Super simple q; but I seem to forget a lot of the word by word quotes in my text (it's a film, Mabo) - would I be penalized if most, or all, my textual evidence is in the form of example and straight techniques etc. Eg instead of mentioning a specific quote like 'perkins use of the traditional Meriam music blah blah does this, instilling "eddis is nothing but a trouble maker" - would I be penalized for saying something like - 'perkins selectively uses the traditional Meriam music, alongside a close up of Mabos facial features when Mabo displays indignation as a result of not being successful in the initial supreme court trial. Etc. And then analysing like so ?
I find I mainly talk about 'perkins and how she does things for most prompts, or if it's a really specific prompt - just my reasons supporting / not supporting the prompt I.e in a do you agree prompt?
Ive pretty much done this use of 'non specific evidence' all year and my teachers have been okay with it - but now I'm a little worried haha. I'm aiming for a mid range piece for text, would it still be possible if I only had like 1-2 quotes per paragraph, but most of my evidence was a film technique, discussion of a specific scene?
Hope I made sense- thanks guys !!
Try to memorise a few direct quotes; you
need to use them alongside your discussion of moments in the film or certain cinematic devices, so rote-learning quotes can be your revision exercise for the day! (Watching the film again might also help get them to stick in your head!) The discussion you've got there would be really good, but assessors will pick up on the fact that you have very few quotes, and the stringent ones might penalise you for it, so try and focus on memorising a couple just to be on the safe side.
Hey Lauren, how do we do this? I'm having some trouble trying to apply it and was hoping you could just give an example. My context is I&B and texts are Summer of the Seventeenth Doll and Invictus.
Also, in my essays this year I've been quoting the book i.e. "In the Country of Men" instead of underlining. My teacher said that this was accecptable. Can I keep this in the exam or should I underline?
Thank you
To work this out, take an Id&b prompt and ask 'what does SotSD say about this prompt?' e.g. if the prompt is 'our identity comes from those around us,' does the text support or challenge this idea? How? Why? etc. <-- embed that idea in your piece, and you should be fine.
Think of it like the text offering you some kind of starting point for your contention; you shouldn't be arguing against what your set text is saying about the context/prompt - you should be using it as your springboard for other ideas!
And underlining the text title for T.R. is the standard convention, so I'd stick with that in the exam. Save the "double quote marks" for actual quotes from the novel
Would this sort of prompt breakdown work?
"We all have abnormality in common. We're a breed apart form the rest of humanity, we theatre folk; we are the original displaced personalities."
What is it that links the characters of All About Eve?
- Their role playing links all the characters in AAE.
- Their shared ambition to “be somebody” other than who they are links them
- However, it is how they enact these ambitions that ultimately divide and distinguish them.
Hence, Mankiewicz compels his viewer to recognise that the thespians in the film are both “a breed apart” and similar. Through this, he ultimately delivers a commentary on the relationship between the “Ivory Green Room… call[ed] the Theatre” and the broader macrocosm, indicating that like the characters in the film, these two entities are both a faithful reflection of one another and a means of escapism.
This is absolutely fine. Might be good to hint at the idea you're bringing up in P3 in your intro if that is to be your overarching interpretation, but that breakdown seems solid
The society portrayed in All About Eve is depicted as fundamentally superficial and driven purely by the self-interest of members.
To what extent do you agree?
1. Superficial in that the theatre and the world of the thespians is ultimately merely an illusion, a pretense and a deception.
2. It is a superficiality that is at times <-- what do you mean by this exactly? maintained by these characters out of sheer self-interest.
3. And yet… it’s not. This superficiality is driven by this 1950s patriarchal society that forced women to adhere to a certain gendered role and did not allow them the freedom to be themselves.
Conclusion: Hence, at its heart, the society portrayed in AAE is driven to maintain an illusion out of not just the self-interest of its members but also the rigidity of this social structure. The inflexibility of this society means that “a woman’s career” is confined to the confines of an apartment even if her “native habitat” and her “heart” was in the “Ivory Green Room… call[ed] the Theatre”. To this end, Mankiewicz ultimately seeks to challenge and repudiate these restrictive gendered roles, advocating for a reevaluation in order to proffer women liberty from the restrictive traditional gender roles and discover for themselves what it means to “be… a woman.”
Would ^ conclusion be okay? Would that last sentence be considered too clumsily put? How could I make it more crisp/concise??
All good! Be careful with the 'P3 twist' where you pivot to your wider point as you don't want this to seem like you're doubling back on what you've said earlier, but rather that you're building upon it to say something more complex. Conclusion and concluding line are also fine; I'd probably cut the "advocating for a reevaluation" part just because I'm not sure you could state that this is definitely what Mankie's angling for, but the use of the quote is totally fine
Hi Lauren, do you reckon there's a chance there'll be a prompt about family in identity in belonging? The trend seems to be steering more to change and self-growth since Summer of the Seventeenth Doll came in, and I feel as though as Summer doesn't really link to the idea of family well. But I suppose it's worth preparing for curveballs?
Family's way too narrow. Some of the other texts wouldn't work for that at all, so I highly doubt they'd be that mean. But you might get something about 'people closest to us' or 'the people in our lives,' which would let you talk about family if you wanted to
Hey Lauren, I'm not sure if you'll be able to help, but what external examples would you recommend looking at for internal/intellectual conflict for context: encountering conflict.
What do you mean by 'intellectual' conflict, exactly? For internal conflict, a nice generic one would be to look at
cognitive dissonance, though I'm hesitant to suggest any more specific ones since I don't know which other examples you're using and I don't want to give you one that clashes or doesn't fit. Are there any that you're considering at the moment that I could maybe help refine or clarify?
Sorry for the question spam but...
The tensions between the theatre and Hollywood mirror the conflicts between characters throughout All About Eve. Discuss.
How would I deal with ^ prompt?? I don't know how to break it down/structure an essay around it...
Also, how do I use desist in a sentence? Can desist and stop/cease be used as direct synonyms or nah?
What are the tensions between the theatre and Hollywood (hint: old vs. new) and what are the tensions between the characters (see previous hint)? Probably safest to mostly agree here and consider how these tensions are similar, since this is a slightly structural prompt. Then zoom out to the broader point of 'what is Mank. saying about these tensions?' Does that help?
'Desist' is pretty much interchangeable with 'stop' and 'cease' - I'm trying to think of exceptions but they seem like pretty close synonyms to me. But words like 'prevent' or 'refrain' might let you be more specific, if you wanted some alternatives
Hello guys and girls,
What actually happens if you get a study score of below 20 for English? Does that mean you have failed VCE and you need to take it again?
Thanks
You need a 25 to pass, so failing to get a 25 would mean you would not receive a VTAC offer for any courses that listed a 25 in English as a prerequisite. But if you're applying for courses that don't require this, or you're not looking to go on to tertiary study next year, you don't
have to repeat Year 12. You can also achieve English qualifications at other institutions if you'd prefer. Though I believe that you'll still be grated a high school completion certificate even if you end up with a <30 ATAR.
But let's hope you don't have to worry about any of that!
Home
Help
Search
Login
