Notes from the marking centre… Written examination HSC 2010
Section I – Australian drama and theatre
Question 1
In stronger responses, candidates:

demonstrated a comprehensive, insightful and thoughtful engagement with the question

addressed the key terms of the question such as ‘individual experiences’, ‘stage’ and ‘different’ and employed them effectively in the construction of
balanced and analytical responses

demonstrated a thoughtful understanding and appreciation of the dramatic forms, performance styles, techniques and conventions particular to each play

identified and explored specific, relevant and varied approaches to staging the plays (real or imagined) in which a range of different individual experiences
found in Australian society could be communicated to an audience

presented their discussion in a structured and coherent manner, including synthesising their example to the thesis of the paragraph

employed appropriate theatrical terminology in their analysis and/or discussion, including reference to the elements of drama and a deep understanding of
form/style and its conventions

approached the staging of the plays from the perspectives of varied practitioners such as actors, directors and designers and an audience.
In weaker responses, candidates:

did not specifically address the key terms of the question such as ‘individual experiences’, ‘stage’ and ‘different’ or did not attempt to answer the question

described (real or imagined) workshop or performance experiences simplistically, often with tenuous relevance to the question

displayed a superficial appreciation and understanding of dramatic forms, performance styles, conventions and techniques

did not make a clear connection between the examples of staging and the ways in which these examples communicated individual experiences found in
Australian society to an audience

demonstrated superficial and/or inaccurate knowledge of the dramatic action of the plays

relied on formulaic or prepared responses that sometimes employed key terms of previous HSC questions as the basis for the response or were based
generally on the rubric terms such as issues and concerns without clear connection to terms such as ‘stage’ and ‘different individual experiences’

presented a short and/or literary response with few or no references to the plays as they might be staged

listed themes and character descriptions or relied on recount of plot

did not address both texts equally and were too colloquial in their style.
Section II – Studies in drama and theatre
Question 2 – Tragedy
In stronger responses, candidates:

addressed the question explicitly with insight and clarity, identifying and interpreting the concept of the ‘triumph of the human spirit’ in opposition to the
misfortune and disaster suffered by the tragic heroes of the plays discussed

provided an insightful, balanced and thorough discussion of both plays

demonstrated a vivid sense of the plays on stage

used relevant and insightful staged examples to support a strong and coherent thesis to the question.
In weaker responses, candidates:

wrote of the historical background of tragedy without linking this to the question

wrote generally about tragedy, listing and explaining various terms such as catharsis and hubris, but ignored the question

neglected to compare the two plays and presented a literary response with few or no references to in-class workshop experiences and/or productions seen
or imagined and did not relate their answer to the question asked

prepared answers which ignored the plays on the stage and often included theories of tragedy with little or no relevance to the question.
Question 3 – Irish drama
In stronger responses, candidates:

developed a response underpinned by a coherent and insightful thesis which was supported by relevant examples of staged conflict and disappointment
from both plays

supported their response with relevant and at times insightful evidence from workshops, stage productions and hypothetical staging ideas which were
integrated into their argument

demonstrated an insightful understanding of the question, texts and their context and could articulated this in reference to performance

articulated the theatrical connection between the conflicts and disappointments suffered by characters in both plays and how their survival through coping
mechanisms such as a sense of humour, strong family and community bonds, music and dance might give audiences insight into the survival of the Irish
people through difficult times.
In weaker responses, candidates:

gave accounts of the historical and socio-economic background of Irish drama which were used to make vague or inaccurate value statements about the
Irish people

focused on either conflicts or disappointments suffered by characters in the plays and did not relate the incidents they chose to the wider question about
how these might illustrate survival strategies of the Irish people

discussed or imposed inappropriate or irrelevant staging ideas on the plays

largely or completely ignored the requirement explicit in the question to look at conflict and disappointment in the plays on the stage.
Question 4 – Brecht
In stronger responses, candidates:

addressed the question explicitly with insight and clarity, discussing the emotional impact Brecht’s plays have on an audience and whether this can
overpower an audience

explored the use of Brecht’s theatrical techniques through reference to relevant workshops and staging such as design, styles of acting, use of stage craft
and experiential learning by discussing real or imagined stage productions both within and beyond the classroom

referred explicitly to how Brecht’s epic staging, dramatic devices and techniques from within the text link to the way Brecht is interested in emotion in the
content and staging of the plays.
In weaker responses, candidates:

presented a general checklist of Brecht’s techniques without addressing the idea of how they might provoke emotion or overpower an audience

ignored what the question asked and wrote generally or superficially about Brecht’s techniques such as verfremsdungeffekt, gestus and alienation

presented a literary response that relied purely on a reading of the set texts

presented few or no references to Brechtian techniques and their impact on stage through examples of in-class workshops, experiences and/or productions
seen.
Question 5 – Site-specific, street and event theatre
In stronger responses, candidates:

engaged with the requirements of the question, thoroughly discussing site-specific, street and event theatre and exploring its relationship to ‘theatre and
art’

thoroughly explored relevant examples from the two set texts

answered the question explicitly, linking their own processes of creating site-specific work with the processes of the practitioners

investigated the relationship of theatre and art through the experience of their own theatre making with reference to specific, significant examples.
In weaker responses, candidates:

did not engage in or did not discuss their own piece of work

described superficial examples of site-specific work from the set texts ignoring the concepts of theatre and art

were limited by a lack of significant theatre making experiences.
Question 6 – Approaches to acting
In stronger responses:

responded insightfully and comprehensively in identifying the various philosophical approaches of the practitioners and their influence on their practice

compared the work of the two practitioners

showed a strong understanding of the connections between the philosophy and practice of the practitioners

used relevant and insightful examples of their classroom workshop experiences and other production examples.
In weaker responses, candidates:

failed to discuss two practitioners in a balanced argument

gave little or no comparison of the two practitioners

provided little personal workshop experience and/or production evidence.
Question 7 – Verbatim theatre
In stronger responses, candidates:

addressed all areas of the question with insight, focusing on how Verbatim Theatre techniques and conventions were used to stage real events in the two
set texts

developed a sustained discussion which analysed how events on stage could lead to audience engagement

identified how student experiences of the set texts impacted on specific meaning and therefore engagement

interpreted staging insightfully referring to relevant key moments in the set texts as well as set design, stagecraft and acting and directorial choices.
In weaker responses, candidates:

ignored the question and relied on retelling the conventions of Verbatim Theatre

focused on a discussion of the process of creative experiences of Verbatim Theatre rather than addressing how the set texts could be made engaging for
the stage

discussed general theatrical conventions with little connection to the set texts or Verbatim Theatre

described key scenes from the text and/or summarised events related to the plot

presented inaccurate references.
Question 8 – Black comedy
In stronger responses, candidates:

addressed the key terms of the question directly

identified the techniques and conventions of black comedy in the two plays studied

referred explicitly to situations of pain and loss in the plays

explored how the techniques and conventions force audiences to laugh at the unthinkable

supported an analysis of pain and loss with highly relevant examples from their own workshop experiences or imagined directorial choices.
In weaker responses, candidates:

lacked a detailed analysis of the way techniques and conventions were used

relied on a discussion of the plot or humorous incidents without linking these to the question

described the key scenes from the text and/or retold the plot

presented a literary response which relied heavily on quotations with few or no references to staging

imposed a directorial vision without carefully considering how the vision might work for the entire play.