English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[anotherworld2b]

Hello
I was wondering if I may have my essay marked 
I would like to now what parts can be improved and ect  please
I will appreciate all advice and feedback
The more the better 

PS: what is a module?

[caitie145]

Hi !

I was wondering if someone would be able to take a look at my english essay for module B my text is Hamlet. I was hoping if someone would be able to tell me if i'm following the rubric or if this essay is complete garbage, and if there is any thing i can do to improve this particular essay.

Thanks!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello
I was wondering if I may have my essay marked 
I would like to now what parts can be improved and ect  please
I will appreciate all advice and feedback
The more the better 

PS: what is a module?

Hey there! A module is simply a section of study for the Year 12 English courses, each focusing on slightly different styles of text and analysis. You won't do them until Year 12 

I've attached your essay below with some feedback!

Spoiler

Analyse how your response to one extended text you have studied (Animal Farm) has been influenced by purpose, context and the use of techniques appropriate to your chosen text type.

One of George Orwell’s most memorable quotes ‘ All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’ eerily reflects the didactic moral lesson of totalitarianism from the gradual alteration of the ideal Animalism established in the beginning of the fable ‘Animal farm’.I really like that you use a quote here to start yourself off, it works extremely well! I'd like to see you explain the 'moral lesson' a little more clearly, what is the lesson?  Orwell’s allegorical, satire fable ‘Animal farm’ is a powerful critique of the dangers and perversion of Socialism in Communist Russia under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. Good contextual link. Orwell powerfully illustrates and predominantly shapes the reader’s response towards the dangers of totalitarianism by prompting alertness, awareness and fear. Again, be more specific, this is just slightly vague. These responses are shaped by Orwell’s purpose, language techniques and the context of the Russian Revolution to the dangerous axioms: absolute power corrupts absolutely, language can be manipulated to control and deceive the naive and ignorant and unquestioned obedience and proletariat naivety leads to oppression. I feel you need something a little more conclusive to finish this off, mentioning how these axioms are shaped by technique/purpose/context might be better off as a finish?

Orwell’s purpose, language techniques and the incorporation of the context of the Russian Revolution prompts alertness to the danger of tyrannical leaders holding absolute power as foreshadowed by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton that ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Thanks for referencing the quote, much better! This sentence does flow on a tad though, cut it in half perhaps?  ‘Animal Farm’ is the embodiment of Orwell’s passion as a socialist criticising the cruelties of Communism. The inevitability of the corruption of leaders over power is reflected by utilizing the language feature of the cyclic text structure to express this axiom. The cyclic structure of the fable illustrates the repetitive and inevitable cycle of absolute power corrupting the character holding it.This isn't a language feature, it is a structural element, just say, "Cyclic textual structure is utilised by Orwell to..." . Those last two sentences could be synthesised to one in this way. The fable hi-lights highlights Napoleon's gradual corruption as his power in ‘Animal farm’ and similarities to the original human oppressors increases simultaneously; emphasising that power inevitably corrupts. Technique? Through the use of this cyclic structure, the audience comes to realise that power will corrupt inevitably. This is reinforced by our knowledge of the Russian revolution and the alteration of Karl Marx’s original ideal of equality. How? What additional information/meaning does the audience get from this knowledge? What parallels do we draw with the text? Be specific! Orwell also simultaneously and skillfully correlates Napoleon's characterisation and actions to the historical figure Joseph Stalin to emphasise and convey his intent, effectively shaping and positioning our response to be alert to danger that leader’s holding absolute power will be corrupted absolutely. The tyranny of the pigs holding absolute power is emphasised by the onomatopoeia ‘Immediately the dogs bounded forward, seized four of the pigs by the ear and dragged them squealing with terror’ creates a vivid imagery of the abuse of power silencing protest under Stalin’s rule. The use of a technique raises the quality of your analysis substantially. Hence, Orwell uses context and language techniques to alert readers of that absolute power corrupts absolutely. A solid paragraph, but slightly 'waffly,' primarily because you need some more techniques in here. Your discussion of the cyclic structure, for example, takes 4/5 sentences, focus on synthesis and specifics. That said, the stuff you do have techniques and analysis for is superb!

Orwell’s use of language features skillfully conveys how language can be manipulated to control and deceive the naive and ignorant assisted by the systematic violation of the seven commandments demonstrates to the audience that we should be aware of the manipulation of language influenced by the historical context. A fantastic conceptual statement, but it doesn't read quite right, again perhaps split in half? Squealer’s manipulation of language evidently controls others by making the animals on the farm doubt themselves by asking rhetorical questions ‘ Are you certain that this not something that you have dreamed, comrades?Have you any record of such a resolution?’ quells protest and silences the naive and ignorant animals. Careful, be sure to attribute ALL techniques to Orwell. The characters only do what he chooses. Squealer is a master at the manipulation of language and represents propaganda on the farm. Squealer assists Napoleon before and after he assumes absolute power and control of ‘Animal Farm’ represents how Stalin used propaganda to manipulate the proletariats in Russia. Napoleon’s disposition as the leader of the farm correlates to Joseph Stalin’s ascension as Vladimir Lenin successor after chasing Trotsky out of Russia and assassinating him. Orwell also uses the repetition ‘long live’ to capture how language is used to idolise and praise Napoleon as a superior being who is like ‘the sun in the sky’. Through the use of rhetorical questions, repetition and metaphor the audience comes to realise that the manipulation of language to control others is something that we should be aware of and this is only re-enforced by our knowledge of the Russian revolution. This paragraph is better, definitely has a more analytical approach. Again, just watch that the focus is on Orwell, not the characters!

Orwell’s use of language features, is irrefutably reflective of the danger of unquestioned obedience and proletariat naivety and positioning the audience to fear the consequences of this danger. Perfect. This is absolutely in line with Orwell’s representational goals, further recited his simplistic language style to allow the reader to concentrate on the lessons he wants us to learn by using simple, uncomplicated language to communicate a clear message. "He wants us to learn" drops your sophistication slightly, try something like "Orwell's intended purpose" or similar. Orwell also seldom uses an emotive tone in the scene where Boxer is taken to his death “A cry of horror burst from all the animals” This scene is particularly heart wrenching considering how Boxer’s hardworking and obedience to the pigs rewarded him betrayal and his death used to buy whiskey. We do not require plot descriptions like this, focus on analysis!! The despair is focused on techniques, you could link these scene (for example) to effective characterisation of Boxer. This particular scene emphasises how Napoleon is personified as the epitome of greed and symbolises the how corruption of socialism in Russia under Stalin the ignorant and naive exploited working class of Russia Boxer personifies.  Another language feature is the symbolism of the windmill embodying the pigs' absolute power and manipulation. The naive animals build the windmill thinking it will benefit everyone, and even after it is obvious that it benefits only the pigs,  they still  persist  in their misconception.  Again, watch sophistication of language, and remember that plots themselves do not constitute analysis! There must be a technique, the reader is assumed to have read the text!Hence, the danger of unquestioned obedience and proletariat naivety is communicated to the reader by Orwell’s use of language features and historical context of the Russian Revolution.

George Orwell’s fable ‘Animal farm’ effectively communicates the dangers of Communism clearly by shaping and positioning the reader response to these towards the dangers of totalitarianism by prompting alertness, awareness and fear. You need something a little more substantial for this conclusion. It should be about one half-two thirds as long as your Thesis. Much of it will be restating what you did in the Thesis, but that is okay, you want to tie everything together.

Great job anotherworld, this has got some incredible stuff in it!! I particularly love your conceptual drive (your Thesis is gold), and you link to context and purpose frequently and effectively. The analysis you do is reasonably effective as well, so this is great!!

Have a read of my comments, I will give you two main things to work on:

• Try and get a bigger focus on techniques. Remember, English is about (on the whole) exploring how composers use techniques to create meaning (for various purposes). Retelling the plot does not constitute a technique and lowers your level of analysis. When you want to mention the plot, instead think, what technique has been used that makes me think of the plot? Have I become attached to a character? Why? These more personal opinions (still framed objectively as you have been doing though!) will add that unique element to your analysis and, essentially, cover the audience impact aspect of your analysis (which you have done really well already!
• To make room for more techniques, try to synthesise your paragraphs. There were areas where you spend quite a few sentences discussing a single technique/idea. While a single EXAMPLE can be explained in multiple sentences, each sentence should have a new technique, a new idea, something new that the audience gets from the quote. Making your writing succinct is tricky, and not totally essential if you are a fast writer, but it would definitely improve the sophistication of your argument.

I realise I've written a whole lot of improvement stuff here, but don't let that deceive you, this is a great essay!! I think it just needs a bit more development, the representation of ideas a little more polish, and the analysis a little fine-tuning, to really make it incredible  great work!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi !

I was wondering if someone would be able to take a look at my english essay for module B my text is Hamlet. I was hoping if someone would be able to tell me if i'm following the rubric or if this essay is complete garbage, and if there is any thing i can do to improve this particular essay.

Thanks!

Hey Caitie! Welcome to the forums! I've attached your essay below with some comments throughout:

Spoiler

Through its portrayal of human experience, Shakespeare’s Hamlet reinforces the significance of loyalty.
To what extent does your interpretation of Hamlet support this view? (HSC Q3 2009)

Hamlet a Shakespearian revenge tragedy was written between 1599-1601 and first performed in 1602 is a play set in Denmark revolving around the royal family. However along with the families of Denmark a family of Norway is also followed in the play. Try to start your essay with something more conceptual. Since your essay is character based, perhaps something about how composers use characters as vessels to portray their views of human experience? Through its portrayal of human experience, Shakespeare’s Hamlet reinforces the significance of loyalty through the manipulation of the characters Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras all focused on the same target of revenge. This introduction needs less plot detail (plot details are actually not necessary for essays like this) and more conceptual explanations.

The character Hamlet is portrayed by Shakespeare as complicated and confused with what is happening around him and how to cope with it. Again, try to take a step back from the text before you get into specifics. "Composers often portray characters favourably in order to praise certain qualities of the human experience. Such is achieved by Shakespeare in his portrayal of Hamlet, which..." Or something similar (that doesn't really work by itself).  Hamlets loyalty lies with his murdered father which becomes evident from Act One Scene Four with the appearance of the ghost to Hamlet. Technique? “My fate cries out” the use of foreshadow provides insight to the ending of the play where Hamlet fatally dies from poison, stemming back to the plot of the play which centres around Hamlet’s loyalty to his father’s ghost. Good use of technique! Now, what does this show about the human experience? That's the next step in developing your analysis. The ghost persisted in reminding Hamlet it is his duty as his son to revenge his murder “This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose” the dramatic effect of the ghost appearing only to Hamlet to remind him of the revenge that needs to take place creates an image that Hamlet has indeed turned mad as Gertrude can not see it. Finally after much thought and contemplation Hamlet puts his loyalty into action as he kills Claudius ‘Here, thou incestuous murderer, damned Dane, drink off this potion”. The dramatic irony of Claudius being poisoned just as he poisoned his brother (the King) completes Hamlet’s revenge and therefore proving his loyalty to his father. Through the portrayal of the character Hamlet’s human experience there is a reinforcement of the significance of loyalty which proved to be true throughout the Hamlet. While you conclude effectively, you haven't explicitly stated how TECHNIQUES are used to portray the significance of loyalty, which is where your focus should be. Right now, you are mostly using plot descriptions, techniques must accompany every example and that is where your focus should lie!

Laertes character involvement in the play is minimal until the death of his father and then his sister. See above, try being more conceptual to start, and you don't need plot description. You can absolutely assume that the reader has read your text (and indeed, a HSC marker will have). Supply only the plot details you need to explain your point, any description of plot should accompany some sort of technique or textual feature. Laertes loyalty lies with his father’s murder much alike Hamlets character. The language used by Laertes displays the respect and loyalty he feels towards his father “Most humbly do I take my leave my Lord” it is evident from the adjective ‘humbly’ that Laertes honours his father and will stay loyal to him throughout his time in France.What does this show about the human experience? What does the audience learn? Laertes unlike Hamlet is more impulsive and takes no time to think about his actions. “Let come what comes, only I’ll be revenged most thoroughly for my father” Laertes contradicts himself by saying what happens, happens but he takes control of what happens by agreeing to fence in a duel with Hamlet as a means to kill him and revenge and display loyalty to his father. Technique? Laertes human experience from France supports him in the duel. Although ending in his death his vowel to avenge his father resinates with the strong sense of the significance of loyalty. “To cut his throat I’ th’ church” It does end with him killing Hamlet but not the way he expected. Before the duel the sword that Laertes uses is dipped in poison, even a scratch would kill Hamlet. The vow emphasises the extreme actions Laertes is willing to go to to prove his loyalty to his father. Through the portrayal of human experience throughout Shakespeare’s Hamlet the significance of loyalty that the character Laertes demonstrates reinforces the strong sense of loyalty as supported by the father son bond. This paragraph has slipped heavily into recount, you are retelling the story and using it to prove your ideas. This does not work as effectively as techniques. Try to always highlight techniques Shakespeare has used to create meaning.

The final character who displays true loyalty is Fortinbras. Much like Hamlet and Laertes Fortinbras seeks revenge for his father’s death however he was not murdered in cold blood but challenged to a duel with the agreement that it would be to the death. Fortinbras father was killed by Hamlets father who then conquered the land and took it for himself. Fortinbras seeked to get the land back through battle. Although Fortinbras does not appear until the end of the play he is references throughout which informs the audience of his intensions “Young Fortinbras, holding a weak supposal of our worth or thinking by our late dear brother’s death our state to be disjointed and out of fame”. The ironic speech presented by Claudius states that Denmark is not ‘disjointed’ however as soon as the murder of his brother took place something changed and everyone in Denmark could sense it. Claudius indents to inform Fortinbras’ uncle of Fortinbras intentions to revenge his father and prove his loyalty. At the end of the play after the death of Hamlet, Laertes, Gertrude and Claudius Fortinbras returns from Poland and displays new intensions to have a claim on Denmark once more “I have some rights of memory in this kingdom” foreshadowing his intent to claim it as his. It is also ironic as it was his original plan but it worked out and he did end up displaying loyalty to his father by claiming to have rights to the land. Through the portrayal of human experience the character Fortinbras is manipulated by Shakespeare to be loyal to his father with his secret plans of war but getting rights to the land regardless showing the significance of his loyalty not only to his father but also his uncle’s wishes. Much the same comments as above!

Through its portrayal of human experience, Shakespeare’s Hamlet reinforces the significance of loyalty. This is proved true through the characters Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras who all focus on the same goal of revenge. Try to develop a richer conclusion here, it should be 3-4 solid sentences long, about one half-two thirds as large as your Thesis! This will come through developing a stronger conceptual focus.

This is the start of a really cool essay Caitlin! I really like how each paragraph focuses on a character, that is quite unique and suits the question really well, I really like it!! I think there is two things you can do to really get this essay working well for you.

The first is to develop a more fully realised Thesis and conceptual basis. Let me quote the syllabus for Module B:

A single text study – the evaluation of ideas and expression.

The idea of this module is to evaluate how well ideas are expressed through the choices of the composer. This is reflected in your question, "To what extent" (judgement). You need to judge how well an IDEA is represented in the text, and it is this idea that, along with your judgement, should form the focus of your essay. Yours is almost self constructing based on your essay, something about characters being used as tools by a composer to effectively (or ineffectively, make YOUR judgement) convey attitudes towards human qualities, like loyalty (or you may choose to focus entirely on the human experience of loyalty).

I think having a read of this article I wrote on how to structure a HSC essay around a central Thesis like this (which is sort of important in other subjects, but is really most important for English Advanced), might help you get an idea of how to integrate this Thesis throughout your essay once you have it.

The second is a little simpler, and that is basically more techniques! You can assume that the reader/marker has read your text, and for the HSC, they will have. You don't need to recount plot elements for them. You need to show specific examples of techniques Shakespeare has used (similes, metaphors, props, stage direction, mise-en-scene, etc) to create meaning and portray some idea about the human experience. Once you've shown them, your job is to explain what they tell us about human experience (that's your interpretation coming into play), and then how well it is done (your judgement). Don't always go straight to "effectively" or other positive evaluation, essays which critique and criticise the texts just a little bit are unique and can perform really well!

I hope this breakdown helps you a little!! 

PS - I totally forgot that, since it is so popular, this thread has a minimum requirement of 5 posts on ATAR Notes to get feedback. If you want some advice on another essay, you'll just need to hang around other parts of the site, ask questions, say hi, etc, and build your post count up. It doesn't take long at all

[lha]

Hi,
This is my mod b speech on hamlet. The question given is: "hamlet explores how unexpected challenges shape identity in a changing world. To what extent does your interpretation align with this view." Attached is my speech. If you  ould tell me if I have answered the question and if my interpretation/theory is  good enough, that would be great. Thank you!

P.S. ignore the comments attached to my document.

[anotherworld2b]

Thank you so much for your advice and comments jamonwindeyer
I wasn't honestly at all confident or proud of my essay. But now I feel thatI did better than I thought
I also wanted to ask I'm still kind of confused on how to tie up the conclusion. DX
I was also wondering if you can give your opinion on how well you think I engaged with the question and the context, purpose and techniques as well as my expression, structure so I can see where I can improve further.
Sorry for asking so many questions :O

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi,
This is my mod b speech on hamlet. The question given is: "hamlet explores how unexpected challenges shape identity in a changing world. To what extent does your interpretation align with this view." Attached is my speech. If you  ould tell me if I have answered the question and if my interpretation/theory is  good enough, that would be great. Thank you!

P.S. ignore the comments attached to my document.

Hey there Iha!! No worries, I've had a read and I'd be happy to give you some feedback!!

For future reference, this forum does have a minimum 5 post requirement to get feedback, due to its popularity. However, I can't really do a normal paragraph by paragraph analysis of this like I would an essay anyway, so I'm happy to make an exception (though I really need to stop making exceptions at some point)  you are at 3 posts, so if you reply to this post saying thanks, then the next time you post something to this forum it will be your 5th post, all set! 

Okay! Formalities over and done! Feedback inbound 

- I'm immediately super impressed with the style of the speech. Sophisticated, yet slightly colloquial to suit the context, its really nice, a good balance!
- I think your concept is introduced in a very interesting way and is explained really well! Good use of rhetorical question. However, I think you have been slightly vague on linking the unexpected challenge of death to the notion of human identity, try elaborating a bit more. Exactly what is the connection you are going to be exploring.
- I would ditch statements like "According to my interpretation." For me, that is implied.
- Getting into the start of your analysis, I immediately notice that there is no technique. Although this is a speech, including a technique or more with every quote is still absolutely essential.
- The rest of that first bit though is really quite effective! The suggestion I would make is to ensure that the focus is on Shakespeare's choices for REPRESENTING the characters, not the characters themselves. I would also suggest that you try and blend the techniques and analysis WITH your conceptual explanations in the following section. It is more powerful in that sense.
- You can remove the definition of nihilism and just write the word, or at least make the definition more simple. Use word choice to your advantage.
- As you progress, you are slipping into plot retell (EG - "Hamlet has the best chance he will ever have..."). You do not need to retell the plot in this manner. Now this is a speech, and I realise that you doing so here plays a bit of rhetoric role, but still be careful. The focus must be on techniques and explaining what they do to influence your interpretation.

In general, I think you have interpreted the question really cleverly and correctly, you've chosen a cool route to go down!! However, I don't think you've backed up your chosen idea (Death and Identity) as effectively as you could, and this is primarily because of the lack of analysis. You need to move your focus away from explanations of the plot, and focus completely on techniques and representational decisions made by Shakespeare, and how they show you something about Death and Identity. Rather than retelling a scene (as in the 2nd last paragraph) and explaining how it shows your idea, show how TECHNIQUES have done it. This will let you make the links more clear and, thus, let you answer the question more effectively.

Also, "to what extent" implies that you must make a judgement. Has Shakespeare been effective with his choices? Has he effectively communicated the ideas on death and identity that you claim he is wanting to convey? These sorts of evaluative statements are the final step to engaging with the question 

I hope this feedback helps!! Feel free to let me know if anything needs qualification! Or of course post a revised version for some more feedback, remember, just another couple of posts to meet the requirement 

[jamonwindeyer]

Thank you so much for your advice and comments jamonwindeyer
I wasn't honestly at all confident or proud of my essay. But now I feel thatI did better than I thought
I also wanted to ask I'm still kind of confused on how to tie up the conclusion. DX
I was also wondering if you can give your opinion on how well you think I engaged with the question and the context, purpose and techniques as well as my expression, structure so I can see where I can improve further.
Sorry for asking so many questions :O

Hey another world!! You are most welcome, stop saying sorry for asking questions! I had a read of your revised version for you and have a few comments!

In terms of analysis, this is much more effective. It has a much stronger focus on techniques, you are spending less time on the plot and giving this instead to an analysis of Orwell's choices, great!

I think your Thesis still needs extrapolation, exactly WHAT are the dangers of totalitarianism? Be VERY specific and detailed with your Thesis, it drives the whole thing. Same goes for your conclusion, you need something a little "meatier."

Again, remember to focus on Orwell. As soon as you start to say "the characters did this", you are slipping into retelling/recounting the text (not effective for analysis) and shifting focus from the conceptual idea you are representing.

In some sections, you need more direct textual references. Just saying "characterisation" for example doesn't cut it. Quote? Technique?

I'm a little unsure about the wording of your conceptual statements, it isn't Orwell's use of language that is reflective of that idea, Orwell's use of language allows him to REPRESENT that idea. Slight difference with a big impact on the argument.

Finally, there are areas where your wording is quite roundabout, and you take a long sentence to say something quite simple. For example:

This knowledge amplifies the audience’s alertness to draw parallels and correlate additional information and meaning provided by Orwell to the reality of corruption prevalent in the world today.

This can be modified to the following without changing any meaning:

Our modern context of 'back room politics' enhances Orwell's exploration of corruption.

Much simpler, and it says the exact same thing (if you rearranged the sentence before it a little as well, and I narrowed the scope a little). It's all about clever word choice, don't use 30 words to say what can be said in 12. This also creates some sentences which are too long and perhaps not properly punctuated. Here is an idea; most computers have built in dictation functionality. Through this or some other means, have a computer read your essay to you. The computer takes it literally; it won't pause unless you tell it too with a comma or a full stop. Listen to sentences which seem to go on too long without a pause and see what you can do to fix that.

This essay is definitely a big improvement!! Still some things to work on, but great stuff!! 

[lha]

Thank you!

[lha]

I have edited my speech again and was wondering if it is better now?

[wesadora]

Hey there! I hope this isn't too late! I will just touch on minor things that can be easily fixed so that if you read this before your exam, you have the ability to make changes (if any)!

Original:

Spoiler

In what ways does a comparative study of Richard III and Looking for Richard enhance your appreciation of how context affects form and values?

In a time shaped by conservative providentialism, Shakespeare’s sixteenth century historical tragedy King Richard III challenges the values of his era through the representation of the villainous character of Richard. Contrastingly, Al Pacino takes a different approach towards interpreting the character of Richard in his docudrama Looking for Richard (1992) as he utilises film form to effectively convey Shakespearean values and meaning to a postmodern audience.  Points of contrast and connections between the two texts can be drawn when exploring key values such as religious worldviews, ambition, power and authority. The different applications of these values are thus demonstrated through the two composers’ unique use of form, evident when considering the dichotomy of two, distinct contextual interests.

The religious tension between providentialism and determinism within the Elizabethan era’s religious contextual influence is evident in Shakespeare’s work, although Pacino’s text places greater focus on the role of the individual. Shakespeare’s Richard often uses theatrical, religious imagery to construct a righteous appearance for the common population. He appears before the citizens with theatrical symbols such as “a book of prayer in his hand” to align his appearance with righteous Christian values. Furthermore, Richard’s association with humanistic beliefs is evident when he admittedly recognizes he is unsuited to a peacetime life in Act I. He says, “But I am not shaped for sportive tricks, and so I am determined to prove a villain”. This paradoxical pun epitomises the aforementioned conflict between beliefs by Richard’s double entendre of ‘determined’. Shakespeare uses this to pose two possibilities that Richard is either motivated to act a villain out of personal interests, or is divinely preordered to do so. This tension is in direct contrast in Pacino’s Looking for Richard, which aims to engage a secular audience. Supernatural elements from the play are abandoned, such as the ghost scene in Act V in favour of exploring Richard’s psychological, human struggle. Instead, Richard is haunted by memories of his past. Intercutting scenes between rehearsal footage and dramatised performance serves to represent his split identity crisis. Furthermore, rapid montage to superimpose his villainous deeds is coupled with repetitive voiceovers of “despair and die”. Pacino thus rejects the play’s equal religious parallelism between the curse, “despair and die” and blessing, “live and flourish”, favouring determinism in which Richard’s final destiny is self-inflicted rather than preordained. Pacino uses his unique hybrid of film form to dwell upon Richard’s human power to construct his own destiny, marginalising the tension between Elizabethan religious values explored by Shakespeare.

These differences in religious contexts also affect the representation of ambition and power, contrasting the nature of Richard’s ascension and downfall between the two texts. The play’s core structure is characterised with the rising action of Richard utilising cunning deception to gain accession to the throne in the first three acts. He constructs a humble appearance to persuade others he is deserving of the throne: for example, he insists, “your love deserves my thanks, but desert unmeritable shuns your high request”. The pure Machiavellian deception takes advantage of reverse psychology to trick the common citizens. However, in Acts IV and V his customary eloquence deserts him; his hamartia apparent by this stage as is the case for Shakespearean tragedy plays. He says, “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am”. The nonsensical anthypophora and disruption of rhythm breaks Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter to signify his loss of power. On the contrary, twentieth-century knowledge regarding psychology shapes Pacino’s interpretation of the text, particularly in the final act as Richard’s subterfuge lingers through filmic elements. Intercutting the uninteresting low eye-level, static frame of Richmond’s prayer with the handheld camera movement and low-angle shot of Richard’s oration displays his strong ambition and charismatic personality, even in the final scenes. His dynamic oration is further amplified, interspersed with a montage of vivid battle scenes complemented with sudden red and white flashes to uphold Richard’s longstanding power during the final scenes as the dramatic crux of the film. Thus, the different way in which both composers portray the longevity of Richard’s villainous character represents their interpretation and interests regarding ambition and power.


The influence of these previously discussed conservative Elizabethan values is evident in Shakespeare’s hyperbolic portrayal of Richard’s villainous nature compared to Pacino’s artistic freedom to communicate the play’s core values how he pleases. Shakespeare’s vilification of Richard seems logical as he is obligated to support the Tudor Myth and the Divine Right of Kings. Therefore, he portrays Richard to inherit the role of an alien to society from the outset of the play. The opening lines, “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York” throw off the form of verse with trochaic inversion, going against iambic pentameter; one of Shakespeare’s most ingrained language devices. Richard is shown to be a unique and corrupt character in this sense. The essence of his corruption is also communicated being described as “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time”. Unpleasant images of physical deformity justify Richard’s corruption as a consequence of his villainous nature and usurpation of the throne later on. However, Pacino is not restricted by religious and superstitious values and so exercises an egalitarian approach towards ‘organically’ communicating Shakespeare’s core values. His work is a deliberate pastiche of ‘behind-the-scenes’ rehearsals, vox pops, interviews, commentary and dramatised segments. For example, cutting between the vox pop of an African-American man’s profound statements that “Shakespeare instructed us [to feel]” and nonsensical pronouncements of educated actors regarding the “iambic pentameter of the soul”. This intentional juxtaposition exemplifies the wide appeal of Shakespeare Pacino is encouraging. In valuing the process of exploring the play rather than the finished product, Pacino even undercuts the villainous nature of Richard at times. The film itself ends by diminishing the seriousness of Richard’s death by cutting to an organic, unedited handheld camera shot of Pacino dying on a staircase. The villainy of Richard and exploration of Shakespearean values in these two texts is a product of the composers’ purpose.
   
Varying contexts of two distinctly different eras evidently shape Shakespeare’s and Pacino’s representation of Richard. Values concerning religion, power, villainy and authority are communicated through the appropriate textual and filmic forms necessary. The variety of form and structure is evident in the way these two composers thus place their chosen focus on certain aspects of the play according to common worldviews within their respective context.

With my writing in bold:

Spoiler

In what ways does a comparative study of Richard III and Looking for Richard enhance your appreciation of how context affects form and values?

In a time shaped by conservative providentialism, Shakespeare’s sixteenth century historical tragedy King Richard III challenges the values of his era through the representation of the villainous character of Richard. Super informative, super good!)Contrastingly, Al Pacino takes a different approach towards interpreting the character of Richard in his docudrama Looking for Richard (1992) as he utilises film form to effectively convey Shakespearean values and meaning to a postmodern audience.  Points of contrast and connections between the two texts can be drawn when exploring key values such as religious worldviews, ambition, power and authority. The different applications of these values are thus demonstrated through the two composers’ unique use of form, evident when considering the dichotomy of two, distinct contextual interests.  In here, I would probably define the context-value connection in Shakespeare a little more. Talk about the current monarch, the need to flatter it, providentialism, etc. All of these things will form the basis of what you contrast too. It only needs to be touched on here and fleshed out later. Either way, this is a solid introduction, don't fret. But that is something I suggest!

The religious tension between providentialism and determinism within the Elizabethan era’s religious contextual influence is evident in Shakespeare’s work, although Pacino’s text places greater focus on the role of the individual rather than a deity? predetermination? Your marker will know what you mean, but you want to be super explicit.. Shakespeare’s Richard often uses theatrical, religious imagery to construct a righteous appearance for the common population. He appears before the citizens with theatrical symbols such as “a book of prayer in his hand” to align his appearance with righteous Christian values. Wonderful! Furthermore, Richard’s association with humanistic beliefs is evident when he admittedly recognizes he is unsuited to a peacetime life in Act I. He says, “But I am not shaped for sportive tricks, and so I am determined to prove a villain”. This paradoxical pun epitomises the aforementioned conflict between beliefs by Richard’s double entendre of ‘determined’. Shakespeare uses this to pose two possibilities that Richard is either motivated to act a villain out of personal interests, or is divinely preordered to do so. This tension is in direct contrast in Pacino’s Looking for Richard, which aims to engage a secular audience. Supernatural elements from the play are abandoned, such as the ghost scene in Act V in favour of exploring Richard’s psychological, human struggle. Instead, Richard is haunted by memories of his past. Intercutting scenes between rehearsal footage and dramatised performance serves to represent his split identity crisis. Furthermore, rapid montage to superimpose his villainous deeds is coupled with repetitive voiceovers of “despair and die”. Pacino thus rejects the play’s equal religious parallelism between the curse, “despair and die” and blessing, “live and flourish”, favouring determinism in which Richard’s final destiny is self-inflicted rather than preordained. Pacino uses his unique hybrid of film form to dwell upon Richard’s human power to construct his own destiny, marginalising the tension between Elizabethan religious values explored by Shakespeare.  At the start of this paragraph, I would try provide a little more info. Why did Shakespeare have to flatter Richard? Why did he have something to prove? I'm saying this because I think it makes the content make more sense, but also because the essay question asks for context! Your analysis is very strong.

These differences in religious contexts also affect the representation of ambition and power, contrasting the nature of Richard’s ascension and downfall between the two texts. The play’s core structure is characterised with the rising action of Richard utilising cunning deception to gain accession to the throne in the first three acts. He constructs a humble appearance to persuade others he is deserving of the throne: for example, he insists, “your love deserves my thanks, but desert unmeritable shuns your high request”. The pure Machiavellian deception takes advantage of reverse psychology to trick the common citizens. However, in Acts IV and V his customary eloquence deserts him; his hamartia apparent by this stage as is the case for Shakespearean tragedy plays. He says, “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am”. The nonsensical anthypophora and disruption of rhythm breaks Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter to signify his loss of power. On the contrary, twentieth-century knowledge regarding psychology shapes Pacino’s interpretation of the text, particularly in the final act as Richard’s subterfuge lingers through filmic elements. Intercutting the uninteresting low eye-level, static frame of Richmond’s prayer with the handheld camera movement and low-angle shot of Richard’s oration displays his strong ambition and charismatic personality, even in the final scenes. His dynamic oration is further amplified, interspersed with a montage of vivid battle scenes complemented with sudden red and white flashes to uphold Richard’s longstanding power during the final scenes as the dramatic crux of the film. Thus, the different way in which both composers portray the longevity of Richard’s villainous character represents their interpretation and interests regarding ambition and power.
I think you deal with the texts with a good balance!

The influence of these previously discussed conservative Elizabethan values is evident in Shakespeare’s hyperbolic portrayal of Richard’s villainous nature compared to Pacino’s artistic freedom to communicate the play’s core values how he pleases. Shakespeare’s vilification of Richard seems logical as he is obligated to support the Tudor Myth and the Divine Right of Kings. Therefore, he portrays Richard to inherit the role of an alien to society from the outset of the play. The opening lines, “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York” throw off the form of verse with trochaic inversion, going against iambic pentameter; one of Shakespeare’s most ingrained language devices. Richard is shown to be a unique and corrupt character in this sense. The essence of his corruption is also communicated being described as “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time”. Unpleasant images of physical deformity justify Richard’s corruption as a consequence of his villainous nature and usurpation of the throne later on. However, Pacino is not restricted by religious and superstitious values and so exercises an egalitarian approach towards ‘organically’ communicating Shakespeare’s core values. His work is a deliberate pastiche of ‘behind-the-scenes’ rehearsals, vox pops, interviews, commentary and dramatised segments. For example, cutting between the vox pop of an African-American man’s profound statements that “Shakespeare instructed us [to feel]” and nonsensical pronouncements of educated actors regarding the “iambic pentameter of the soul”. This intentional juxtaposition exemplifies the wide appeal of Shakespeare Pacino is encouraging. In valuing the process of exploring the play rather than the finished product, Pacino even undercuts the villainous nature of Richard at times. The film itself ends by diminishing the seriousness of Richard’s death by cutting to an organic, unedited handheld camera shot of Pacino dying on a staircase. The villainy of Richard and exploration of Shakespearean values in these two texts is a product of the composers’ purpose.
   
Varying contexts of two distinctly different eras evidently shape Shakespeare’s and Pacino’s representation of Richard. Again, I would sketch the details of the context here just briefly. Mainly because it is specifically referenced in the essay question! Values concerning religion, power, villainy and authority are communicated through the appropriate textual and filmic forms necessary. The variety of form and structure is evident in the way these two composers thus place their chosen focus on certain aspects of the play according to common worldviews within their respective context.

You'll do really well. Stay calm, you know your stuff!

Hey Elise! Sorry this is a bit late, but wanted to let you know I topped the grade out of 60 adv english students in this assessment task, with 14/15 (3 other people and myself achieved this), and wanted to say thank you (though it may be a bit late)! Your feedback actually really made me confident going into the exam and I came out feeling zero stress and proud of my work. Thanks so much, i hope you can understand how appreciative I am!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Elise! Sorry this is a bit late, but wanted to let you know I topped the grade out of 60 adv english students in this assessment task, with 14/15 (3 other people and myself achieved this), and wanted to say thank you (though it may be a bit late)! Your feedback actually really made me confident going into the exam and I came out feeling zero stress and proud of my work. Thanks so much, i hope you can understand how appreciative I am!

Wow, great work wesadora!! AMAZING STUFF!! We love hearing that you guys are succeeding. Don't give us much credit; submitting, listening, fixing, working hard to get it right, that is all you!!  seriously, great job, you earned that result, super happy for you! 

PS - Elyse is taking some time off at the moment but I'll make sure she gets your message!! 

[jamonwindeyer]

I have edited my speech again and was wondering if it is better now?

Hey Iha!  I had another read, feedback is below just as before!! Again, since it is a speech it seems a little more appropriate to be a bit more general with my feedback, but I typed notes as I read as well, so if that helps

- Your intro is still stylish yet formal, still love it 
- That second paragraph has massively improved. You explain what you are going to explore much more clearly while maintaining a succinct style, and to add to that, I really like the idea itself. Very unique and very interesting, awesome!
- The next few paragraphs are an interesting way to introduce the next idea, you are really crafting a nice piece of rhetoric here. Definitely much better than reading an essay aloud, this is rhetorically interesting and will allow for a nice range of vocal expression. The only comment I'd say is that you are now about a third of the way through your speech, and we haven't hit technique/analysis yet. You may want to get to the 'meat' of the response a little faster, so this section might need a trim. Definitely keep the scholarly reference though, super cool.
- Holy cow, next paragraph is beautiful. Covers technique, explains what it says, then gives the impact on the audience. Fantastic! Only comments: You don't need scene numbers unless you want them, and also, your explanations could be a little more detailed. How is the identification of man as "a beast no more" linked to the Chain? Be specific if you can! And also, is that quote imagery? Seems more like figurative language?
- Next paragraphs are awesome again. The textual analysis is much more effective now. I would like to see some examples of the vivid imagery and satirical wit, but I do like how you are using the dialogue IN the actual explanation itself. Again, be sure to be specific, what does this colloquial dialogue and imagery show about death and identity? You cannot just make a conceptual statement, then say some techniques, and then say another conceptual statement to finish. Everything must be integrated and done together, as a whole package.
- Again, idea introduced extremely well in the next section, I especially love the inclusion of the Elizabethan and Renaissance context here, very effective.
- Your second last paragraph starts with recount. I realise it is serving a rhetorical purpose, you are setting the state almost, it is dramatic. In this case, it works, but I think you should still try and integrate more interesting techniques than just "dialogue."
- I love your idea of "expanding on the challenges that revenge presents for an individual identity" (paraphrased from your speech), but I don't feel like any of your quotes/explanations elaborate on this for this paragraph.
- The conclusion is extremely effective. Well summarised, well explained, and rhetorically quite interesting as well, nicely done!!

I think you're on a much better path now Iha, amazing work touching it up! I'd say to watch for more subtle things now, like execution and syntax (I didn't really care about this because it is a speech, but still be careful for sentences that are too long). Your analysis has stepped up massively, but there are still areas for improvement, mainly just in the detail of explaining exactly what each quote is representing about the idea (EG - I need more detail than just "identify a man", what is it saying about DEATH? About IDENTITY?).  There are also quotes without techniques ("prompted to revenge by heaven and hell") and without audience impact. Just elaboration on what is there, that little extra level of detail, going beyond just saying "the challenges that revenge has on individuals" and going to show what they are and how the TECHNIQUES represent these challenges to us." It's not much you are missing, you are very close to extremely powerful analysis.

Essentially, you have now shown me you can do everything you need to do, and this speech is stellar! Just work on being a little more consistent with your techniques, a little more detailed with your explanations. This is a difficult thing to do, but you have massively improved just in between those versions, I bet with just a little work this will be absolutely smashing it out of the park!! 

[lha]

Hey Iha!  I had another read, feedback is below just as before!! Again, since it is a speech it seems a little more appropriate to be a bit more general with my feedback, but I typed notes as I read as well, so if that helps

thank you so much! I realise its late, but this speech is due tomorrow and this is my final copy so could you please read over it once more and let me know if its good enough?

[jamonwindeyer]

thank you so much! I realise its late, but this speech is due tomorrow and this is my final copy so could you please read over it once more and let me know if its good enough?

Yep I'll have one more quick read! I'll only give a quick comment so you can get a good rest!!

Each of your changes has been beneficial, this speech is now up another level!! The extra details are excellent, and good on you for adding some more interesting techniques!! You still need one for "prompted to revenge by heaven and hell," if you have time. Besides this, I have no immediate comments, I think on the whole this is a fantastic speech!! The ideas are really rich, it will transfer really well to an essay for your Trials too 

You are all set to go, good luck with your speech tomorrow, you'll smash it out of the park!!