2010 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 2010 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 2010 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.
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 points regarding 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 a 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) or 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 the 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
In stronger individual performances, candidates:
- presented a well-rehearsed, complete and clear theatrical journey for their character and the audience and established a strong actor–audience relationship
- 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 and character 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.
In weaker individual performances, candidates:
- 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.
Self-devised performances may lack structure, theatricality, complexity, dimension of character and integrity. Self-devised individual performances must be carefully structured to develop a complex character with a clear character journey and a dramatic shape.
Candidates choosing self-devised individual performance:
- must carefully select stimulus material and a style which suits their performance strengths
- must invest in a rigorous process which should include feedback from teachers and others and should be frequently trialled with an audience.
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 theatrical 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 research professional reviews and supporting material, they are reminded that their theatre reviews must be entirely their own work and not plagiarised, reworked or paraphrased from any other sources. The logbook is an effective tool to demonstrate the originality of the candidate’s work.
In stronger projects, candidates:
- 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 theatrical moments in that performance
- integrated and embedded their research and their extensive knowledge and demonstrated a clear understanding of theatre
- demonstrated sophistication, flair and confidence in expressing the reviewer’s voice, tone and style.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- retold the play’s plot, selected performances with limited theatricality or relied on a literary discussion of the play or an obviously personal response, often lacking in analysis or research
- included clearly plagiarised or copied paragraphs and sentences from internet reviews
- provided simplistic, hyperbolic or inappropriate justification for their comments
- did not control the word count, language, style or structure of the project.
Applied research project
Candidates are encouraged to focus their initial work on extensive research which will lead to a coherent and effective hypothesis that poses a question, demonstrating insight into an area directly related to drama and/or theatre. Candidates are encouraged to refine this hypothesis during the process to ensure their project has a clear focus. Candidates must submit projects that are entirely their own work, and not plagiarised, reworked or paraphrased from any other sources. A bibliography should be included, along with accurately citied references and sources. Additionally, logbooks should contain copies of research material, annotations, notes and rough drafts of the project.
In stronger projects, candidates:
- demonstrated a breadth and depth of initial reading that led to a hypothesis that was original, focused and manageable and that resulted in a logical and erudite conclusion
- identified and created appropriate tools for data collection, eg survey, questionnaire, interview and observation.
- effectively analysed and synthesised collected data
- demonstrated sophistication, confidence and authority in the expression of findings and conclusions drawn from the data.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- presented an inappropriate or unmanageable hypothesis whose connection to drama and/or theatre was limited
- relied on irrelevant, minimal, incomplete or inappropriate data or research which often did not substantiate the hypothesis
- relied solely on internet sources that had questionable academic integrity and plagiarised or paraphrased directly from such sources
- lacked attention to detail such as word count, formatting, editing, footnoting and proofreading.
Director’s folio
Candidates should focus on developing an understanding of 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. All directorial and design material should be included in the director’s folio.
In stronger projects, candidates:
- presented directors’ visions that were effective, practical and maintained the integrity of the play rather than being arbitrarily 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 an effective realisation on stage
- demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of how elements of drama and theatre production 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.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- 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
- mistook research into the themes, style or background of the play for a theatrical analysis of the play on stage
- lacked an understanding of the practicalities of staging the production and approached the project in a literary manner 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
In stronger projects, candidates:
- presented an appropriate and effective concept for their selected play through a insightful selection of two scenes
- used stage lighting to engage the audience in the play’s dramatic meaning by establishing points of focus, changing mood and atmosphere and establishing place and time
- 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 an 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.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- 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 the 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, strong colour and/or with choices for levels, chases and fade times that were 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 not acceptable.
Candidates are reminded of the requirements of the project, especially the requirement to present a minimum of four to a maximum of six main renderings and four preliminary drawings and/or written descriptions for costumes other than those that are shown in the main renderings. The preliminary drawings should be presented separately from the log book.
In stronger projects, candidates:
- demonstrated an insightful interpretation of the play as a theatrical performance conveyed through the costume designs
- understood the individual requirements of each character within an overall concept
- used colour and texture effectively to enhance character and represent the themes and mood of the chosen play
- provided strong support material that was consistent with their design and reflected the fabric and texture shown in the renderings
- 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.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- presented designs that were undersized and/or incomplete
- used ideas that 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 preliminary sketches for costumes other than those they had rendered
- did not present evidence of reading and responding to the set plays
- did not produce adequate support material
- did not use fabric swatches, or used fabric swatches that did not connect with their renderings
- did not differentiate between the various characters in the play or ignored aspects of status and context
- imposed a concept rather than developing a concept from study of the play
- did not take into account the needs of actors wearing the costume.
Promotion and program
In stronger projects, candidates:
- 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 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
- chose appropriate and current 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.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- 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 directorial 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 presented incomplete or minimal written material, eg 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
- 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 that did not function appropriately)
- presented the design concept/rationale rather than a director’s concept
- presented repetition of written material across all areas.
Set
In stronger projects, candidates:
- 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
- used 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
- used 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
- showed a strong understanding of how proxemics could be used in their set and how a director could use them to establish place, time, status 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
- realised the whole play in its logistics such as OHS, exits and entrances
- were designed in the context of a specific theatre with special consideration paid to the actor–audience relationship and sightlines
- had completed sturdy and well-finished set models that fulfilled all the project requirements, including scale.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- 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
- used dioramas rather than sets, indicating a lack of understanding of theatrical context
- used floor plans that did not speak to sightlines (specifically from the audience’s perspective) of stage properties within the space
- demonstrated poor choices in selection of construction materials that did not clearly communicate the imagined stage design, 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
- used inappropriate modes of presenting their design appropriate to 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, eg lacking an actor entrance and exit space
- did not construct to a 1:25 scale and used 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 and 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.
In stronger projects, candidates:
- 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.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- wrote scripts that lacked structural and/or thematic complexity and/or coherence
- used dramatic action that lacked direction and/or resolution, paying insufficient attention to the needs of the audience, the actors or directors
- used concepts, plots, characterisation and/or scene structures more suitable for TV or film than live theatre
- wrote scripts that 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 candidate’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 scène. 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.
In stronger projects, candidates:
- 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-scène, paid attention to detail and 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 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.
In weaker projects, candidates:
- presented 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
- used footage that was out of focus or difficult to see due to poor lighting
- used poor quality live sound
- paid little or no attention to the mise-en-scène
- 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 special effects in post-production leading to poor image quality or over used effects when editing
- 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 at very different volumes.
Written examination
Section I – Australian drama and theatre
Question 1
In stronger responses, candidates:
- demonstrated a comprehensive, insightful and thoughtful engagement with the question
- addressed the key terms of the question such as ‘individual experiences’, ‘stage’ and ‘different’ 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 (real or imagined) in which a range of different individual experiences found in Australian society could be communicated to an audience
- presented their discussion in a structured and coherent manner, including synthesising their example to the thesis of the paragraph
- employed appropriate theatrical terminology in their analysis and/or discussion, including reference to the elements of drama and a deep understanding of form/style and its conventions
- approached the staging of the plays from the perspectives of varied practitioners such as actors, directors and designers and an audience.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- did not specifically address the key terms of the question such as ‘individual experiences’, ‘stage’ and ‘different’ or did not attempt to answer the question
- described (real or imagined) workshop or performance experiences simplistically, often with tenuous relevance to the question
- displayed a superficial appreciation and understanding of dramatic forms, performance styles, conventions and techniques
- did not make a clear connection between the examples of staging and the ways in which these examples communicated individual experiences found in Australian society 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 ‘stage’ and ‘different individual experiences’
- presented a short and/or literary response with few or no references to the plays as they might be staged
- listed themes and character descriptions or relied on recount of plot
- did not address both texts equally and were too colloquial in their style.
Section II – Studies in drama and theatre
Question 2 – Tragedy
In stronger responses, candidates:
- addressed the question explicitly with insight and clarity, identifying and interpreting the concept of the ‘triumph of the human spirit’ in opposition to the misfortune and disaster suffered by the tragic heroes of the plays discussed
- provided an insightful, balanced and thorough discussion of both plays
- demonstrated a vivid sense of the plays on stage
- used relevant and insightful staged examples to support a strong and coherent thesis to the question.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- 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 or imagined and did not relate their answer to the question asked
- prepared answers which ignored the plays on the stage and often included theories of tragedy with little or no relevance to the question.
Question 3 – Irish drama
In stronger responses, candidates:
- developed a response underpinned by a coherent and insightful thesis which was supported by relevant examples of staged conflict and disappointment from both plays
- supported their response with relevant and at times insightful evidence from workshops, stage productions and hypothetical staging ideas which were integrated into their argument
- demonstrated an insightful understanding of the question, texts and their context and could articulated this in reference to performance
- articulated the theatrical connection between the conflicts and disappointments suffered by characters in both plays and how their survival through coping mechanisms such as a sense of humour, strong family and community bonds, music and dance might give audiences insight into the survival of the Irish people through difficult times.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- gave accounts of the historical and socio-economic background of Irish drama which were used to make vague or inaccurate value statements about the Irish people
- focused on either conflicts or disappointments suffered by characters in the plays and did not relate the incidents they chose to the wider question about how these might illustrate survival strategies of the Irish people
- discussed or imposed inappropriate or irrelevant staging ideas on the plays
- largely or completely ignored the requirement explicit in the question to look at conflict and disappointment in the plays on the stage.
Question 4 – Brecht
In stronger responses, candidates:
- addressed the question explicitly with insight and clarity, discussing the emotional impact Brecht’s plays have on an audience and whether this can overpower an audience
- explored the use of Brecht’s theatrical techniques through reference to relevant workshops and staging such as design, styles of acting, use of stage craft and experiential learning by discussing real or imagined stage productions both within and beyond the classroom
- referred explicitly to how Brecht’s epic staging, dramatic devices and techniques from within the text link to the way Brecht is interested in emotion in the content and staging of the plays.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- presented a general checklist of Brecht’s techniques without addressing the idea of how they might provoke emotion or overpower an audience
- ignored what the question asked and wrote generally or superficially about Brecht’s techniques such as verfremsdungeffekt, gestus and alienation
- presented a literary response that relied purely on a reading of the set texts
- presented few or no references to Brechtian techniques and their impact on stage through examples of in-class workshops, experiences and/or productions seen.
Question 5 – Site-specific, street and event theatre
In stronger responses, candidates:
- engaged with the requirements of the question, thoroughly discussing site-specific, street and event theatre and exploring its relationship to ‘theatre and art’
- thoroughly explored relevant examples from the two set texts
- answered the question explicitly, linking their own processes of creating site-specific work with the processes of the practitioners
- investigated the relationship of theatre and art through the experience of their own theatre making with reference to specific, significant examples.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- did not engage in or did not discuss their own piece of work
- described superficial examples of site-specific work from the set texts ignoring the concepts of theatre and art
- were limited by a lack of significant theatre making experiences.
Question 6 – Approaches to acting
In stronger responses:
- responded insightfully and comprehensively in identifying the various philosophical approaches of the practitioners and their influence on their practice
- compared the work of the two practitioners
- showed a strong understanding of the connections between the philosophy and practice of the practitioners
- used relevant and insightful examples of their classroom workshop experiences and other production examples.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- failed to discuss two practitioners in a balanced argument
- gave little or no comparison of the two practitioners
- provided little personal workshop experience and/or production evidence.
Question 7 – Verbatim theatre
In stronger responses, candidates:
- addressed all areas of the question with insight, focusing on how Verbatim Theatre techniques and conventions were used to stage real events in the two set texts
- developed a sustained discussion which analysed how events on stage could lead to audience engagement
- identified how student experiences of the set texts impacted on specific meaning and therefore engagement
- interpreted staging insightfully referring to relevant key moments in the set texts as well as set design, stagecraft and acting and directorial choices.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- ignored the question and relied on retelling the conventions of Verbatim Theatre
- focused on a discussion of the process of creative experiences of Verbatim Theatre rather than addressing how the set texts could be made engaging for the stage
- discussed general theatrical conventions with little connection to the set texts or Verbatim Theatre
- described key scenes from the text and/or summarised events related to the plot
- presented inaccurate references.
Question 8 – Black comedy
In stronger responses, candidates:
- addressed the key terms of the question directly
- identified the techniques and conventions of black comedy in the two plays studied
- referred explicitly to situations of pain and loss in the plays
- explored how the techniques and conventions force audiences to laugh at the unthinkable
- supported an analysis of pain and loss with highly relevant examples from their own workshop experiences or imagined directorial choices.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- lacked a detailed analysis of the way techniques and conventions were used
- relied on a discussion of the plot or humorous incidents without linking these to the question
- 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.
20110096
NSW Government