Free Original Practice Exam for English 2014

[literally lauren]

Rishi97:
Some confusion with your contention, ie. at some points you're arguing "This demonstrates that despite Scrooge’s transformation benefitting many others, the main reason behind this change was his selfish intention to prevent his death" and at others, "This presents readers to the idea that Scrooge genuinely cares about others and that his repentance is not purely self-interested."
The ends of your paragraphs in particular should be sure-ing up your contention, not contradicting it. It's okay to have a challenge paragraph, or just a complex contention off the bat, but you have to be consistent.
Otherwise, this was quite well written, and the discussion of the text you conduct is good, but without focus in your T.S. and paragraph ends (not to mention the conclusion) it's difficult for assessors to give you credit. Your knowledge of the text is clearly solid, you just have to practice framing it to suit prompts and contention.
Paulrus' corrections are also very helpful, so refer to those for a more detailed edit

rhinwarr:
This is one of the texts I'm less familiar with, so hopefully someone else will be able to jump in and give some more detailed feedback, but to me your pieces seems very well-structured. Your use of quotes was excellent, and each paragraph had a clear thematic focus. Generally speaking I'm not a fan of the 'author leaves things up the the readers' interpretations, but you argued it very well and examined a complex prompt from many different angles. Given this was an outright question, your approach is fairly safe, but be careful with the statement-type prompts as these require a slightly stronger contention.
Other than that, this was a really well-written piece, well done

Thorium:
Voting has now closed for this practice exam, I'm no longer taking requests. I'll be posting another one on Saturday so I'll be sure to add WYPBQP to that list.

Camo15:
I'll leave you in Brenden's much more capable hands for this text, but some general things to watch out for:
-If there's a quote in the prompt, you should always try and deal with it. This one wasn't very central to the text, but you're expected to be able to at least contextualise it. Even just talking about the tone of this line would be sufficient, but to ignore it completely is kind of risky.
...the portrayal of Juror 7 is a duplicitous one in reflecting such realities in post-war America; it accentuates bot the carelessness and selfishness that many possessed in this period.
-calling the portrayal of Juror 7 "duplicitous" kind of confused me. Especially since carelessness and selfishness are synonyms, so even if you were calling the character duplicitous, since he's so forthright with his disregard, you can't really say he's manipulative or two faced. He has one face, it's just an ugly one.

For this topic, it kind of did call for some discussion of McCarthyism given the "common attitudes of 50's America" part. Generally though, whilst this works for most V&V and some thematic prompts, you don't want to be imposing historical evidence on a character/structural prompt that doesn't require it. You're using it well (and moderately) here so I wouldn't be too concerned. Just know that you can't get too far outside the text and still get credit, even if what you're saying is right and well-written. Like Brenden said, you can adapt this to pretty much any prompt type provided you're flexible with your approach.

[Mykindos]

Hey Lauren, recently I have been pretty concerned due to the fact the English exam is just around the corner, and due to majority of my scores being pretty shocking, it is worrying me that I might not be able to score the required 25 study score needed to get into my course. My current scores are as follows: 14/30 - Text Response, 14/20 - Oral Presentation, 15/30 - Context, 15/30 - Language Analysis, 25/50 - Context, and finished off with an improving score of 35/50 for the year. My current theory is, that as long as I generally score about 50% in the English exam, I should be able to pull that 25 study score needed, though I am still confident I will do better than 50% in the exam, due to recent improvements. I'd like to know what your opinion on this is, thanks!

[brenden]

Hey Lauren, recently I have been pretty concerned due to the fact the English exam is just around the corner, and due to majority of my scores being pretty shocking, it is worrying me that I might not be able to score the required 25 study score needed to get into my course. My current scores are as follows: 14/30 - Text Response, 14/20 - Oral Presentation, 15/30 - Context, 15/30 - Language Analysis, 25/50 - Context, and finished off with an improving score of 35/50 for the year. My current theory is, that as long as I generally score about 50% in the English exam, I should be able to pull that 25 study score needed, though I am still confident I will do better than 50% in the exam, due to recent improvements. I'd like to know what your opinion on this is, thanks!

There's no other opinion to have other than it's possible to get the 25 and you should do a bit more practice to capitalise on the recent improvements and make very sure you hit the 25!

[AmericanBeauty]

I know my standard of writing isn't nearly up to par with everyone else on this website, but if anyone could please point me into the direction of achieving an 8 I would be really appreciative. I opt'd to leave all the mistakes in rather than edit them out as that would be pointless. Thanks to anyone who reads it - also tell me if I fall into the trap of telling the story again, because I get confused as to how I'm expected to reference a text alongside my ideas without going into the text !!! THANKS!

This is the whose reality prompt 'Reality is too intangible for us to ever fully embrace it.'

Introduction:

Dear Samantha                 (16/10/14),

In this world, living a life by your own set of ideals is a rarity forcing humans to life in quiet desperation. As we are born into this world, we are taught right from wrong and the pathway to a happy life. The dichotomy that presents itself reveals that there is little happiness in going down the conventional route in life as we are simply one of many, rather than leaving our significant footprint behind in this world. As such, the life that millions of men and women live today are as a result of generations casting down their dreams to be outlived by those that secede them, living their dreams vicariously. We are then presented with a problem in life sa to whether we should follow our own personal set of ideals and face the consequences, or join in on the universal cookie-cutter lifestyle to mediocrity and insignificance. The consequences that proceed after following your heart can hold you in the limelight, revered by many, or facing adversity from the masses.

Body Paragraph One
After millions of years, human beings feel compelled to make their authoritative figures proud of them, whether by following their footsteps or to achieve their elusive dream.  Living for someone else can replace our own individual dreams, leading to a life of sadness and misery. In the play Death of a Salesman, the main protagonist has spent his entire life trying to accomplish the American Dream. After the major armed onslaught of World War II, The American Dream provided so much hope and direction in the life of many Americans. A house, a stable career, and an endless supply of money. Yet, this reality had eluded Willy. In Willy's timeless era, The American Dream was symbolic as to the level of success that Americans had acquired throughout their lifetime, causing Willy to delude those around him by living in the comforts of an illusion. After being contractionally (not a word ) terminated from his career as a struggling salesman, Willy maintained that 'I am pivotal in New England.' This remarkable denial of truth that Willy was failing by quantitative means of success scurries willy into schizophrenic episodes, to protect himself from the bitter truth. In one of his hallucinations, Willy's death brother Ben told willy to 'go into the forest and find your worth.' Ben alludes to the fact that he found wealth by mining diamonds, and is directing Willy to 'find his fortune' like himself. The infallible American Dream become worth drying for. Willy envisages the 'magnificence of $20 thousand' as a life insurance payout and wants his son of 'personal attractiveness' to secede his ideology of the American Dream.

Second Paragraph:

The casting off of dreams from father to son can create conflict. The ideals and values of people change by generation, and Willy's desire for Biff to vicariously life out his idea of the American Dream because Biff's major blockade in following his lodestar in life. Biff's true desire in life is to 'work under the sun,' but feels compelled by his father to enter into the world of business. Biff saw himself living in the motions of self-denial throughout his life, living in a temporary illusion to strengthen his father-adored facade. This distant lifestyle of wealth from Biff became only plausible to him by becoming a thief, otherwise never to have access to the possibility of self-rememption in the eyes of his father. The compulsive theft led Biff to steal items of prestige such as a 'fountain pen,' as he saw this was the only way to receive his fathers validations of his life. As this unstable reality was torn down and broken into, Biff was thrown into prison as a consequence becoming vulnerable to his true reality. Living a life that was not afforded to you by destiny, but by the generations that proceed you in their dreams and life goals, leads a life of mediocrity so someone can vicariously life their dreams through you.

Third Paragraph:
In life we are presented with many decisions, and we must make our own choices and face the consequences. Usually, people are taught to be conservative by nature and will follow society's safe ideals for a lifetime, rather than face risk by abiding by their own ideals. People will vicariously life by those few that supersede them for abiding by their own set of ideals, living a life of wondering what they could have amounted to, In American Beauty, Lester Burnham has followed the conventional path to wealth and happiness and is said to have achieved the American Dream. Lester owns a house, has a family and a stable job, but is full of 'hopelessness and emptiness.' Through the exploration of Lester's character, we begin to question whether the American Dream is a mere representation of what people wish to have - 'the perfect [unattainable] life.' The career that many people with they could have, Lester sees as a 'job that consists of masking my contempt for the assholes in charge,' and being a 'whore for the advertising agency.' The negative connotations involved make us wonder as an audience as to whether the sacrifice of life for money will enable true happiness in their lesiureful (blehh) downtime. Lester's family is almost picture-perfect but are all indulged in their own, secret struggles. Carolyn Burnam (wife) lived by the motto 'that in order to be successful, one must project the image of success at all times,' but can be seen as a broken down vulnerable-self when she fails to sell a house, calling herself a 'baby' and 'weak,' questioning the ideals she conformed to. The marriage of Lester and Carolyn appears perfect and full of happiness, but is merely representational 'to show people how normal we are when we're anything but.' This cunning desire to fit in can lead people to life a life of lies, sadness and foreign ideals, living purely as a representation of what society wants us to be like.

Fourth paragraph:

For those few that break away from the circle of conformity to pave their own way into life, it comes with great consequence. There is a war in Darfur in the Sudan region which began when the Sudanese Liberation Movement Army and the Justice and Equality Movement rebel groups took up arms against the Sudanese Government, who were being accused of oppressing the Sudanese non-Arab population. These men and women were simply fighting for what they believed in, to be treated life anyone else; a fundamental human right. This produces the major armed onslaught of Darfur, where the Sudanese Government practiced ethnic cleaning on Sudan's non-Arab population. These innocent men and women who simply wanted their voices to be heard became in the midst of asymmetrical warfare, having hell unleashed upon them by al-Bashir. The perception of Bashir was that he was simply protecting his territorial integrity and sovereignty of his own population, whilst the non-Arab population are calling him a 'terrorist' The fluidity of perception allows us to form our own opinions, and oppress, forgive or sympathise with those that don't share our opinion. Al-Bashir was doing what he believed was right for his populace,  yet the International Criminal Court is issuing warrants for his arrest on the grounds of genocide. Al-Bashir's senior officers took an alternative perception, issuing mandates of non-compliance across the land to keep al-Bashir safe from judicial extrication. Whilst an extreme example, such is life when you choose to do something that's adverse to society's ideals, as all reactions will have both an equal and opposite reaction. This is discouraging to those who chose the alternative path of life, and it comes to question whether you'll be victimised by society if you pave your own way in life. This will leave those undecided about their life sitting on the fence about what ideals to follow, usually opting for conforming to society's ideals.

Conclusion

Samantha, I know this is a dire matter but I needed to warn you about this before I am gone, and I needed to self-explore wethehr it is really possible to life your own life in the modern world. Everywhere I look, people seem to be living the dreams that were appointed to them by someone else who couldn't achieve their own dreams. It really saddens me as most of these people will conform and follow the ideals afforded to them, rather than sticking by their own. For the very few men and women that risk living by their own ideals, the consequences can be detrimental, and beg to question whether choosing your own identity is still possible anymore.

[M_BONG]

I know my standard of writing isn't nearly up to par with everyone else on this website, but if anyone could please point me into the direction of achieving an 8 I would be really appreciative. I opt'd to leave all the mistakes in rather than edit them out as that would be pointless. Thanks to anyone who reads it - also tell me if I fall into the trap of telling the story again, because I get confused as to how I'm expected to reference a text alongside my ideas without going into the text !!! THANKS!

This is the whose reality prompt 'Reality is too intangible for us to ever fully embrace it.'

Introduction:

Dear Samantha                 (16/10/14),

In this world, living a life by your own set of ideals is a rarity forcing humans to life in quiet desperation. As we are born into this world, we are taught right from wrong and the pathway to a happy life. The dichotomy that presents itself reveals that there is little happiness in going down the conventional route in life as we are simply one of many, rather than leaving our significant footprint behind in this world. As such, the life that millions of men and women live today are as a result of generations casting down their dreams to be outlived by those that secede them, living their dreams vicariously. We are then presented with a problem in life sa to whether we should follow our own personal set of ideals and face the consequences, or join in on the universal cookie-cutter lifestyle to mediocrity and insignificance. The consequences that proceed after following your heart can hold you in the limelight, revered by many, or facing adversity from the masses.

I only read the intro, and a little bit of BP1 and skimmed through the rest.

For me, it's not clear who "Samantha" is. It seems like you're writing to a random person and putting chunks of information in there and obscurely linking it back to her at the conclusion. Think: if you were receiving a letter, would you bother reading one that barely mentioned you - once at the start and not again until the end of the 1,000 word letter?

I think for a letter, it's better to start off casually - like "How are you doing, remember the time we went to...." etc. So you need to be aware of your writing style so as to make it suitable to a particular context you're writing in.

Also (this is a problem for me as well), you need to have a reason why you're writing this letter to Samantha. And you need a reason to be mentioning DoAS or American Beauty at the very start. Why does Samantha care about the American Dream or Willy or the American Beauty? And what reasons do you have in writing about the texts? For example, when you write a letter to someone (in real life) do you actually just randomly talk about two books you've read? No. So you need to weave that in a little bit nicer.

Finally, your "real-world" example of Sudan is a bit mehh? Why are you putting Sudan in there? Does it help with your whole letter.

Eg. "For those few that break away from the circle of conformity to pave their own way into life, it comes with great consequence."

That's more like a Conflict sentence, not a Whose Reality sentence. After that, you put in loads of well-researched information which actually have no relevance to Whose Reality, to be honest. I mean it would be a stretch to fit it in a Conflict essay.


So tips for you:

1. Relevance. -> Do your body paragraphs actually make sense, in terms of the flow? Are you just putting it random paragraphs with random information?
2. Reason -> Do you have a reason to write to Samantha? Why does she care to read what you're writing? You don't mention her at all in your body paragraphs. If you don't have a reason, you might as well just write an essay, not a letter.
3. Quality of writing -> It's generally fine with you - you write pretty well albeit sounding a little bit like a text response essay.
4. Textual reference: you link the texts you are studying. But how do they actually help with your contention at all?? Are you just chucking random things about Willy or Biff in there or do you actually have something to say about them?


Hope that helped in some way

[literally lauren]

Zezima beat me to this, but yeah, make sure you have a purpose as well as a contention. Yes, context gives you an opportunity to write something other than an essay, but putting 'Dear... Love...' at the start and end doesn't really make it a believable piece.
The way you unpack your contention is good, so maybe a regular expository essay might suit your style better? However, if you're committed to this format, have a think about the situation. This reads more like one man's (/woman's?) catharsis and stream-or-consciousness in coming to terms with his own reality than him expressing anything of value to 'Samantha.'

A tip for now, for most good expository/hybrid essays (and there are exceptions to this) an assessor should be able to read your intro, topic sentences, ends of paragraphs, and conclusion, and determine an approximate mark that's pretty accurate. Obviously they'll read the whole thing, but it's these places that you need to make sure they know where you're going and why. If I were to take excerpts:

"Willy envisages the 'magnificence of $20 thousand' as a life insurance payout and wants his son of 'personal attractiveness' to secede his ideology of the American Dream."
...
"The casting off of dreams from father to son can create conflict."
...
"In life we are presented with many decisions, and we must make our own choices and face the consequences."

Not only are a lot of these irrelevant to the prompt, a fair few are barely connected to Whose Reality at all.

When it comes to planning, don't leap straight into how you can tailor your examples to the prompt, unpack it purely on an idea-level. What does the prompt mean. Are there any words you don't understand. What is it implying? Are there exceptions? This should give you a foundation upon which to build. Once you have a rough contention that encompasses a few of these questions, then start working in your evidence and constructing different arguments for each paragraph.

One more thing:

...but if anyone could please point me into the direction of achieving an 8 I would be really appreciative.

Regardless of what you think you're capable of, or what scores you've gotten this year, you should be aiming for a 10. Aim for the moon and land amongst the stars and all that jazz. even though the stars are further away from the moon but whatevs Yes you should be aware of what characterises an 8/10, but there's no sense aiming for that when it is, by definition, flawed. Not all 10/10 essays are inaccessible pieces of academic, philosophical garble; many are written in plain English with clear and concise expression; in fact that tends to be the sort VCAA prefer. Likewise, it's not just people who've been writing 10s all year who score 10s on the exam. My highest context score would have been a 7 or an 8 right up until SWOT-VAC. If you concentrate on improving and use feedback effectively, there's no reason why you can't score well.
Realistic goals are important, but why limit yourself to an easy goal when you could challenge yourself and potentially score even higher?

[AmericanBeauty]

Thanks.

Now I'm so confused but oh well I'll keep trying.

I thought the prompt was pretty hard. I interpreted 'intangible' to meaning the lives we were meant to live are somewhat out of reach and took up other avenues of life, not being able to embrace  I also usually do just write expository usually but I always tread really close to a text response, so just for the sake of doing so I turned it into a letter which I won't do again.

So confused now! ;( But thanks for reading I appreciate it.

[literally lauren]

Don't be put off experimenting altogether, changing your style "just for the sake of doing so" often doesn't yield positive results. Even if you're not refining this approach, understanding where you went wrong is important.

What exactly is confusing you?

If it's the prompt itself, just define a word so it makes sense in your head. ie. 'intangible'=not real, abstract. Then reword the whole thing to start to form a contention: 'the prompt is suggesting reality isn't obvious or physical; it's more of an idea than an actual collection of things/people/stuff we can sense, so we can't embrace it properly. Do I agree with this?'

When you read through your essay, try and pick out the bits that are demonstrating this understanding vs. bits that aren't so closely linked.
Also ensure you're mini-contentions/paragraph arguments are based on this understanding, and not just 'reality' as a general idea. If you know this, then great, apply it in your writing. Otherwise, it might be worthwhile to read some high scoring responses and identify what they're doing right.

[AmericanBeauty]

What exactly is confusing you?

I don't really know what to talk about when it comes to whose reality. I thought I could get away with doing three key ideas that I thought were relevant to the prompt and just talking about that key idea so it makes sense. I thought what I was speaking about was relative to whose reality but I must be mistaken which leads me to this confusion It sucks because I'm struggling with both context and LA and only have like 10 or so days to learn what to do.

If it's the prompt itself, just define a word so it makes sense in your head. ie. 'intangible'=not real, abstract. Then reword the whole thing to start to form a contention: 'the prompt is suggesting reality isn't obvious or physical; it's more of an idea than an actual collection of things/people/stuff we can sense, so we can't embrace it properly. Do I agree with this?'

I wish I could deconstruct prompts like that. I think my interpretations are quite off. I was interpreting an intangible reality to mean that living the identity you want is often hard due to the presented problems making it difficult to embrace this identity.

When you read through your essay, try and pick out the bits that are demonstrating this understanding vs. bits that aren't so closely linked.
Also ensure you're mini-contentions/paragraph arguments are based on this understanding, and not just 'reality' as a general idea. If you know this, then great, apply it in your writing. Otherwise, it might be worthwhile to read some high scoring responses and identify what they're doing right.

I really think I must be confused as to what whose reality is and what I'm meant to be speaking about. I've usually gotten around 24/30 for context and I've been doing the same thing all year. I think my struggle is deconstructing the prompt and what to actually talk about. I don't know if I'm meant to be structuring my response around themes like 'illusions' and stuff; and I don't have enough of these themes either to interconnect an essay together.


Thanks for the response. I'm a pain I know.

[literally lauren]

I don't really know what to talk about when it comes to whose reality. I thought I could get away with doing three key ideas that I thought were relevant to the prompt and just talking about that key idea so it makes sense. I thought what I was speaking about was relative to whose reality but I must be mistaken which leads me to this confusion It sucks because I'm struggling with both context and LA and only have like 10 or so days to learn what to do.

Okay, if it's the conceptual understanding of what you're meant to be doing, here are the most helpful ones I could find: (1), (2), (3), (4). I don't know what you're teacher is like, but it might be worth organising a time to go through some of your questions. Try and be as specific as possible too, it can be frustrating when students request help only to say 'i don't know what I'm doing, I don't understand the task.' State what you know and go from there. Although you can't properly build on a wonky foundation, it's good to know where the bumps are rather than just saying 'why isn't it a skyscraper yet?'

Our definitions of 'relevant' might be somewhat misaligned. It's not enough to just talk about reality. Your ideas and arguments should be linking back to the prompt and your contention. Though you can sometimes adapt your ideas, walking into an exam thinking 'I'm going to write about the father-son relationship in the text, the film American Beauty what it says about dreams, and the humanitarian crisis in Sudan' is one of the worst things you can do. Because then you get a prompt about the intangibility of reality, and your mind is too stuck in the rut of your examples to be able to think clearly.
I'm not saying abandon your examples, just that you should have a conceptual grasp of what the prompt is saying before you start implementing them.

I wish I could deconstruct prompts like that. I think my interpretations are quite off. I was interpreting an intangible reality to mean that living the identity you want is often hard due to the presented problems making it difficult to embrace this identity.

This was probably just a definition error. Remember you'll have a dictionary in the exam, so find a reliable one now. I was deliberately including some more challenging words anyway; VCAA don't normally do this, but it's happened once or twice, so be prepared.

I really think I must be confused as to what whose reality is and what I'm meant to be speaking about. I've usually gotten around 24/30 for context and I've been doing the same thing all year. I think my struggle is deconstructing the prompt and what to actually talk about. I don't know if I'm meant to be structuring my response around themes like 'illusions' and stuff; and I don't have enough of these themes either to interconnect an essay together.

Admittedly the vagueness of the contexts can get a bit annoying. My criticism (and Zezima's) was in no way meant to imply everything you were doing was wrong, just that some refinements were needed. All that happened here was that you over-corrected in trying to avoid writing a text response, and the format didn't really work.
There's a chance (as was certainly the case with me) that you got lucky in SACs and practice prompts because all your ideas worked, but then hit a roadblock with a difficult prompt and your piece fell apart a little. (Again, it's better that this is happening now than in the exam, that's the point of this whole practice task!)
You're not meant to just apply 'illusions' or random themes unless they're in the prompt. That's why you'll need to broaden your spectrum both in terms of ideas and examples. Developing some planning techniques are definitely in order. Pick a prompt (or use the one I'll post on Saturday) and deconstruct it. Ask questions of every single word if needs be, but get in the habit of thinking critically, rather than habitually.

I'm a pain I know.

Not at all. This is exactly what AN is for, clarifying knowledge and filling in the gaps. Very few people get through Year 12 always knowing exactly what they're meant to be doing. It's way better that you're asking questions now than in the exam room

[Equilibriaas]

Could you read mine Lauren

It is for Mabo

The characters’ weaknesses are never truly resolved in Mabo. Discuss.

Revolving around the inspirational story of the ground-breaking 1992 Native Title Case, Rachel Perkins’ 2012 biopic narrative “Mabo” recounts the tale of the influential yet somewhat flawed man on his fight for justice. Perkins illustrates to the audience Eddie Mabo as a courageous man as he is seen to be defiant in the face of authorities. However, she does also nonetheless focuses on his flaws. Sometimes family comes secondary sometimes for him. Though this may be considered as a fault, it no longer exists to be one, when at the end; Eddie Mabo recognises and acknowledges that he was never there for his kids.  The antagonist, Killoran is also portrayed to have weaknesses. Symbolic of the paternalistic and racist state and laws of Queensland, Killoran’s sense of being superior compared to the Indigenous Australians is implied to be abolished through the High Court getting rid of Terra Nullius and recognising the Merriam People as the true custodians of the land. Perkins as a result indicates to the viewers that the characters’ weaknesses are met and resolved.

Despite Perkins portraying Eddie Mabo as the powerful and acknowledged hero who sets out to fight for justice, many may consider Eddie Mabo as a neglectful father and husband which may be regarded as a flaw in pursuit for equality. He is often illustrated in the film as sacrificing time to spend with his children and wife to instead fight for the rights of the Merriam people. Eddie is twice denied service at the front bar of a pub and he stages a silent protest sitting in the bar with a sign reading, ‘I’m not leaving until I get a drink’. This mis-en-scene is immediately juxtaposed with close up-shots of Bonita packing prawns and cycling home in the dark whilst heavily pregnant. The cost of Koiki’s actions are highlighted by this contrast and by Bonita’s courage and love, Perkins makes the audience empathise with her hard life lived in support of the crusading activist. This trait of Eddie Mabo shows the audience that he is human with weaknesses. However, as it is the agenda of Perkins in the end to iconize Eddie Mabo as a true hero whom Australians can be proud of, she attempts to show that his imperfections are not really flaws and that they have been recognised and resolved by him. This can be seen in the scene towards the end of the film where Eddie Mabo can be seen remorseful through a mid-close-up shot and acknowledges the sacrifices that Bonita makes so that he could pursue his battle and at his lack of involvement in his children’s upbringing, when he says that “the most important person in my life has stuck with me”. It provides a sentimental view of the Eddie who sacrificially puts his cause before his family and the audience is made to understand that what Eddie is doing is for the greater good of all Indigenous Australians and not just a quest for a personal victory for himself. Therefore Perkins tries to show the viewers that no knots of Eddie Mabo are left untangled at the end of the film.

Also, Perkins uses the character of Killoran to represent the racist views of the state government and its laws as being a negative force and trait that’s Australians should feel ashamed of. Patrick Killoran is ‘The Protector’ of the Murray Islanders when Eddie is just a teenager. The first scene in which he appears shows him sitting in his dark office, surrounded by his own cigarette smoke. Smoke may be interpreted as being symbolic his clouded prejudice and his overbearing character. Perkins implicitly shows the endemic injustice that was present in Australia at that time. This is particularly seen in the scene where Killoran is trying to manipulate George to not be part of the case and a low angle shot conveys a sense of dominance and power over George and perhaps other aboriginals. Perkins uses this scene to condemn these racist views of the state as being imperfections. However, she also shows to the viewers that Australia has changed and rectified its mistake towards the end of the film. This is implied through Eddie Mabo winning the High Court Case and finally getting rid of Terra Nullius. Quoting the famous Redfern speech of Paul Keating, Perkins’s message is that “Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice”, and also the basis of a new relationship between indigenous and non-Aboriginal Australians, indicating to the viewers that perhaps racism towards Indigenous people ceases to exist.

The diminishing prejudicial values of minor characters from the film also exhibit a righteous resolution; a resolution with deeper symbolic value representing the changing ideals of general Australian citizens. Right at the end of the film, Bonita and her son are depicted as having tea with an aged white Australian couple. After the announcement that the case has been won, a mid-shot is used to show how the white Australian couple are genuinely happy for Bonita and her son for winning the case. This is immediately put adjacent to Bonita and her son going in a car with a happy and upbeat non-diegetic sound in the background and a car full of white Australians youngsters drive pass showing thumbs up to them. This is used by Perkins to show how it is not only the older generations who have reconciled but also the young generations who represent the future, implying that life for Aboriginals after the case may perhaps be better and easier.
 
The film Mabo not only focuses on the historic case, but also what sacrifices Eddie Mabo has to make in order to win the case and how they are resolved by him. Instead ending the film as him neglecting his family as a flaw, Perkins shows that he recognises this and feels guilty. This makes viewers feel sympathetic towards him. The character of Killoran representing the state is also seen resolving their weakness by acknowledging their mistakes. Perkins in the end has successfully put Eddie Mabo on a pedestal shown to the viewers that here is a hero everyone can feel proud of.

[literally lauren]

Exam 2 has been added to the original post
This one is a little easier, but there'll be one more in this trilogy uploaded next weekend.
Also, to everyone who's been PMing me, I'll get back to marking essays this afternoon, apologies to everyone for the wait

[Paulrus]

i'm not loz but i studied mabo earlier this year. i'm not writing on mabo for the exam so my memory of the film isn't perfect, but hopefully i can still help somewhat

Could you read mine Lauren

It is for Mabo

The characters’ weaknesses are never truly resolved in Mabo. Discuss.

Revolving around the inspirational story of the ground-breaking 1992 Native Title Case, Rachel Perkins’ 2012 biopic narrative “Mabo” recounts the tale of the influential yet somewhat flawed man on his fight for justice a bit nitpicky, but i'd replace "of the _______ man" to "of its ______ protagonist". Perkins illustrates to the audience Eddie Mabo this is down to stylistic choice but i feel like the word order seems a bit disjointed here. it might flow a bit better if you moved 'Eddie Mabo' after the word 'illustrates' - but again, it's your choice as a courageous man as he is seen to be defiant in the face of authority. However, she does also nonetheless focuses on his flaws. Sometimes family comes secondary sometimes for him you've used sometimes twice here - you can get rid of one of them. also i feel like you've used too many "short" sentences in a row. read it aloud and you might see what i mean. if you mix up the length of your sentences it'll flow a lot more nicely. Though this may be considered as a fault, it no longer exists as one when at the end; Eddie Mabo recognises and acknowledges that he was never there for his kids. you've misused a semicolon here where i think a comma would work better. The antagonist, Killoran is also portrayed to have weaknesses. Symbolic of the paternalistic and racist state and laws of Queensland, Killoran’s sense of being superior compared to the Indigenous Australians is implied to be abolished through the High Court getting rid of Terra Nullius and recognising the Merriam People as the true custodians of the land. Perkins as a result indicates to the viewers that the characters’ weaknesses are met and resolved. there are some interesting ideas here in this opening paragraph, and i like the way you're evidencing similarities between killoran and eddie, who are shown as very different characters. that said, i'm not sure i personally agree with your interpretation of killoran - i feel like his prejudices were still intact by the end of the film. but then again, i'm only at the start of the essay and this is english, so if you can justify your arguments well enough then you can't really be considered wrong.

Despite Perkins portraying Eddie Mabo as the powerful and acknowledged hero who sets out to fight for justice, many may consider Eddie Mabo as a neglectful father and husband which may be regarded as a flaw in the pursuit for equality. He is often illustrated in the film as sacrificing time to spend with his children and wife to instead fight for the rights of the Merriam people. Eddie is twice denied service at the front bar of a pub and he stages a silent protest sitting in the bar with a sign reading, ‘I’m not leaving until I get a drink’. This mis-en-scene is immediately juxtaposed with close up-shots of Bonita packing prawns and cycling home in the dark whilst heavily pregnant. The cost of Koiki’s actions are highlighted by this contrast and by Bonita’s courage and love, Perkins makes the audience empathise with her hard life lived in support of the crusading activist. This trait of Eddie Mabo shows the audience that he is human with weaknesses. However, as it is the agenda of Perkins in the end to iconize Eddie Mabo as a true hero whom Australians can be proud of, she attempts to show that his imperfections are not really flaws and that they have been recognised and resolved by him. this is interesting. do you think eddie's remorse fully resolves his character flaws by the time he dies? i feel like he never really has time in the end to fix his mistakes, and it's mainly that fact which makes him so regretful. This can be seen in the scene towards the end of the film where Eddie Mabo can be seen remorseful through a mid-close-up shot and acknowledges the sacrifices that Bonita makes so that he could pursue his battle and at his lack of involvement in his children’s upbringing, when he says that “the most important person in my life has stuck with me”. It provides a sentimental view of the Eddie who sacrificially puts his cause before his family and the audience is made to understand that what Eddie is doing is for the greater good of all Indigenous Australians and not just a quest for a personal victory for himself. this is a nice interpretation i think. in the movie he's portrayed as neglectful and stubborn for focusing so much on his case, but your suggestion that he had to make a personal sacrifice for the good of indigenous australians is pretty nice. Therefore Perkins tries to show the viewers that no knots of Eddie Mabo are left untangled at the end of the film. decent first paragraph overall. your expression and flow is better here than in the intro i think.

Also, Perkins uses the character of Killoran to represent the racist views of the state government and its laws as being a negative force and trait that Australians should feel ashamed of some teachers might suggest to write "...trait of which Australians should feel ashamed" instead, cos it's seen as bad form to end a sentence with a preposition. it's entirely up to you though. Patrick Killoran is ‘The Protector’ of the Murray Islanders when Eddie is just a teenager. The first scene in which he appears shows him sitting in his dark office, surrounded by his own cigarette smoke. Smoke may be interpreted as being symbolic of his clouded prejudice and his overbearing character good analysis of film technique and metalanguage. Perkins implicitly shows the endemic injustice that was present in Australia at that time. This is particularly seen in the scene where Killoran is trying to manipulate George to not be part of the case and a low angle shot conveys a sense of dominance and power over George and perhaps other aboriginals. again, discussion of film technique here is good. actually, on a semi-related note, it's interesting to note that perkins uses this same technique to show eddie's dominance over bonita after attacking her. in another essay you could possibly draw parallels between the two characters and the similar flaws they show, despite having opposing ideals. but yeah anyway Perkins uses this scene to condemn these racist views of the state as being imperfections. However, she also shows to the viewers that Australia has changed and rectified its mistake towards the end of the film. This is implied through Eddie Mabo winning the High Court Case and finally getting rid of Terra Nullius. Quoting the famous Redfern speech of Paul Keating, Perkins’s message is that “Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice”, and also the basis of a new relationship between indigenous and non-Aboriginal Australians, indicating to the viewers that perhaps racism towards Indigenous people ceases to exist. this last part is a veeeery bold statement, i'd probably avoid saying this haha. eddie's case lays a foundation for legal equality, but the entrenched, institutionalised systems of discrimination are still alive. don't suggest that racism is solved by the end of the film, just saying that society begins to approach equality is enough to support your contention without being too outlandish

The diminishing prejudicial values of minor characters from the film also exhibit a righteous resolution; a resolution with deeper symbolic value representing the changing ideals of general Australian citizens. i like your wording here, good stuff Right at the end of the film, Bonita and her son are depicted as having tea with an aged white Australian couple. After the announcement that the case has been won, a mid-shot is used to show how the white Australian couple are genuinely happy for Bonita and her son for winning the case. This is immediately put adjacent to maybe use 'compounded with'Bonita and her son going in a car as happy and upbeat non-diegetic music plays in the background, and a car full of white Australian youngsters drive past showing thumbs up to them. This is used by Perkins to show how it is not only the older generations who have reconciled but also the young generations who represent the future, implying that life for Aboriginals after the case may perhaps be better and easier. this paragraph builds on the prompts nicely. i like the idea that the resolution of character flaws reflects the ideals of society changing
 
The film Mabo not only focuses on the historic case, but also what sacrifices Eddie Mabo has to make in order to win the case and how they are resolved by him. Instead ending the film as him neglecting his family as a flaw, Perkins shows that he recognises this and feels guilty. he never really has the chance to act on his flaws though, so i'm not sure i would argue they were resolved. it's all up to interpretation of course, but i feel like an assessor could take issue with this. This makes viewers feel sympathetic towards him. The character of Killoran representing the state is also seen resolving their weakness by acknowledging their mistakes. Perkins in the end has successfully put Eddie Mabo on a pedestal shown to the viewers that here is a hero everyone can feel proud of. hmm personally i felt perkins's intention was to do the opposite. his flaws make it impossible to canonise him, so we're instead forced to view him not as a hero, but as a man who is both flawed and admirable

ok so overall:
- i'm putting this first because i think this is the biggest issue i have: you've only really disagreed with the prompt. generally you want to talk about both "sides" of the prompt to some extent so you can really explore its implications. that could be a simple fourth paragraph talking about how some characters are never reformed because of entrenched beliefs/not enough time/blahblahblah
- your topic sentences sometimes don't address the entire prompt. they've addressed the aspect about flaws very well, but haven't mentioned their resolution. you go on to discuss this later on in the paragraph of course, but i think assessors generally prefer that you signpost your contention for that paragraph in the topic sentence
- expression is pretty decent for the most part. a few small errors, but good stuff overall
- great analysis of symbolism/film technique. there's substantial discussion of metalanguage which is really good stuff - a lot of people struggle with tying that kind of discussion into their essays but you clearly don't have an issue with that
- i feel like a few of your arguments may be a bit difficult to argue (namely that eddie is portrayed as a saint by the end of the film and is entirely absolved of his flaws, cos i feel like perkins was trying to say the opposite). english is definitely open to interpretation, but just be careful cos an assessor might take issue with what you're saying

this is a pretty nice essay overall though, good work! hope i was able to help somewhat haha. if you have any more questions feel free to ask!

[M_BONG]

Hey, thanks for the new exam

Just a note on the Whose Reality prompt
"Only when we accept a person's reality can we hope to understand them."

I think this prompt is too narrow because it focuses on a person.  For example, we are studying Wag The Dog and it does not talk about a person, but a country.

Perhaps,

"It is only through acceping different realities that we can hope to understand them" ?

anyway, just a suggestion

[Vermilliona]

Thanks Lauren! I hope the real exam will be this level of difficulty, because I actually started enjoying myself at one point while doing it.. I think that might be an indication of my level of unhingement though  Really appreciate you doing this!