to take place in England. That sentence was definitely too long - Perhaps split it into two? Again, be sure to keep things simple and clear - Long and complex sentences can quickly cause confusion! The paradoxical observations made by Orwell of the totalitarianism and fascist societies during his time is reinforced through the manipulation of language illustrated throughout 1984 such as the Party’s delicate engineering of false information such as “two and two makes five” empowering them to indoctrinate and alter the psyche in order to eradicate individual thought and permitting them to subjugate society. Ditto there - I think you are trying to do too much too quickly. Orwell's context, link to the plot of the novel in red, effect on characters in novel. That's a lot! And none of it relates to the audience!.  Furthermore, the metaphor “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever” encapsulates the marginalisation of society prompted by the oppressive political regimes dominating a society, thus warning his audience of the catastrophic ramifications of absolute power, similar to the totalitarian regimes employed by Stalin. THAT was perfect - That is the sentence you need to be writing every time. Direct, to the point, no reliance on the plot of the text. Orwell's purpose of 1984 is explored through his satirical warning of political paradigms and totalitarian regimes stressing the vulnerability of human psyche as a result of the oligarchical movements post WW2. I'd like a more conclusive finish to the paragraph - Thus, Orwell's context is clearly reflected in his composition, as ________ is communicated to the audience.

Langs perspective of Weimar Germany is paradoxically reflective throughout Metropolis as he warns against the corruptive influence of class disparity resulting in the lower class being abused by the use of technological forms, similarly to the repatriations of World War 1. The mis-en-scene during the “shift change” scene in Metropolis symbolises conformity and the treatment of workers as extensions to the machines as the workers despondent and slouched body language suggest the restrictive social repercussions of industrialisation. THIS paragraph on Metropolis has started much more effectively, because it goes into techniques/analysis straight away instead of doing context first. Much more effective. Furthermore, the “shift change” foreshadows the deteriorating economic environment in Germany post WW1 as they approach the Great Depression. Try and mention the audience a little more specifically here - Because it is the contextual audience that this holds meaning for. Part of this module is exploring how different audiences react to the same text! Freder’s vision of the M-Machine becoming a monster by killing the workers being thrown into the machine is symbolic of the slaves fed to Moloch, the God of Fire, in the ancient Middle East. A little too retell-ish. The films allegorical nature, foreshadows the dangers of society growing dependence on technology, contextually respective of the industrialisation of world cities of the time. Excellent. The growing dangers can further be seen through the intertextual allusion to the Semitic deity that establishes a socially polarised world where there value of workers is equalised to that of the machines they operate. In addition, the montage of moving machinery such as the gears and cogs, introduces the notion that society works like a machine in order to keep moving, they all must fit together and run smoothly. A little too colloquial in that last bit of analysis. Further, another reminder to include the audience - Right now you've got fantastic techniques and good explanation of what they achieve on the composers end, what is the effect on our end? Lang's critique of capitalist exploitation in Weimar Germany is enriched through the oppression of humanity exercised through technology, similar to Orwell's fear of technology causing dehumanising effects.

Orwell’s composure of 1984, post World War 2, satirically exposes his perspectives, influenced by the ability of political paradigms to indoctrinate individuals through abusing technology as observed in fascist Spain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The control manifested in the desolate characterisation of Big Brother constantly observing individuals actions through the telescreens coupled with the recurring motif, “Big Brother is watching you” exposes political paradigms abusing technology to control the human spirit. What is the effect on the audience? Particularly, as a point of potential discussion, how does a modern audience react now that we are seeing many elements of 1984 starting to appear? Furthermore, the motif presented by the telescreens, “you had to assume every sound you make was overheard” reveals Orwell's perpetual fear of technology as he foreshadows Britain's behaviour to be similar to that of the Outer Party, subjecting individuals to constant observation and reflecting the inhibition of free speech that was enforced by totalitarianism and Stalin in the Soviet Russia. Perfect point to make here - See that phrase 'presented by the telescreens?'? That's a plot link, explaining where it fits in the novel - That is unnecessary! The technique can stand alone without explanation of where it fits in virtually every circumstance! Orwell's opposition to technology, provoked by his era, reveals his fear of governments seizing their power in order to gain access to individuals private lives, without the individual knowing if they were being subjected to observation at any given moment. What about the text emphasises this specifically? The best way to bring in contextual info is to do it at the same time as your techniques - "The use of ______ demonstrates Orwell's context of ________," for example. The emphatic and direct language communicated in, “technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty.” exposes the impact of technological forces on a regimented society, exacerbating lack of freedom leading to catastrophic consequences. Orwell enriches the audience's understanding of the detrimental and explicit methods that control can be abused through the use of technology in 1984, resulting in the oppression of humanity, as similarly explored in Metropolis.


A comparison of Metropolis and 1984 provides the representation of common values and ideas presented in texts, despite differing compositional milieus. The exploration of social stratification and indoctrination through the abuse of technology provides insight of their composers perspectives, and thus the importance of context shaping meaning of a text. Conclusion too short - I want more detailed link to the Module (what does the comparison of two texts with similar themes give us? Why is it beneficial at all? Plus, more detailed explanation of the texts and a more conclusive finish (though what you have now is great, it could be better, more definitive).

This is a great essay! Some great conceptual ideas - My big comment on this is the lack of comparison. which you already know needs work. Not only in the paragraphs, it also needs to play a much greater role in the Thesis. Right now it feels like you are analysing two texts separately, and that is definitely not the goal for this Module!

Trusting that you've got that under control, some other notes (see the comments throughout too!):

- Especially in your earlier paragraphs, you had some quite verbose expression. At times it impacted on the clarity of your ideas. Simple and direct is often the best way to communicate concepts in English!
- Make more references to the audience - Not only us as the reader but also contextual audiences, audiences across history. Similar themes have been explored in these texts but 50 years apart - How do you think the reactions differ?
- You are doing a great job avoiding retell; but still a few places to tidy. See within!
- Great concepts, really clever thinking, and FANTASTIC links between those concepts and context. You've nailed the context part of this Module, that's for sure!

Overall, awesome script and you are in a great position. It sounds like you know the direction you are heading in - More comparison! Do that and you'll be well on the way to a Band 6 worthy essay!

[Nialllovespie]

Hiya!! Thank you so much for your feedback!! It's so much better than what my teacher gives me

Is there any chance you can suggest how I can further link/compare the two texts? I know it's a major flaw in my essay but I'm not sure how to go about it

Also, sorry I was just thoroughly reading through and editing my essay but with this sentence

"Furthermore, the motif presented by the telescreens, “you had to assume every sound you make was overheard” reveals Orwell's perpetual fear of technology as he foreshadows Britain's behaviour to be similar to ". You mentioned to not have plot link. Should I still mention the telescreens? If so how? Can I say something like

"The motif of the telescreens"

Is that less plot link?

Thanks a tonne for all your help

[jamonwindeyer]

Hiya!! Thank you so much for your feedback!! It's so much better than what my teacher gives me

Is there any chance you can suggest how I can further link/compare the two texts? I know it's a major flaw in my essay but I'm not sure how to go about it

You are welcome!

The easiest way would be to integrate your response - Which is a hard ask, but it does make the comparison easier when you are talking about both texts in the same paragraph. So it would be, pick a theme, and write a paragraph on it that covers both texts. You are sort of doing this now, but just in a two paragraph chunk. Having it together means you can do things like, conversely, Orwell instead seeks to accentuate _________ - Those sort of linking sentences are what I'm looking for.

You can do it in a block format as you are doing now, but you need to throw in some little comparisons here and there, before the conclusion. So while you are talking about Metropolis, throw in a quick, this is similar to Orwell's use of ____ in his text, or something. Just little comparisons throughout. Though you could say that by the time you do this, you may as well just integrate.

Also, sorry I was just thoroughly reading through and editing my essay but with this sentence

"Furthermore, the motif presented by the telescreens, “you had to assume every sound you make was overheard” reveals Orwell's perpetual fear of technology as he foreshadows Britain's behaviour to be similar to ". You mentioned to not have plot link. Should I still mention the telescreens? If so how? Can I say something like

"The motif of the telescreens"

Is that less plot link?

Thanks a tonne for all your help

Hmm, so the idea was to ditch the telescreens and to just say "the motif" - Jumping straight into the quote. But reading it again now (and perhaps a little more energised than I was at 2:30am ) I think the telescreens is essential to understanding it. So you are probably free to just ignore that comment, aha sorry!

[elysepopplewell]

A discovery is the action or process of discovering or being discovered. Furthermor, it can be sudden, and unexpected, or it can emerge from a process of deliberate and careful planning. To add more, the main text “ Go Back To Where You Came From” will clearly b analysed with the connection of discovery. Further, The picture book The “ Arrival” will also be analysed, and interacted with the concept of discovery. The discovery that will play a major role within these two texts is that discoveries is unexpected, and careful planning. Overall, these two texts will succeed within the concept of discovery.

Hey there, welcome to the forums! I'll give you some quick feedback on a little segment I picked up:

However, when Ray finally begins her discoveries within the household of the Masudi’s, Ray begins to enter the household, thus she was hit from an unexpected, sudden, emotionally of Masara’s story. This demonstrated her shift on refugees of the discoveries that she progressed through the story of the African refugees told by Masara. This is highlighted when it connects her emotionally where she claims I had no idea it was so bad. I mean, to have a sick baby and because she has no money, the baby dies how do you live with that’’. This conveys to the audience that ‘emotional’ shift through the character Ray as she finally understands consequences of the refugees in that household. This leads her towards new discoveries of the refugees. This shows the similarities between the novel the Arrival, as the protagonist was also hit with an unexpected, and sudden possibilities of discoveries. Through both texts the significance of emotional and spiritual discoveries are evident.

This part here recounts the text more than it does analyses it. Although you link it back to different types of discoveries well, we aren't digging into how O'Mahoney achieves this. Analysing the filmic techniques is important for achieving a really strong response - because it shows that you understand the conventions of a text and how they shape meaning, rather than just the ideas put forward. TEEL - Technique, evidence, effect, link, isn't a bad way to think about approaching each segment of your paragraph. Making sure you tick each of those parts off will ensure you're always bringing the text back to your ideas through a strong analysis of the text.

In order to get this piece fully marked, you need to have 15 posts on the ATAR Notes forums. Not so difficult - hang around a few days and ask some questions, even answer some questions, we're here to help

[elysepopplewell]

Hi! Could I please have this checked? My texts are Richard III and Looking for Richard. Also, could I please get a rough mark out of 20 for it? Thankssss

Hey Shreya_ajoshi. I can absolutely look at this for you. I will say, the question you've been given is somewhat unusual in that it places "your" in the main barrel of the question. Usually they put the "your understanding" as a separate section. Not to fear - just worth noting that it isn't a typical question!

I'll put the comments in the spoiler here

Spoiler

Discuss how the study of Richard III and Looking for Richard has broadened your understanding of the nature of power

An individual is able to gain a more enriched perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that the desire and attainment of power  may have corrupting consequences. "through understanding the corrupting consequences of the lust for, and attainment of, power." I think just switching this around will put the focus more on the corrupting consequences, which seems to be the original point. William Shakespeare’s play King Richard III (KR) and Al Pacino’s modern docudrama Looking For Richard (LFR)  explores that the nature of power transcends time and has an ongoing relevance either positive or negative regardless of the different contexts. This last sentence doesn't make much sense. The texts explore "the nature of power transcends time?" Perhaps, both texts are a "testament to the pursuit of power being relevant to human discourse through time." This way you take away the positive or negative (which doesn't add much to the conversation because you aren't arguing either side) and you shorten it, whilst still giving it a punchy wording. The contextual comparison between these texts is revealed through the portrayal of ideas of deceit and manipulation, evil and corruption. These ideas help to broaden an individual’s understanding of the essence of power. I really like "essence of power" I think it sounds really nice. I do think that this last sentence is a bit flimsy, it doesn't really do much except end the introduction. Perhaps mention the different forms as being vehicles for the essence of power to be explored.
Shakespeare’s Richard’s ascent to power is through nefarious means of deceit and manipulation. I think the paragraph would be more powerful if you didn't mention Shakespeare's Richard off the bat, and instead just proposed a notion about evil/deceit/power that you wish to explore in the paragraph. Like a discovery topic statement. I think this will give you a tone of sophistication but also a point to head back to for your argument. His desire for power is strongly conveyed in the opening soliloquy  “I am determined to prove a villain,” indicating his yearning to seize the throne, informing the audience that he will wield his skills of theatricality and language to strengthen his villainous intentions of gaining political power. Evident in his attempt to woo Lady Anne, Richard uses dramatic irony in KR to attain power, seen in “take her in her hearts extremist hate.” Richard was practising the maxim of the  Renaissance writer Machiavelli where the “end justifies the means”, a political philosophy that is still  practised in modern times, ultimately highlighting Richard’s intense desire of absolute  power. Nice use of the quote! Pacino chooses to lengthen this scene in his rendition of the historical play to reveal Richard’s true deceitful nature, that previously otherwise the modern audience may not have understood. Pacino chooses  specific scenes  from the play to highlight Richard’s skill as an orator; showcasing  the cutting of Anne’s lines  to use his words to convince and manipulate others .Then cuts of Pacino in modern attire grinning at the camera make a connection between the quintessential actor and director, as Pacino visually  delights in Richard’s skill of manipulation. This connection between the Shakespearean and the contemporary’s  world  lust for power illustrates  that there will always be those who desire power at any cost  using deceit and manipulation as the tools to achieve it. I think you've integrated well here, but sometimes the wording isn't clear and it downgrades the cohesiveness of your argument. So you're dealing with two texts at once well, but we're missing out on clarity. I've adjusted a few times, but I suggest reading the paragraph out loud to work out where things jar.

Richard is the embodiment of evil seen through his use of power to facilitate evil deeds. In KR, Richard is depicted as extremely malevolent as   murdering Clarence defines  Richard as an operator of Free Will breaking the code of honour by  betraying his family, palpable through the iniquitous tone in “dispatch this thing.” This first sentence is very long and needs to be edited to be clear. Again, a conceptual statement about the nature of evil and power that you will explore could be beneficial, although not necessary for the highest marks. Shakespeare’s reason for such a representation lies in his purpose in writing KR to support the legitimacy of  Tudor dynasty  by demonising  the last Yorkist King   thus endowing  Elizabeth I with The  Divine Right  of Kings. In the  transformation  in LFR, an overhead and low angle shot depicts Richard high on a staircase, establishing  Pacino  as a powerful figure and director of the scene. The conspiratorial atmosphere is contrasted by a cut to the murder of Clarence where he is symbolically dressed in white, connoting innocence and purity. The ongoing  dramatization dramatisation* of his death through non-diegetic music, along with the  altered death scene of Clarence  being  stabbed  first and then being drowned in wine, adds  depth and suspense to the scene for  the modern de sensitised audience helping Pacino brings Shakespeare’s language to life by it  making more accessible the cultural and artistic legacy more relevant. Another long sentence that could be cut into two for ease of reading. You've got excellent analysis here - don't think that it all needs to be in the same sentence to compound. You've got lots of room to work here Pacino  visually demonstrates  that  the attainment of power prompts an individual to perform evil deeds  made  more   understandable  to the modern audiences, by using dramatic film techniques. We don't relate to the question enough in this paragraph.
Due to Richard’s extreme abuse of power, he eventually becomes corrupted, evident in the nightmare scene and the Battle of Bosworth.  The idea of psychological degeneration due to Richard’s guilt for defiling the  Great Chain of Being  and transgressing  Christian values is accentuated by Shakespeare in the juxtaposition of Richard and Richmond in “rape and villainy” against “love and prosperity” which makes Richard aware of the hateful deeds he has performed. This is strategically reshaped by textual form in Pacino’s text. The grand crescendoing music reflects Shakespearean divine retribution as a grand ideology while fast and sharp transitional cuts reflect Richard’s fragmented and broken mindset due to Richard’s actions of going against this ideology. The breakdown of visual flexibility in cut-away’ s give  interspersion  to the consequence of Richard’s abuse of power. Further, his internal morality being degraded is theatrically represented by the use of two narrator’s voices and shots of Pacino in and out of character. During some parts of the soliloquy, the choice and use of shots/cuts make it seem like Pacino and Richard are arguing with one another, in the way that Richard is arguing with himself, strongly emphasises how badly power has corrupted him making the nature of power more accessible to the modern audience. Pacino via method-acting, acts out the majority of the nightmare and battle scene, compared to the short coverage of other scenes as he wanted to climax the events. By highlighting these events, he makes relevant that the previous emergence of dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, similar to Richard, were a significant reminder of the tragic consequences when power is abused by ruthless individuals and such that the corruption that occurs from different contexts transcends time.  Both texts place strong emphasis on the terrible consequences of subverting your humanity for power.  You're dealing with Looking for Richard with great confidence!

Therefore, an individual is able to gain a more embellished Maybe not the right word? Embellished has connotations of decorative, extra, aesthetic.. perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that attainment of power has the ability to corrupt an individual. The comparison of King Richard III and Looking for Richard and the consideration of contextual changes made, allow one to understand and broaden their perspective that the nature of power is a universal concept.

It is implied to me that you're more comfortable with Looking for Richard than you are with the original text. The original text, in my opinion, needs more time in your work. It is just too brief at the moment, and being the parent text, we need to give it the time it deserves. In order to understand how Pacino has reshaped something, we need to understand the original shape of it. There could be more emphasis on the delivery to context as well - there's a great sentence about the context of Shakespeare up there, but it needs to be connected more to the analysis of why he made such literary decisions. This will come with a greater exploration of Shakespeare's texts as opposed to Pacino's. You do Pacino wonderfully - hold onto it! It's just about elevating the Shakespearean side of things now.

I also think that to build a stronger argument, and relate to the question more specifically, we should be opening with a unique statement about the nature of power you wish to explore for each paragraph. At the moment, the paragraph's are quite similar in their argument, and don't really show a unique response to the question. I know you have unique ideas, because it's hinted in your analysis. But actually responding to this in the very first sentence of a paragraph will force you to link back to the idea more consistently, thus threading a stronger argument through your work. I don't often give marks for essays, I don't have criteria on hand. But, I'd put this at a 13 out of 20, I think. Simply by boosting your treatment of Shakespeare, you'd be boosting this by 2 marks. Working on your clarity of expression is worth a mark or two as well, and then when you respond to the question stronger, in the unique way you implied in your introduction, you'll be itching towards the top marks. Obviously cohesion is key for the best marks! Good luck You've got the solid foundations for a perfect essay here, it's just about building it up now

[shreya_ajoshi]

Hey Shreya_ajoshi. I can absolutely look at this for you. I will say, the question you've been given is somewhat unusual in that it places "your" in the main barrel of the question. Usually they put the "your understanding" as a separate section. Not to fear - just worth noting that it isn't a typical question!

I'll put the comments in the spoiler here

Spoiler

Discuss how the study of Richard III and Looking for Richard has broadened your understanding of the nature of power

An individual is able to gain a more enriched perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that the desire and attainment of power  may have corrupting consequences. "through understanding the corrupting consequences of the lust for, and attainment of, power." I think just switching this around will put the focus more on the corrupting consequences, which seems to be the original point. William Shakespeare’s play King Richard III (KR) and Al Pacino’s modern docudrama Looking For Richard (LFR)  explores that the nature of power transcends time and has an ongoing relevance either positive or negative regardless of the different contexts. This last sentence doesn't make much sense. The texts explore "the nature of power transcends time?" Perhaps, both texts are a "testament to the pursuit of power being relevant to human discourse through time." This way you take away the positive or negative (which doesn't add much to the conversation because you aren't arguing either side) and you shorten it, whilst still giving it a punchy wording. The contextual comparison between these texts is revealed through the portrayal of ideas of deceit and manipulation, evil and corruption. These ideas help to broaden an individual’s understanding of the essence of power. I really like "essence of power" I think it sounds really nice. I do think that this last sentence is a bit flimsy, it doesn't really do much except end the introduction. Perhaps mention the different forms as being vehicles for the essence of power to be explored.
Shakespeare’s Richard’s ascent to power is through nefarious means of deceit and manipulation. I think the paragraph would be more powerful if you didn't mention Shakespeare's Richard off the bat, and instead just proposed a notion about evil/deceit/power that you wish to explore in the paragraph. Like a discovery topic statement. I think this will give you a tone of sophistication but also a point to head back to for your argument. His desire for power is strongly conveyed in the opening soliloquy  “I am determined to prove a villain,” indicating his yearning to seize the throne, informing the audience that he will wield his skills of theatricality and language to strengthen his villainous intentions of gaining political power. Evident in his attempt to woo Lady Anne, Richard uses dramatic irony in KR to attain power, seen in “take her in her hearts extremist hate.” Richard was practising the maxim of the  Renaissance writer Machiavelli where the “end justifies the means”, a political philosophy that is still  practised in modern times, ultimately highlighting Richard’s intense desire of absolute  power. Nice use of the quote! Pacino chooses to lengthen this scene in his rendition of the historical play to reveal Richard’s true deceitful nature, that previously otherwise the modern audience may not have understood. Pacino chooses  specific scenes  from the play to highlight Richard’s skill as an orator; showcasing  the cutting of Anne’s lines  to use his words to convince and manipulate others .Then cuts of Pacino in modern attire grinning at the camera make a connection between the quintessential actor and director, as Pacino visually  delights in Richard’s skill of manipulation. This connection between the Shakespearean and the contemporary’s  world  lust for power illustrates  that there will always be those who desire power at any cost  using deceit and manipulation as the tools to achieve it. I think you've integrated well here, but sometimes the wording isn't clear and it downgrades the cohesiveness of your argument. So you're dealing with two texts at once well, but we're missing out on clarity. I've adjusted a few times, but I suggest reading the paragraph out loud to work out where things jar.

Richard is the embodiment of evil seen through his use of power to facilitate evil deeds. In KR, Richard is depicted as extremely malevolent as   murdering Clarence defines  Richard as an operator of Free Will breaking the code of honour by  betraying his family, palpable through the iniquitous tone in “dispatch this thing.” This first sentence is very long and needs to be edited to be clear. Again, a conceptual statement about the nature of evil and power that you will explore could be beneficial, although not necessary for the highest marks. Shakespeare’s reason for such a representation lies in his purpose in writing KR to support the legitimacy of  Tudor dynasty  by demonising  the last Yorkist King   thus endowing  Elizabeth I with The  Divine Right  of Kings. In the  transformation  in LFR, an overhead and low angle shot depicts Richard high on a staircase, establishing  Pacino  as a powerful figure and director of the scene. The conspiratorial atmosphere is contrasted by a cut to the murder of Clarence where he is symbolically dressed in white, connoting innocence and purity. The ongoing  dramatization dramatisation* of his death through non-diegetic music, along with the  altered death scene of Clarence  being  stabbed  first and then being drowned in wine, adds  depth and suspense to the scene for  the modern de sensitised audience helping Pacino brings Shakespeare’s language to life by it  making more accessible the cultural and artistic legacy more relevant. Another long sentence that could be cut into two for ease of reading. You've got excellent analysis here - don't think that it all needs to be in the same sentence to compound. You've got lots of room to work here Pacino  visually demonstrates  that  the attainment of power prompts an individual to perform evil deeds  made  more   understandable  to the modern audiences, by using dramatic film techniques. We don't relate to the question enough in this paragraph.
Due to Richard’s extreme abuse of power, he eventually becomes corrupted, evident in the nightmare scene and the Battle of Bosworth.  The idea of psychological degeneration due to Richard’s guilt for defiling the  Great Chain of Being  and transgressing  Christian values is accentuated by Shakespeare in the juxtaposition of Richard and Richmond in “rape and villainy” against “love and prosperity” which makes Richard aware of the hateful deeds he has performed. This is strategically reshaped by textual form in Pacino’s text. The grand crescendoing music reflects Shakespearean divine retribution as a grand ideology while fast and sharp transitional cuts reflect Richard’s fragmented and broken mindset due to Richard’s actions of going against this ideology. The breakdown of visual flexibility in cut-away’ s give  interspersion  to the consequence of Richard’s abuse of power. Further, his internal morality being degraded is theatrically represented by the use of two narrator’s voices and shots of Pacino in and out of character. During some parts of the soliloquy, the choice and use of shots/cuts make it seem like Pacino and Richard are arguing with one another, in the way that Richard is arguing with himself, strongly emphasises how badly power has corrupted him making the nature of power more accessible to the modern audience. Pacino via method-acting, acts out the majority of the nightmare and battle scene, compared to the short coverage of other scenes as he wanted to climax the events. By highlighting these events, he makes relevant that the previous emergence of dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, similar to Richard, were a significant reminder of the tragic consequences when power is abused by ruthless individuals and such that the corruption that occurs from different contexts transcends time.  Both texts place strong emphasis on the terrible consequences of subverting your humanity for power.  You're dealing with Looking for Richard with great confidence!

Therefore, an individual is able to gain a more embellished Maybe not the right word? Embellished has connotations of decorative, extra, aesthetic.. perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that attainment of power has the ability to corrupt an individual. The comparison of King Richard III and Looking for Richard and the consideration of contextual changes made, allow one to understand and broaden their perspective that the nature of power is a universal concept.

It is implied to me that you're more comfortable with Looking for Richard than you are with the original text. The original text, in my opinion, needs more time in your work. It is just too brief at the moment, and being the parent text, we need to give it the time it deserves. In order to understand how Pacino has reshaped something, we need to understand the original shape of it. There could be more emphasis on the delivery to context as well - there's a great sentence about the context of Shakespeare up there, but it needs to be connected more to the analysis of why he made such literary decisions. This will come with a greater exploration of Shakespeare's texts as opposed to Pacino's. You do Pacino wonderfully - hold onto it! It's just about elevating the Shakespearean side of things now.

I also think that to build a stronger argument, and relate to the question more specifically, we should be opening with a unique statement about the nature of power you wish to explore for each paragraph. At the moment, the paragraph's are quite similar in their argument, and don't really show a unique response to the question. I know you have unique ideas, because it's hinted in your analysis. But actually responding to this in the very first sentence of a paragraph will force you to link back to the idea more consistently, thus threading a stronger argument through your work. I don't often give marks for essays, I don't have criteria on hand. But, I'd put this at a 13 out of 20, I think. Simply by boosting your treatment of Shakespeare, you'd be boosting this by 2 marks. Working on your clarity of expression is worth a mark or two as well, and then when you respond to the question stronger, in the unique way you implied in your introduction, you'll be itching towards the top marks. Obviously cohesion is key for the best marks! Good luck You've got the solid foundations for a perfect essay here, it's just about building it up now

Hi! Thank you for checking it. So in order to give Shakespeare's play more attention, should I cut out some Looking FOr Richard parts in my last paragraph (could you please tell me which ones I should cut out) and then add in more content from Shakespeare's play. To add more of Shakespeare's analysis in my last paragraph, I am planning to add this: The battle speeches of these two leaders, makes evident the corruptive nature of power. Richmond asks his men to remember the beauty of the land they are protecting from a tyrant while in contrast Richard mocks the enemy soldiers “a scum of Bretons and base lackey peasants.” The use of plosive consonants demonstrates the extremely profane attitude of Richard as a result of abusing power, making him lose his immorality, resulting in a corrupted state of mind.
I have fixed my opening sentence to this:An individual is able to gain a more enriched perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that power is a corruptive force due to one’s extreme desire and attainment of it.
Is that a stronger opening sentence which answers the question? If not, how could I fix it.

Thanks for your help

[scyouknow13]

Module C: Politics and Society
Could you just check if my arguments make sense, if I link well, if its structured well and everything flows well. I know its really last minute but my essay is actually due tomorrow so any feedback as soon as possible would be helpful. Here is my essay:

Representation is powerful however power in itself is a flawed concept born from the politics of humanity, an imperfect Machiavellian existence. Didactic composers utilise representation to manipulate their audience and explore confronting concepts, often too difficult for the them to process alone within the confines of their constructed reality. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World challenges the audience’s perspective of modern society through various characters and poses the imminent question, what does it mean to be powerful? Power however is a notion that originates from the imperfect intellect of humanity and hence can never exist without fault. While Brave New World highlights how power brings stability, The Backwater Gospel directed by Bo Mathorne disputes this by displaying how power can lead to the destruction of a society. Furthermore, it explains how true power can only exist through the consent of the submitters. Power is therefore not an object to be possessed by one individual but rather a fluctuating relationship between a composer and their audience that requires balance to be effective.

Representation is a highly manipulative instrument that allows a composer to wield compelling omnipotence over their audience and promote a certain agenda. Every text is a construction and reflection of its author and hence there can never be a true depiction of any idea. Huxley’s creation of the World State is an extension of his pursuit for power and influence over those blinded by consumerism and ignorance. His initial use of scientific jargon to instil a feeling inferiority within the audience as they attempt to process the ‘optimum temperature, salinity, viscosity’ of the liquor in which ‘detached and ripened eggs were kept’. Their first encounter with the World State is confronting and almost disturbs the audience as they are presented with a world of inverted values. His satirical portrayal of the World State is a response to, as he states, America’s ‘radical alteration of established standards’. John’s experience in the World State presents him with an option to either live a life of insanity in the World State or a life of a primitive in the Savage Reservation. Huxley explains in his forward that there is no option of sanity for John. His intention was to show society that sanity is the very thing individuals should be striving to achieve rather than the materialistic commodities forced upon them by those in power. Bernard Marx is originally the voice of the audience as he is shown to feel unsettled by the norms of the World State. This is highlighted in his helicopter flight with Lenina where he states that staring at the sea made him feel like ‘not just a cell in the social body’. These feelings however are never truly explored as he becomes controlled by his own feelings of inadequacy and need to be valued by others. Bernard eventually conforms to the ideals of the World State and chooses to ‘Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today’ as told to him by Lenina. The audience observes the loss of identity that results from being a slave to their own desires and materialism. His ability to control the audience through his construction displays the power that a composer has over the thoughts of others.

In a different light, Bo Mathorne uses the Backwater Gospel to depict how the power of representation can lead to the destruction of a society. The priest who has the most power over the town of Backwater presents religion through fear to gain control over the people. He preaches about how ‘One bad apple and the whole barrel is spoiled!’ to fuel hatred for the Tramp who refused to be controlled by the priest. The priest convinces the people during his sermons that those that follow him are sinless. This is highlighted when the priest states ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, a biblical allusion, and the whole town raises their stones to murder the Tramp as though they were all infallible. This exhibits how representation is powerful enough to lead to the ultimate destruction of a society.

Power is a flawed notion as it is born from a dichotomy of an individual exerting dominance over another. The individual being influenced must consent in return and validate this dominance. Huxley’s portrayal of the World State has a profound impact on the audience as they realise their own ‘truth’ about the world around them. Despite this, his novel is only able to have such an effect because it is immortalised by the audience throughout time. Huxley’s power is therefore in the hands of the audience. In a similar way, Mustapha Mond is a manifestation of Huxley as his power too depends on the citizens of the World State and their consent. Lenina recalls as a child when she awoke in the night and heard the hypnopaedia lessons that ‘Epsilons are useful’. Her feelings of fear at the time show that she was aware of her conditioning but by allowing herself to go back to sleep, she lost her power. In this way, she gave Mustapha Mond command over her as his power is dependent on whether her conditioning remains intact. Lenina’s gaze at the moon for the first time, an action considered abnormal, highlights the cracks in her conditioning. Mond’s power over others therefore is only an illusion. Though Mond states to Bernard ‘I make the laws here, I can also break them…which I’m afraid you can’t’, his influence over others is limited to physical control as he has no power over the thoughts of every individual. ‘It was only quite recently that, grown aware of his mental excess’ did Helmholtz realise that the ideals of the World State were not something he agreed with. He explains how he has a ‘queer feeling’ that he has ‘something important to say and the power to say it’. His ability to think independently relinquishes Mond’s control over him. Power is therefore a relationship and requires consent from those being controlled. While physical control is easily obtainable, as in the case of Mond, one cannot have an influence over an individual’s mind unless they choose to surrender their autonomy.

Likewise, the priest’s control of the people of Backwater is flawed because the Tramp is the only individual in Backwater who chooses to not ‘submit to the Lord’. He retorts ‘Why don’t you try it?’. While the priest has ultimate control over everyone through religion and fear, he is unable to make the Tramp submit to him. When Death arrives to town, the people seize their power from the priest for self-preservation. The priest’s son, Bubba, states ‘Father, you have brought this upon us’ which highlights that the people no longer believe in the priest’s promise of salvation and he has lost his authority over the people. Thus, power is limited to the consent of those who submit to being dominated and can be taken away when an individual chooses to be independent.

Satirical depictions of different ideas can have a profound impact on individuals and allow the composer to have influence over others. This power is not absolute but rather a fluctuating relationship requiring the consent of all parties involved. This is evident in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Bo Mathorne’s The Backwater Gospel.

[anotherworld2b]

Could I please get feedback on my practise response?
I also have a quick question. What is the name for the extra text at the bottom of an advertisement? Byline?

Spoiler

.

[elysepopplewell]

Hi! Thank you for checking it. So in order to give Shakespeare's play more attention, should I cut out some Looking FOr Richard parts in my last paragraph (could you please tell me which ones I should cut out) and then add in more content from Shakespeare's play. To add more of Shakespeare's analysis in my last paragraph, I am planning to add this: The battle speeches of these two leaders, makes evident the corruptive nature of power. Richmond asks his men to remember the beauty of the land they are protecting from a tyrant while in contrast Richard mocks the enemy soldiers “a scum of Bretons and base lackey peasants.” The use of plosive consonants demonstrates the extremely profane attitude of Richard as a result of abusing power, making him lose his immorality, resulting in a corrupted state of mind.
I have fixed my opening sentence to this:An individual is able to gain a more enriched perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that power is a corruptive force due to one’s extreme desire and attainment of it.
Is that a stronger opening sentence which answers the question? If not, how could I fix it.

Thanks for your help

Hello again
It's hard to say exactly which bits to cut - I think the Hitler sentence could be cut, the analysis isn't as strong as the other parts in my opinion. I really like the analysis of the soliloquy too because it relates directly to the question. So instead, I would focus on condensing the first part of the paragraph, the first time you talk about Pacino's text, where there's three or so sentences compounding each other? I'd rake that back to just one or two sentences, and if you find that you still aren't bringing Shakespeare enough into it, then cull that if need be. But it's hard to comment on what to take out without seeing the Shakespeare bit sitting in there as well, so we can see the way they connect.

In saying this, I think what you wish to add to that paragraph on Shakespeare is really good, the link to the corrupting consequences of power are really strong! That's a very well formulated sentence.

As for the new opening sentence:
An individual is able to gain a more enriched perspective of the nature of power through the understanding that power is a corruptive force due to one’s extreme desire and attainment of it.
The only part that jars a bit for me is the wording of the ending. "extreme desire and attainment of it" just doesn't set the sophisticated tone you want for your essay. Perhaps, "...through the understanding that power is a corruptive force due to the extremity of the desire one may have to attain it." I think it's really just in the end conjunction that is jarring. The ideas are great, it's just about presenting them in the most clear way possible.
What do you think?

[elysepopplewell]

Module C: Politics and Society
Could you just check if my arguments make sense, if I link well, if its structured well and everything flows well. I know its really last minute but my essay is actually due tomorrow so any feedback as soon as possible would be helpful. Here is my essay:

Hi there, hopefully this gets to you in time I'll comment in bold...

Spoiler

Representation is powerful however power in itself is a flawed concept born from the politics of humanity, an imperfect Machiavellian existence.  The ideas here are a bit convoluted - representation is powerful, power is flawed, power is born from the politics of humanity, Machiavelli. The ideas don't send a clear message. Didactic composers utilise representation to manipulate their audience and explore confronting concepts, often too difficult for the them to process alone within the confines of their constructed reality. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World challenges the audience’s perspective of modern society through various characters possessive apostrophe required here. and poses the imminent question, what does it mean to be powerful? Nice rhetorical question! Power however is a notion that originates from the imperfect intellect of humanity and hence can never exist without fault. While Brave New World highlights how power brings stability, The Backwater Gospel directed by Bo Mathorne disputes this by displaying how power can lead to the destruction of a society. Furthermore, it explains how true power can only exist through the consent of the submitters. Power is therefore not an object to be possessed by one individual but rather a fluctuating relationship between a composer and their audience that requires balance to be effective. Great introduction overall, very well articulated for the most part!

Representation is a highly manipulative instrument that allows a composer to wield compelling omnipotence over their audience and promote a certain agenda. Every text is a construction and reflection of its author and hence there can never be a true depiction of any idea.  Very unique, I absolutely love this. Huxley’s creation of the World State is an extension of his pursuit for power and influence over those blinded by consumerism and ignorance. His initial use of scientific jargon to instil a feeling inferiority within the audience as they attempt to process the ‘optimum temperature, salinity, viscosity’ of the liquor in which ‘detached and ripened eggs were kept’. Their first encounter with the World State is confronting and almost disturbs the audience as they are presented with a world of inverted values. His satirical portrayal of the World State is a response to, as he states, America’s ‘radical alteration of established standards’. John’s experience in the World State presents him with an option to either live a life of insanity in the World State or a life of a primitive in the Savage Reservation. Huxley explains in his forward that there is no option of sanity for John. His intention was to show society that sanity is the very thing individuals should be striving to achieve rather than the materialistic commodities forced upon them by those in power. Bernard Marx is originally the voice of the audience as he is shown to feel unsettled by the norms of the World State. This is highlighted in his helicopter flight with Lenina where he states that staring at the sea made him feel like ‘not just a cell in the social body’. Great embedding of a quote. These feelings however are never truly explored as he becomes controlled by his own feelings of inadequacy and need to be valued by others. Bernard eventually conforms to the ideals of the World State and chooses to ‘Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today’ as told to him by Lenina. The audience observes the loss of identity that results from being a slave to their own desires and materialism. His ability to control the audience through his construction displays the power that a composer has over the thoughts of others.

In a different light, Bo Mathorne uses the Backwater Gospel to depict how the power of representation can lead to the destruction of a society. Brilliant link! The priest who has the most power over the town of Backwater presents religion through fear to gain control over the people. He preaches about how ‘One bad apple and the whole barrel is spoiled!’ to fuel hatred for the Tramp who refused to be controlled by the priest. The priest convinces the people during his sermons that those that follow him are sinless. This is highlighted when the priest states ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, a biblical allusion, and the whole town raises their stones to murder the Tramp as though they were all infallible. This exhibits how representation is powerful enough to lead to the ultimate destruction of a society. Short, but sweet.

Power is a flawed notion as it is born from a dichotomy of an individual exerting dominance over another. I can't read how this is a dichotomy. Perhaps, the dichotomous relationship between power and oppression? But a dichotomy between one human and another doesn't hold the same weight. I understand your idea I think, it just reads unclear. The individual being influenced must consent in return and validate this dominance. Huxley’s portrayal of the World State has a profound impact on the audience as they realise their own ‘truth’ about the world around them. Despite this, his novel is only able to have such an effect because it is immortalised by the audience throughout time. Huxley’s power is therefore in the hands of the audience. In a similar way, Mustapha Mond is a manifestation of Huxley as his power too depends on the citizens of the World State and their consent. Lenina recalls as a child when she awoke in the night and heard the hypnopaedia lessons that ‘Epsilons are useful’. Her feelings of fear at the time show that she was aware of her conditioning but by allowing herself to go back to sleep, she lost her power. In this way, she gave Mustapha Mond command over her as his power is dependent on whether her conditioning remains intact. Great analysis. Lenina’s gaze at the moon for the first time, an action considered abnormal, highlights the cracks in her conditioning. Mond’s power over others therefore is only an illusion. Though Mond states to Bernard ‘I make the laws here, I can also break them…which I’m afraid you can’t’, his influence over others is limited to physical control as he has no power over the thoughts of every individual. ‘It was only quite recently that, grown aware of his mental excess’ did Helmholtz realise that the ideals of the World State were not something he agreed with. He explains how he has a ‘queer feeling’ that he has ‘something important to say and the power to say it’. His ability to think independently relinquishes Mond’s control over him. Power is therefore a relationship and requires consent from those being controlled. Excellent statement... While physical control is easily obtainable, as in the case of Mond, one cannot have an influence over an individual’s mind unless they choose to surrender their autonomy.

Likewise, the priest’s control of the people of Backwater is flawed because the Tramp is the only individual in Backwater who chooses to not ‘submit to the Lord’. He retorts ‘Why don’t you try it?’. While the priest has ultimate control over everyone through religion and fear, he is unable to make the Tramp submit to him. When Death arrives to town, the people seize their power from the priest for self-preservation. The priest’s son, Bubba, states ‘Father, you have brought this upon us’ which highlights that the people no longer believe in the priest’s promise of salvation and he has lost his authority over the people. Thus, power is limited to the consent of those who submit to being dominated and can be taken away when an individual chooses to be independent.

Satirical depictions of different ideas can have a profound impact on individuals and allow the composer to have influence over others. This power is not absolute but rather a fluctuating relationship requiring the consent of all parties involved. This is evident in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Bo Mathorne’s The Backwater Gospel through representation of....

I think this is an excellent essay and without suggesting too much because it's due today, you should be very pleased with it. I think that there could be more weight to "politics" and how power manifests within that. Your treatment of power is very thorough, it's very sophisticated and I think it deserves full marks in that respect. Your treatment of the texts is also really good. My truest suggestion is the treatment of politics...rather than letting the idea of power take over. Perhaps a sentence about the way power manifests in politics, and define politics (social, governmental, scientific...) could pull it together a little more. But that's about adding another layer, a thin veil to the work...
I think you'll do really well with this. Good luck!