2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Drama
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Drama. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2009 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.
This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2009 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Drama.
Teachers and students are advised that, in December 2008, the Board of Studies approved changes to the examination specifications and assessment requirements for a number of courses. These changes will be implemented for the 2010 HSC cohort. Information on a course-by-course basis is available on the Board’s website.
General comments
Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may write questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.
Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with, or contain, any key word from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked, and verbs which are not included in the glossary may be used, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Practical examination
Group performance
Teachers and students are reminded of the following requirements for the HSC drama performance examinations:
- The time limits are:
- 6–8 minutes (Individual Performance)
- 8–12 minutes (Group Performance)
- Each performer in the group performance is marked individually. It is therefore important for the markers to be able to differentiate between students. If all students are wearing similar costumes a distinguishing ribbon, badge or other indicator will assist the markers to identify each student.
- Candidates who read scripts or improvise pieces are unlikely to satisfy the criteria for the examination.
- Under no circumstances should candidates use props in a way that is dangerous or threatening to the markers or other members of the audience.
- Live performance is a dynamic medium. Candidates should perform their piece for an audience before the examination to ensure they are aware of audience responses to their work.
- Class work on the group performance should begin after the Easter break of the HSC year.
The following must be made clear to group performance students:
- The intention of the performance should be clear to the audience.
- Candidates need to prepare a theatrical statement for the stage, especially if using material inspired by film or video.
- Candidates are to be discouraged from over-reliance on song, dance or music unless it is integral to the meaning and theatricality of the performance.
- Candidates are discouraged from writing or presenting personal stories.
- Candidates in the group performance are reminded that the work must be original and no extracts from published scripts may be used.
- Placing the focus of the performance on things such as a chair or ‘invisible’ character is problematic for the actor/audience relationship.
Stronger group performances:
- demonstrated a clear concept presented with flair and dimension
- engaged the audience throughout the performance
- presented a clear and coherent theatrical journey
- demonstrated a coherent narrative with clear shape and structure
- presented developed concepts derived from a sophisticated understanding of an idea
- demonstrated a unity of purpose where each theatrical moment contributed to the meaning of the piece
- presented highly polished ensemble with intelligent manipulation and control of the elements of drama (eg focus, tension and mood)
- demonstrated a sophisticated manipulation of the performance conventions and techniques of the style of the piece
- employed performance skills to create defined and sustained role(s)/character(s) with a physical, psychological and emotional truth demonstrating clarity of intention and motivating action
- presented characters/role relationships which developed and sustained complete character journeys.
Weaker group performances:
- presented an incoherent and/or superficial performance with unexplored ideas in underdeveloped scenes
- demonstrated a lack of understanding of dramatic structure by presenting disconnected and often unrelated scenes with awkward, unmotivated and superficial transitions (eg blackouts or entrances and exits) that halted the action and engagement for the audience
- demonstrated minimal reference to the chosen style, the meaning of the piece or character/role being performed
- presented character(s) or role(s) that lacked clarity in identity and motivation. Often they displayed little physicality and a one-dimensional life that changed little throughout the piece
- presented characters lacking dynamics and energy with little interaction with other characters/roles and showed inconsistent ability to work as an ensemble.
Individual project: performance
Stronger individual performances:
- presented a well-rehearsed, complete and clear theatrical journey for their character and audience
- demonstrated an understanding of the role of the audience in the performance and manipulated that relationship intelligently
- presented a character in a clear style demonstrating an understanding of the demands and conventions of that style derived from a thorough action/objective analysis of the text
- demonstrated exemplary ability to realise their characters in each moment with absolute conviction and clarity
- presented a dynamic character journey demonstrating variety and dimension which presented a character of intensity with subtly defined complexities
- demonstrated sophisticated and effective choices employing dramatic elements such as rhythm, pace, timing, mood, atmosphere and dramatic tension
- demonstrated a sophisticated control of performance skills appropriate to form and/or style.
Weaker individual performances:
- often ran under or over time
- presented scripts with little theatricality, simplistic storytelling, scenes without a clear or complete theatrical shape or structure or material that did not allow the strengths of the candidate to be evident
- demonstrated little or no awareness of the audience
- presented a performance where decisions of style were not sustained or where material from different mediums, such as film or television, were presented without alteration to suit a theatrical performance
- presented a script which was not analysed in terms of its dramatic elements including language, rhythms, moments and turning points
- presented a performance reliant on production elements, eg music, lights, props
- often lacked spatial awareness resulting in unmotivated movement, aimless wandering or overuse or inappropriate use of the space, or told the action when they could have shown the action.
- presented low energy, one-dimensional characters with little belief or credibility where the performer may have broken focus even to the point of checking the audience for response.
Submitted projects
Individual project: critical analysis
Portfolio of theatre criticism
Projects in this area critiqued a diverse range of theatrical productions and exhibited a clear knowledge and understanding of the purpose of theatre criticism. Candidates undertaking this project are encouraged to select productions for review which allow them to articulate their response to the manipulation of theatrical elements to create dramatic meaning. Candidates are encouraged not to narrow their focus in terms of dramatic style or form. While candidates are encouraged to read professional reviews and supporting material, such as promotional material, they are reminded that their theatre reviews must be their own work and not plagiarised, reworked or paraphrased from such sources. The logbook is an effective tool to demonstrate the originality of the candidate’s work.
Stronger projects:
- presented a clear and effective selection and evaluation of how significant production elements (which may have included directorial choices, acting, performance style, set, costume, lighting or sound design) created dramatic meaning for the audience in that performance
- supported, substantiated and justified these evaluations with specific reference to the plays in performance
- integrated research and extensive knowledge and demonstrated a clear understanding of drama and theatre
- demonstrated sophistication, flair, control and, at times, wit in the authority of their reviewer’s voice.
Weaker projects:
- recounted performances, retold the play’s plot or relied on a literary discussion of the play, often lacking in analysis or research
- provided simplistic, hyperbolic or inappropriate justification for their evaluations
- did not control the language, style or structure of the project.
Applied research project
Candidates are encouraged to focus on developing a coherent and effective hypothesis from their extensive initial research that poses a question, demonstrating insight into an area directly related to drama and/or theatre. Candidates must submit projects that are entirely their own work and must be accurate when citing references and sources. Additionally, logbooks should contain copies of research material, annotations, notes and rough drafts of the project.
Stronger projects:
- demonstrated a breadth and depth of initial research that led to a hypothesis that was original, focused and manageable
- sourced, analysed and synthesised a substantial range of resources and effective research, using primary and secondary sources
- demonstrated sophistication, confidence and authority in the use of language, style and structure.
Weaker projects:
- presented an inappropriate or unmanageable hypothesis whose connection to drama and theatre was limited
- relied on irrelevant, minimal, incomplete or inappropriate data or research which often did not substantiate the hypothesis
- presented projects that lacked attention to details such as formatting, editing, footnoting and proofreading.
Director’s folio
Candidates should focus on developing an understanding of the function of the director and the process of analysing a play from a director’s perspective. Students should carefully read and adhere to the requirements of this project as specified in the syllabus. Candidates need to be able to visualise their production of the play on stage, as opposed to examining the literary or thematic merits of the script. Candidates are encouraged to work with a play they appreciate and identify with, and for which they can develop a practical directorial vision/concept.
Stronger projects:
- developed and presented directors’ visions that were effective, practical and inspired by the play rather than imposed on the play
- demonstrated extensive knowledge and understanding of the play’s ideas, dramatic elements, style and staging demands, and responded to these with a highly effective realisation on stage
- demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of how elements of drama can be manipulated through directorial and design choices to create engaging theatre
- clearly articulated the intended audience experience through all areas of this project and used effective rehearsal techniques with actors to support this intention.
Weaker projects:
- demonstrated a superficial engagement with the play and presented an undeveloped, inappropriate, impractical or imposed directorial concept that may have disregarded the historical, social and political context and stylistic demands of the play
- lacked an understanding of the practicalities of staging the production and approached the project in a literary manner (by focusing on themes and character profiles) rather than demonstrating how dramatic and theatrical techniques could be used to realise this concept on stage
- provided inappropriate or impractical design concepts which may not have been supported by the directorial concept
- demonstrated limited understanding of intended audience experience or rehearsal techniques.
Individual project: design
Lighting
Stronger projects:
- presented an insightful concept for their selected play, deliberately manipulating audience engagement through highly appropriate atmospheric and mood choices that transported the audience into an appropriate world for the play
- contained a unified design that was clearly evident in all aspects of the work from the candidate’s vision to rig plan, choices and colours on the rigging sheets, articulated time cues and accurate easy-to-follow running script
- presented well-plotted cues that demonstrated, through the running script, cue sheets and overlays, clear choices in establishing the dramatic action, mood and setting of the chosen scenes
- submitted support material that demonstrated clear links between the intended lighting states and the equipment selected to deliver these design choices.
Weaker projects:
- had an insufficiently articulated directorial vision for the play to be realised through lighting design choices
- made inappropriate and/or impractical technical choices when selecting lanterns (especially regarding strength of chosen lights to cover key staging requirements), rigging positions, angle and direction, circuit loads and channel allocations
- demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding appropriateness of colour choices and/or employed overly simplified symbolic colour gels which did not take into account the mixing of colour on stage
- used a few varied lights as a substitute for a full, well-justified rig, leaving areas of the stage in darkness, or presented their designs as simple washes or strong colour. This misunderstanding of lighting conventions for a play sometimes culminated in a ‘rock eisteddfod dance spectacular’ solution that was highly inappropriate for the selected scenes of the set text.
Costume
Candidates are advised to present their work flat – not rolled – and to avoid the use of perspex or glass. Wooden frames are also not acceptable.
Candidates are reminded of the requirements of the project, especially the requirement to present four preliminary drawings for other characters.
Stronger projects:
- envisioned the play as a theatrical performance
- conveyed their vision effectively so that it could be imagined on stage
- understood the individual requirements of each character within an overall concept
- used colour and texture effectively to enhance the themes and reflect the mood of the chosen play
- demonstrated a depth of interpretation and conceptual understanding that allowed them to reveal levels of meaning
- provided strong support material that was consistent with their design and reflected the fabric and texture shown in the project
- presented their designs clearly and allowed the renderings to ‘speak for themselves’
- chose characters that reflected the central themes of the play
- displayed evidence of a thorough and well-researched process
- chose rendering techniques that were appropriately theatrical
- showed the journey of the play through their selection of characters and scenes.
Weaker projects:
- were undersized and/or incomplete
- were not theatrical and presented as ‘fashion design’
- did not demonstrate detail or differentiation in design choices
- contained an inappropriate selection of characters and/or scenes that did not reflect the journey of the play
- lacked a cohesive concept
- did not present character sketches for characters other than those they had rendered
- did not present evidence of reading and responding to the set plays at HSC level
- did not produce adequate support material
- did not use fabric swatches, or used fabric swatches that did not connect with their renderings
- were under or oversized and did not meet the requirements of the project
- did not differentiate between the various characters in the play or ignored aspects of status and context
- imposed a concept rather than developed a concept from study of the play
- did not take into account the needs of and requirements for actors wearing the costume.
Promotion and program
Stronger projects:
- demonstrated an insightful directorial vision that captured the atmosphere of the world of the play on stage, clearly communicated through visual design choices carried through the director’s notes and media feature story
- presented a unified design across poster, flyer and program with subtle variations in their visual selections which demonstrated a clear design vision and insightful interpretation of the chosen set text
- demonstrated layers of meaning (subtle and strong imagery)
- achieved a balance between aesthetics and functionality
- photographed appropriate people, including their age, for characters in the play
- demonstrated a well-researched knowledge of the world of the play and a thorough knowledge of the chosen theatre company’s profile to appeal to an appropriate target audience
- used appropriate and current chosen theatre company branding
- demonstrated flair in the written material, making sophisticated language choices, incorporating appropriate sales and/or marketing language to promote and attract potential audiences
- understood the chosen theatre company’s profile and demonstrated this implicitly throughout the project without needing paragraphs to explain it explicitly
- demonstrated a clear and appropriate use of ‘voice’ of the chosen director in the program’s Director’s Notes
- demonstrated attention to detail in the program, taking the reader on a journey through each page through manipulation of colours, images and layout
- presented images of cast and crew in the program that were appropriate to the theatre company profile, the chosen play and selected character/s
- presented only one copy of each item for marking in their appropriate formatting (eg program folded and not stuck page by page, flyer printed or stuck back-to-back) demonstrating sophisticated understanding of the function for audiences.
Weaker projects:
- established a minimal design vision, displaying limited knowledge of the chosen set text and the practical role of designing promotional material in engaging the target audience
- used simplistic, cluttered, multiple, clichéd images and/or images from past productions without manipulating them to present a unified directorial vision for the production, often making visual choices based only on the title of the play rather than a well-researched directional vision
- included inappropriate visual and written choices that reflected little understanding of the world of the play, their chosen theatre company, and the intended target audience
- demonstrated a lack of understanding of the purpose of each element of the project and/or were incomplete or minimal in their written material, for example the written material tended to review, rather than promote, the play
- lacked evidence of an understanding of the profile of the chosen established theatre company and its stylistic promotional approach
- forgot that the project was meant to promote the play
- demonstrated unrealistic and inconsistent images of cast and crew in the program that were inappropriate to the theatre company profile, the chosen play and selected character(s)
- did not present the program or flyer in the appropriate form (eg a flat unbound layout of a program does not function appropriately
- presented the design concept/rationale rather than a director’s concept
- presented repetition of written material across all areas.
Set
Stronger projects:
- presented a sophisticated concept for their chosen play which evoked a clear theatrical experience through highly appropriate design/visual choices within the context of their chosen theatre
- constructed sets that supported the dramatic action, mood and setting of the chosen scene, while still considering the whole world of the play and later scenic changes
- demonstrated a clear selection process of well-chosen building materials and appropriate visual metaphor
- submitted support material with clear floor plans and scene changes. This included detailed prop placement, a 1:25 scaled figure and sightlines for the audience.
- used the elements of drama such as space, mood and atmosphere to create tension through all choices
- understood the form and style of the plays and used space and image appropriately
- had a strong understanding of how proxemics could be used in their set and how a director could use them for status, time and relationships
- understood that the model box and descriptions that form this project are intended to communicate to a theatre workshop department, actors and a director
- realisation of the whole play in its logistics such as OH&S, exits and entrances
- designed in the context of a specific theatre with special consideration paid to the actor–audience relationship and sightlines
- completed sturdy and well-finished set models that fulfilled all the project requirements, especially scale.
Weaker projects:
- presented an isolated scene without clear intention for the use of the stage space to create a theatrical experience appropriate to the world of the play
- imposed a design that was not supported by the ideas and/or issues within the play or its style
- did not consider the manipulation of the actor–audience relationship in the location of key playing areas
- did not consider the practicalities of the set within the space of the theatre
- created dioramas rather than sets, indicating a lack of understanding of theatrical context
- gave floor plans that did not speak to sightlines (specifically from the audience’s perspective) of stage properties within the space
- made poor choices in selection of construction materials that did not clearly communicate what they imagined the stage design to be, eg pencil colouring to suggest dirt or road rather than using a textured surface
- lacked detail within the documentation such as measurements, descriptions of where action for each scene would take place, how set pieces would be moved
- did not choose the mode of presenting their design appropriate to their skills, eg choosing to build a model set when computer-aided design may have been a stronger or more appropriate choice for their skills
- demonstrated minimal ability to realise a set designed for the practicalities of performance, for example lacking an actor entrance and exit space
- consisted of models that were not constructed to a1:25 scale and were made of inappropriate materials demonstrating insufficient awareness of colour and texture.
Individual project: scriptwriting
General comments
Candidates are reminded that they are writing for actors as well as a director and that, ultimately, their objective is to create an engaging live theatrical experience for an audience. To this end, candidates are encouraged to workshop their play in order to refine and enrich the theatricality of their script.
Similarly, candidates are encouraged to experiment with a wide range of styles and dramatic conventions in the realisation of their dramatic vision. Resolution and coherence are not exclusive to realism/naturalism. Originality of concept can be attained by presenting a new or individual take on universal themes or concepts. Candidates are encouraged to find their individual voice. Candidates are encouraged to read widely and research their idea as part of the creative process. Sustained audience engagement is achieved through a sophisticated knowledge and manipulation of ideas and theatrical moments.
Stronger projects:
- developed a sustained theatrical vision, creating a coherent world and an engaging journey for the characters and for the audience
- manipulated dramatic action with flair and precision, displaying both control and insight in the use of mood, rhythm, tension and, appropriate to style, narrative resolution
- displayed a sophisticated use of language to create visual and verbal imagery, appropriate and distinct character voice and relationships
- clearly wrote for the stage, taking advantage of and manipulating the unique qualities of live performance, and appropriately manipulating production elements, technical aspects and acting practicalities.
Weaker projects:
- lacked structural and/or thematic complexity and/or coherence
- contained dramatic action that lacked direction and/or resolution, paying insufficient attention to the needs of the audience, the actors or directors
- contained concepts, plots, characterisation and/or scene structures more suitable for TV or film than live theatre
- lacked theatricality and were essentially screenplays that had been ineffectively and superficially modified for the stage
- overused technical effects, set and/or prop changes, which adversely affected audience engagement
- dealt with issues, concepts or topics in an unoriginal or overly derivative manner, and in a manner which did not reflect the student’s individual voice
- did not follow the specified conventions of layout, formatting, etc.
Individual project: video drama
Candidates are reminded that in this project area they are creating stories for the screen. It is essential that candidates develop and structure a dramatic narrative that can be communicated through the manipulation of the dramatic elements and deliberate use of the conventions of visual language.
Candidates are reminded that a dramatic narrative in this project area is a series of events driven by character and linked through cause and effect to engage the viewer in a coherent journey.
The best projects demonstrated considerable skill at telling their stories through the framed mise-en-scene. They used visual language to invite us into the world of the characters and positioned the audience through their careful shot selection to empathise and build meaning from the images.
Stronger projects:
- had a clear understanding of the story they wanted to tell and where the audience was placed in relation to that story
- had an understanding of the conventions and screen writing demands of a short film
- had control of the elements of drama (including character, tension, focus, mood, pace, time, space, and symbol) in the narrative
- had an understanding of mise-en-scene. Paid attention to detail. Made choices about everything the camera saw, eg location, costume, casting, lighting
- were able to show the story/narrative with images. The visual elements supported the dramatic narrative
- directed actors who had some skill and were believable in role
- carefully controlled the shots to reveal and create the dramatic meaning
- used a tripod where appropriate
- used post-production elements to enhance and layer meaning
- had control of the pace and timing of the film in the editing
- used music skilfully to enhance the dramatic meaning, not drive the narrative.
Weaker projects:
- contained unclear dramatic narrative or relied on music and lyrics to drive the narrative
- displayed little or no control of the elements of drama (including character, tension, focus, mood, pace, time, space and symbol)
- demonstrated poor understanding of the conventions and screen writing demands of a short film
- created derivative works based on recent TV programming
- used the camera as a recording device with no control of shot size, length and angle
- had an over-reliance on the wide shot
- used hand-held camera shots without a clear dramatic purpose
- shot footage that was out of focus or difficult to see due to poor lighting
- had poor quality live sound
- paid little or no attention to the mise-en-scene
- made inappropriate choices with casting or used actors with little or no skill
- used a collage of shots and images without any clear dramatic purpose, used ‘stock’ footage or relied on still photographs to make a slide show
- had an over-reliance on SFX in post-production leading to poor image quality or over used effects when editing that did not contribute to the meaning
- used editing to merely link scenes with no control of pace and timing to build tension
- had poor control of sound levels in post-production with live sound and added music being at very different volumes
- relied on computer-based templates to package film without regard for the content of the film.
Written examination
Section I – Australian drama and theatre
Question 1
Stronger responses:
- demonstrated a comprehensive, insightful and thoughtful engagement with the question
- addressed the key terms of the question such as ‘distinctly Australian’, ‘values’ and ‘attitudes’ and employed them effectively in the construction of balanced and analytical responses
- demonstrated a thoughtful understanding and appreciation of the dramatic forms, performance styles, techniques and conventions particular to each play
- identified and explored specific, relevant and varied approaches to staging the plays in which distinctly Australian values and attitudes could be communicated to an audience
- presented their discussion in a structured and coherent manner
- employed appropriate theatrical terminology in their analysis and/or discussion
- approached the staging of the plays from the perspectives of varied practitioners such as actors, directors and designers and an audience.
Weaker responses:
- did not specifically address the key terms of the question such as ‘distinctly Australian’, ‘values’ and ‘attitudes’ or ‘staging’ in their approach to the question
- described workshop or performance experiences simplistically and displayed a superficial identification and appreciation of dramatic forms, performance styles, conventions and techniques
- were unable to make a clear connection between the examples of staging and the ways in which these examples communicated distinctly Australian values and attitudes to an audience
- demonstrated superficial and/or inaccurate knowledge of the dramatic action of the plays
- relied on formulaic or prepared responses that sometimes employed key terms of previous HSC questions as the basis for the response or were based generally on the rubric terms such as issues and concerns without clear connection to terms such as ‘values’ and ‘attitudes’
- presented a literary response with few or no references to the plays as they might be staged
- interpreted staging simplistically to mean set design.
Section II – Studies in drama and theatre
Question 2 – Tragedy
Stronger responses:
- addressed the question explicitly with insight and clarity, focusing on a comparison of the heroes’ fate
- demonstrated extensive knowledge and understanding of the theatrical styles in both ancient and modern tragedies
- were able to identify the concept of fate and make a judgement as to whether the character deserved their fate
- supported their analysis of the heroes’ fate with consistent reference to how they might be staged.
Weaker responses:
- wrote of the historical background of tragedy without linking this to the question
- wrote generally about tragedy, listing and explaining various terms such as catharsis and hubris, but ignored the question
- neglected to compare the two plays and presented a literary response with few or no references to in-class workshop experiences and/or productions seen
- reinterpreted the text, imposing a director’s vision that lacked theatrical integrity.
Question 3 – Irish drama
Stronger responses:
- conveyed strong ideas demonstrating how Irish plays might be or have been staged to communicate commonalities between Ireland and Australia
- supported their answer with evidence from workshops, past productions and hypothetical staging ideas
- demonstrated an insightful understanding of the topic, texts and their context and could articulate this in reference to performance
- maintained a strong sense of performance in ‘the plays on stage’
- were able to articulate in an insightful way the theatrical connection between the Irish/Australian commonalities and their examples.
Weaker responses:
- wrote of the historical and socioeconomic background of Irish drama which had little or no relevance to any aspect of the question
- focused on commonalities, but did not relate to how these might be communicated through staging
- imposed inappropriate or irrelevant staging ideas on the plays
- addressed either the staging or the commonalities but did not make any connections between these ideas.
Question 4 – Brecht
Stronger responses:
- addressed the question explicitly with insight and clarity, identifying how staging Brecht’s TWO plays could be done in an entertaining way to communicate Brecht’s ideas
- identified the various forms of entertainment used by Brecht and addressed how the examples would communicate his ideas
- explored the concept of entertainment as a political tool in Brecht’s plays through reference to relevant workshop, staging such as set design, styles of acting, use of stage craft and experiential learning
- referred explicitly to how Brecht’s epic staging, dramatic devices and techniques, from within the text and the staging of the plays, could be used to entertain and deliver Brecht’s artistic and political ideas on the contemporary stages.
Weaker responses:
- wrote about Brecht’s techniques generally without addressing the idea of how they might entertain and therefore explore his ideas
- ignored what the question asked and wrote generally or superficially about Brecht’s techniques such as Gestus and alienation
- presented a literary response that relied purely on a reading of the set texts
- presented few or no references to the contemporary stage through examples of in-class workshops, experiences and/or productions seen.
Question 5 – Site-specific, street and event theatre
Stronger responses:
- engaged with the requirements of the topic and question providing a clear and detailed description of the candidate’s participation in the processes – before, during and after a performance of a substantial piece of site-specific theatre
- drew on the processes of key practitioners and gave examples of how these influenced their own work
- identified the processes needed to mount a professional event, citing examples from the texts, and transferred these into their own work
- answered the question explicitly, linking their own processes of creating site-specific work with the processes of the practitioners
- clearly identified the purpose or social goal of their own piece
- discussed specific examples of their work giving details of the process and performance at all stages of development.
Weaker responses:
- did not engage in or did not discuss their own piece of work
- described superficial examples of site-specific work ignoring the processes involved
- were descriptive of the work of the practitioners only, rather than identifying their processes
- did not report the purpose or nature of the work in which they were involved.
Question 6 – Approaches to acting
Stronger responses:
- responded insightfully and comprehensively in identifying the various approaches of the practitioners
- identified and made clear links between the practitioners’ approaches and how this translated into the production of theatre
- synthesised their own experience of actor training methods, and clearly related their classroom experiments to the creation of theatre
- referred to productions by, or were influenced by, the practitioners.
Weaker responses:
- failed to refer to the work of two practitioners
- listed training techniques without linking them to the production of theatre
- provided little personal workshop experience and/or production evidence.
Question 7 – American drama
Stronger responses:
- addressed the question with insight, focusing on the staging of the ‘personal and social concerns’ of the characters
- discussed possible, explicit staging strategies for the plays drawing on their imaginations, workshop experiences or productions seen
- interpreted staging insightfully to include set design, stagecraft and acting and directorial choices.
Weaker responses:
- ignored the question and wrote generally about characters’ personal and social concerns, without addressing specific ways to stage these concerns
- wrote only about stage directions and did not explore staging possibilities beyond the playwrights’ original intentions
- interpreted ‘staging’ as needing to change the original context, dialogue or character situations thus imposing inappropriate choices on the play.
Question 8 – Seventeenth-century comedy
Stronger responses:
- addressed the question directly with insight and clarity, focusing on the theatrical devices of seventeenth century comedy that could engage audiences successfully today by way of comparing use of techniques from reality TV
- referred explicitly to elements such as manners, asides, costumes, dramatic irony, satire, gesture from within the text and from the staging of the plays that are revealing of follies and issues
- explored how follies and issues in 17th century texts could be comparable to reality TV, outlining how they might be used to engage contemporary audiences
- supported an analysis of staging with judicious examples from their own ideas for staging, workshop experiences and/or productions seen.
Weaker responses:
- lacked a clear, sustained response to the question, answered last year’s question or wrote prepared answers that did not address this year’s question
- relied on a discussion of the historical period and background without linking this to the question
- failed to address how follies and issues were revealed by the staging
- described the key scenes from the text and/or retold the plot
- presented a literary response which relied heavily on quotations with few or no references to staging
- imposed a directorial vision without carefully considering how the vision might work for the entire play.
2010060
NSW Government