End with a bang. (2 Viewers)

[fleepbasding]

Listen to this guy, he knows what h;es talking about.

This thread should end here!








(nice post muaha!)

Actually, Crazy Pomo is the one you should all be listening to and this thread should have ended with his post. Just kidding guys! I'm sure we all 'know what we're talking about' and should encourage discussion.

I thought Australian theatre was a little curly, but after looking through past exam papers and reading marking centre notes, I was pretty much expecting something that would challenge a little. And it took a few moments of thinking to try and adapt what I'd prepared to the question, but really people, that's what you have to do! You can't expect it to completely suit how you've prepared. I can think of many sorts of questions that would have better suited me and what I had prepared, but I still managed to write a pretty good essay.

The question wasn't that complicated and not badly worded in my opinion. Jaison, you'll have to explain to me how you found it badly worded- precisely- because I don't think I had any trouble getting my head around the question in the exam room.

It is simple: how do the playwrights bring changing circumstances (and "things going wrong") to the stage, and how the characters of the play respond to these changing circumstances (with a particular focus on the "different ways" people (characters) cope).

For Gary's house I talked about how Oswald portrays Gary's response to the slightest thing go wrong, portrayed through his physicality/characterisation ("winds himself into a stiffnecked rage")... I discussed how the changing circumstance of a change of location from the city to this remote bush-block is represented using sensory devices like soundscape and smell, and how Sue-Anne responds to this change. That's all I can really remember for Gary's House, but I'm sure I did a bit more, and it was all better in the actual exam than my reproduction here.

7 stages- my focus was mainly on the changing circumstances that have been imposed on Aboriginal people/culture and how the main (and only) characters responds to them. Monologue format ('Everywoman characterisation) and roleplay lent itself to exploring the different responses to change and things going wrong. I talked about storytelling style and how that helps communicate the changes, "March" and how that scene represents a certain type of reaction to changed circumstances... performance poetry....

I don't know, I'm having trouble remembering exactly what I wrote about, but believe me, it made fairly good sense and I included a fair dose of experiential examples, though I possibly should have used more textual quotes. There are many other things you (or I) could have discussed besides what I've mentioned here. I would've written about much more except for the time-limit, and that I wanted to treat everything I discussed indepth, instead of a superficial overview.

 

[*caramel adele*]

that exam was rather shite. i did

Australian bush and city:
- Summer 17th Doll and
- Touch of Silk

and for American i did
- Streetcar named desire and
- Our town

my drama teacher helped to make the asutralian question. i was so pissed off - what has character reaction to change and things going wrong have anything to do with dichotomy of bush and city! worst exam ever!

 

[fleepbasding]

that exam was rather shite. i did

Australian bush and city:
- Summer 17th Doll and
- Touch of Silk

and for American i did
- Streetcar named desire and
- Our town

my drama teacher helped to make the asutralian question. i was so pissed off - what has character reaction to change and things going wrong have anything to do with dichotomy of bush and city! worst exam ever!

Well, I don't really know anything about bush and city option. Are there changing circumstances with people moving from bush to city? Do things go wrong in the bush compared to the city?

Yes, it was probably much better suited to the vagueness of "Contemporary Australian Theatre".

 

[Crazy Pomo]

that exam was rather shite. i did

Australian bush and city:
- Summer 17th Doll and
- Touch of Silk

and for American i did
- Streetcar named desire and
- Our town

my drama teacher helped to make the asutralian question. i was so pissed off - what has character reaction to change and things going wrong have anything to do with dichotomy of bush and city! worst exam ever!

Characters have everything to do with everything, especially in most australian theatre of contemporary, psuedo naturalistic style. The play is not an english text, and damn anyone to hell that thought it was like an english exam. Yes, it is similar, but your approach is dramatically (get it) different.

How are the themes or issues communicated to an audience in a play? Characters! Characterisation, character's dialogue, stage movements, relationships and their role in the plot, or the plots role in THEM. Of course there is staging, symbolism and what not but I think you'll find that in plays like Gary's House it is the Characters (or lack there of) as well as the set and setting, that are prime examples of playwright's showing how different characters respond to different adversities. In 7 stages is a little different, seeing it's much more theatrically exploitative, but almost easier to analyse in terms of the techniques and characterisation and theatrical devices that the playwright uses to communicate ideas (that you have warped to fit the essay question).

I agree with fleep, you have to bend it to your will.

 

[Jess241186]

I rather enjoyed the drama one... i figure with all my other drama exams, i manage to fluke it... i start by thinking i do really terribly then i get 90 something percent... so lets jus hope its the same for the HSC one...
I did Gary's House
and
7 Stages of Grieving... (i elaborated so much on the question... I enjoyed it)
and Absurdist theatre,
Waiting for Godot
Zoo Story
and
The dumb waiter...
I also has a lot of things to write for this essay, because in class we did a lot of different practice essays and there was one fairly similar that we had done...
So basically, i think i did ok...

 

[jaihson]

It is simple: how do the playwrights bring changing circumstances (and "things going wrong") to the stage, and how the characters of the play respond to these changing circumstances (with a particular focus on the "different ways" people (characters) cope).

it didnt say "how the characters respond to these changing circumstances". I dont see how the characters respond to changing circumstances that are brought onto the stage due to the fact that they are not divorced from the circumstances. I looked at it and thought "am i supposed to treat the characters as independant of scenario?" cause thats how the question seemed to read. I thought it was all a bit postmodern. does that explain it sorta?

 

[fleepbasding]

it didnt say "how the characters respond to these changing circumstances". I dont see how the characters respond to changing circumstances that are brought onto the stage due to the fact that they are not divorced from the circumstances. I looked at it and thought "am i supposed to treat the characters as independant of scenario?" cause thats how the question seemed to read. I thought it was all a bit postmodern. does that explain it sorta?

Yes, that largely explains how you had trouble with the question due to what you percieved to be bad wording. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, but I think my interpretation is what BOS was immplying (I'm just a walking contradiction machine today!)

Maybe you read into it a bit too much? I don't mean to sound patronizing... Either way, it is out of our hands and it'd be best to try and look to the future at this stage.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I don't mean to sound patronizing... it is out of our hands and it'd be best to try and look to the future at this stage.

Hahahaha rofl - fucking - copter! You definately fucked it up royally jaihson. Try to move on. They should shoot a new sequel to "The Intepreter (feat. Nicole Kidman)":

"The Mis - Interpreter, or, How Jaihson Screwed Up Drama And Tried To Console Himself With Allegations About Bad Wording (feat jaihson)"

Joking. I'm serious though.

 

[jaihson]

lol im not saying thats how i responded, just how the question read to me. And i didnt fuck it up, just didnt perform as well as i thought i would.

 

[Pierotte]

'Australian plays explore the different ways people cope when things change or go wrong'

Ok, lets pull this statement apart shall we.

On it's own it's not too confusing. But it IS excrutiantingly innapropriate considering the point of Australian contemoprary theatre is NOT to explore inner human drives, and coping mechanisms, but rather to inform audiences about certain social situations and minority groups.

For example "Seven Stages Of Grieving" was written as a gift to the Aboriginal people and as an enlightening, educational, informative, confronting experience for the further white Australia.
Please explain how a Brechtian style of acting explores any character development.
Here is where many people went wrong. The wording of the question does not suit the style of theatre it is adressing, as it lends to the thought of AUSTRALIAN THEATRE as a whole. The point of australian theatre in general, not the plays, but of the greater social significance of theatre.
If you read the pre play litereature in 7SG you would have realised the true motivations of the play, which were to use Australian theatre to provide knowledge on rather ignores ISSUES.
Contemporary australian theatre is ISSUE based, not emotionally based.

The second part of the question eliminated all possibilities of the statments ability to be adapted coherently to the style of theatre involved.

"Discuss this statement, with reference to the dramatic forms, styles and conventions of the plays you have studies, showing how Australian plays put changing circumstances on the stage, and how the characters respond."

NOT BADLY WORDED?? its a bloody 33 word sentance! 33!!

Ok, now take note of the part in bold, are we supposed to be discussing how the plays portray changing circumstances, or are we simply responding to how characters respond to the so called changing circumstances?

Either way do the makrers not realise the we have been taught that contemporary Australian theatre that arised in the 1970's was to adress issues that have allready occured? The point of this style of theatre is to raise awareness and accept them? THEY ARE NO LONGER CHANGING! Australia was invaded 200+ years ago, the circumstances are not changing on stage, the point of these plays is for the insight provided by theatre to allow the situation to CHANGE in the future.

the the last part of the questions asks to refer to the TOPIC you have studied.
Well my topic was australian contempory theatre... im not sure what they thought i was learning about.

 

[fleepbasding]

'Australian plays explore the different ways people cope when things change or go wrong'

Ok, lets pull this statement apart shall we.

On it's own it's not too confusing. But it IS excrutiantingly innapropriate considering the point of Australian contemoprary theatre is NOT to explore inner human drives, and coping mechanisms, but rather to inform audiences about certain social situations and minority groups.

For example "Seven Stages Of Grieving" was written as a gift to the Aboriginal people and as an enlightening, educational, informative, confronting experience for the further white Australia.
Please explain how a Brechtian style of acting explores any character development.
Here is where many people went wrong. The wording of the question does not suit the style of theatre it is adressing, as it lends to the thought of AUSTRALIAN THEATRE as a whole. The point of australian theatre in general, not the plays, but of the greater social significance of theatre.
If you read the pre play litereature in 7SG you would have realised the true motivations of the play, which were to use Australian theatre to provide knowledge on rather ignores ISSUES.
Contemporary australian theatre is ISSUE based, not emotionally based.

The second part of the question eliminated all possibilities of the statments ability to be adapted coherently to the style of theatre involved.

"Discuss this statement, with reference to the dramatic forms, styles and conventions of the plays you have studies, showing how Australian plays put changing circumstances on the stage, and how the characters respond."

NOT BADLY WORDED?? its a bloody 33 word sentance! 33!!

Ok, now take note of the part in bold, are we supposed to be discussing how the plays portray changing circumstances, or are we simply responding to how characters respond to the so called changing circumstances?

Either way do the makrers not realise the we have been taught that contemporary Australian theatre that arised in the 1970's was to adress issues that have allready occured? The point of this style of theatre is to raise awareness and accept them? THEY ARE NO LONGER CHANGING! Australia was invaded 200+ years ago, the circumstances are not changing on stage, the point of these plays is for the insight provided by theatre to allow the situation to CHANGE in the future.

the the last part of the questions asks to refer to the TOPIC you have studied.
Well my topic was australian contempory theatre... im not sure what they thought i was learning about.

Can I start by saying: stop being so patronizing! Of course I read the pre-play material in 7SG! I think much of what you say is opinion, and frankly, you were way too rigid with your ideas about the plays and Australian theatre. I'm busy at the moment but either tonight or tommorow I will respond to your post comprehensively.

 

[Pierotte]

Can I start by saying: stop being so patronizing! Of course I read the pre-play material in 7SG! I think much of what you say is opinion, and frankly, you were way too rigid with your ideas about the plays and Australian theatre. I'm busy at the moment but either tonight or tommorow I will respond to your post comprehensively.

No, you can not start my telling me not to be so patronising, as i wasn't.
I was simply respoding to crazy pomo, HE was being patronising with his whole "yeah well you screwed that up, it was easy" shit.
Im just pointing out that due to the wording of the question and nature of the course it was a given that some people were to find this question ridiculous!
Dont bother responding comprahensively, far out how long would it take? If you were going to say something you should have just come out and responded like i did, yeah my argument may have its weak points but seriously who is going to put effort into delicately composing a response on a forum... If you had a decent retort to what i said it would have been easy to simply cut down my post and point out where im wrong. But im not.
And no, im not being too rigid in my ideas, i simply followed the syllabus (like were bloody spoed to!) and the direct thoughts of the composers, its not my place to be flexible and reshape the meaning of the play and of australian theatre, im a HSC student, and HSC drama is not a bloody post modern course!
What a joke.
The only time i should have to re-interperet the meaning of the play is if the question asks me to, and the question didnt. The question was too rigid, forcing ideals about contempory austrlian theatre on me which do not exist. The question basically stated "this is what australian theatre is REALLY about, discuss". How dare they. Where did the question allow room for me to put in my own thoughts? It didn't. IT WAS RUBBISH!
Thats all

 

[fleepbasding]

No, you can not start my telling me not to be so patronising, as i wasn't.

Yes I can, because you were being patronizing with such insinuations as "If you'd read the pre-play literature", immplying that I or anyone who managed the question well must not have read the lengthy attempts at justification by various agents of production related to 7SG. You were very unhelpful and uncooperative from the begining. My guess is that you aren't interested in how others answered the question, but more with expressing contempt for the question, contrary to "for curiosities sake" as you claimed.

I was simply respoding to crazy pomo, HE was being patronising with his whole "yeah well you screwed that up, it was easy" shit.

OK, fair enough, but I think you were responding to my comments as well.

Dont bother responding comprahensively, far out how long would it take? If you were going to say something you should have just come out and responded like i did, yeah my argument may have its weak points but seriously who is going to put effort into delicately composing a response on a forum... If you had a decent retort to what i said it would have been easy to simply cut down my post and point out where im wrong. But im not.

Ahhh, what a poorly disguised attempt at preventing me from responding. I was busy, I didn't have time to write my ideas, which I had immediately after reading your post, so I decided I'd come back later. Is that so hard for you to understand. So what if I respond to posts comprehensively? It's generally more appreciated, accept when the person I'm replying to is so pig-headed they're not prepared to accept that others have valid ideas. You, I'm afraid, fall directly into that category.

And no, im not being too rigid in my ideas, i simply followed the syllabus (like were bloody spoed to!) and the direct thoughts of the composers, its not my place to be flexible and reshape the meaning of the play and of australian theatre, im a HSC student, and HSC drama is not a bloody post modern course!
What a joke.

The direct thoughts of the composers aren't necessarily the meaning of the play. 'Reinterpret the play'? You re-interpreted it the first time you read it, and when you performed it. Fuck, drama is all about interpreting scripts in different ways. If you hadn't figured that much by now, maybe you shouldn't be doing HSC drama. You don't have to "reshape the meanings" of these plays, merely re-interpret it, which is neither frowned upon by the syllabus or anyone else (including the playwrights). You have been far to regid and have been rightly punished for it.

The question was too rigid, forcing ideals about contempory austrlian theatre on me which do not exist. The question basically stated "this is what australian theatre is REALLY about, discuss". How dare they. Where did the question allow room for me to put in my own thoughts? It didn't. IT WAS RUBBISH!
Thats all

Well, it is highly debatable that the "ideals" expressed to be the interests of contemporary Australia by the question, aren't in fact real. If you'd reapraised your own knowlege of the texts in reading time, you could've easily adapted to the question and thought of techniques, themes etc., that display contemporary Aussie theatres exploration of change and things going wrong. Afterall, Australia since the 70s has been in a state of rapid change, and you could argue that the plays reflect some of these changes (that's an example)For some examples (from the plays) that I managed to think of in the exam room, refer to my earlier post. I'm guessing you looked at previous exam papers? If you did, you really should have been ready for a question that didn't fit your exact notions and theories concerning contemporary Australian theatre.

Your knowlege of the topic is clearly satisfactory, it is exam technique (ability to adapt and to bullshit a little) that you were lacking in.

 

[Counterfeit]

Yes I can, because you were being patronizing with such insinuations as "If you'd read the pre-play literature", immplying that I or anyone who managed the question well must not have read the lengthy attempts at justification by various agents of production related to 7SG. You were very unhelpful and uncooperative from the begining. My guess is that you aren't interested in how others answered the question, but more with expressing contempt for the question, contrary to "for curiosities sake" as you claimed.

OK, fair enough, but I think you were responding to my comments as well.


Ahhh, what a poorly disguised attempt at preventing me from responding. I was busy, I didn't have time to write my ideas, which I had immediately after reading your post, so I decided I'd come back later. Is that so hard for you to understand. So what if I respond to posts comprehensively? It's generally more appreciated, accept when the person I'm replying to is so pig-headed they're not prepared to accept that others have valid ideas. You, I'm afraid, fall directly into that category.


The direct thoughts of the composers aren't necessarily the meaning of the play. 'Reinterpret the play'? You re-interpreted it the first time you read it, and when you performed it. Fuck, drama is all about interpreting scripts in different ways. If you hadn't figured that much by now, maybe you shouldn't be doing HSC drama. You don't have to "reshape the meanings" of these plays, merely re-interpret it, which is neither frowned upon by the syllabus or anyone else (including the playwrights). You have been far to regid and have been rightly punished for it.
Well, it is highly debatable that the "ideals" expressed to be the interests of contemporary Australia by the question, aren't in fact real. If you'd reapraised your own knowlege of the texts in reading time, you could've easily adapted to the question and thought of techniques, themes etc., that display contemporary Aussie theatres exploration of change and things going wrong. Afterall, Australia since the 70s has been in a state of rapid change, and you could argue that the plays reflect some of these changes (that's an example)For some examples (from the plays) that I managed to think of in the exam room, refer to my earlier post. I'm guessing you looked at previous exam papers? If you did, you really should have been ready for a question that didn't fit your exact notions and theories concerning contemporary Australian theatre.

Your knowlege of the topic is clearly satisfactory, it is exam technique (ability to adapt and to bullshit a little) that you were lacking in.

I fear you have missed the whole entire point of what I’m trying to communicate. Im not saying you answered the question wrong.
Im saying i did.
Im pissed at that. I realise that. But I don;t think the fault lies exclusively on me, it is also the fault of the BOS and their incompetencies in not being able to provide me with a decent question to work with.
Good for you that you did interpret it correctly.
Im simply trying to make you understand that the question was in fact a piece of shit.
Do you seriously believe that they could not have created a better one?? Its our HSC for christs sake, and to me it appeared that they hardly put any real thought into creating a nice succinct, direct question.

I do resent you calling my pig headed. Its true, I’m ridiculously arrogant at times, but not in the way that you’re implying. I never once said that I was better than anyone else here or tried to put anyones thoughts down. Im not insulting any of the posters. Im insulting the BOS and highlighting their amateurishness excuse of an exam. I dont need you to act as a defence lawyer for them, or for anybody else in this thread for that matter. Stop acting so high and mighty.

Im not a bloody fool. I KNOW drama is about finding your own understanding of a text through acting it out. Like I analysed 7SG, I looked at each scene and thought about how it could be acted, what i thought was being said, and then researched what the original message was. I would be FINE if the question asked me what I thought, but the question didn't. The question stated that:
"Australian plays explore the different ways people cope when things change or go wrong"
What if I don't believe that? What if I never encountered that? What if that was never my understanding of the play?
Unfortunately that was the case for me.
I don’t believe that Australian plays are about how people cope, and it was so audacious that the question stated that. Where was the chance for me to express my personal view??
I was forced to answer to an insolent view that I didn’t believe and didn’t understand, and that’s not fair. There was no chance for me to compare and contrast my own ideas against anything.

Your last point is valid, yes Australia has undergone rapid change since the 1970’s, but do you understand that what I’m saying is that I don’t believe Australian plays are designed to show off this change… but then again that’s not what the question wanted anyway… It wanted me to talk about PERSONAL change within the plays experienced by the characters, as if that is all that happened in the plays.
I don't agree. I never saw an example of that. How can I discuss a statement I never explored?
The BOS simply assumed that is ONE singular way a student could have potentially viewed a play.
Lucky for you if you did.
But I didn't.
I tried to do my own thing, and that didn't fit.
And the crazy fact is that not even the original intent of the composers could fit to that question either!!! What the hell?
The question only allowed for one answer, one view, one perspective, one issue.
Yes it asked for "different ways" ... but its still all about coping.

Aren’t I allowed to say the plays aren’t about coping?

If the question had included the simple word ARGUE instead of discuss I would have been fine. Bit it didn't. It said DISCUSS... well there was no room to discuss anything.

Do you see what I’m trying to say? My argument is not with you, you conceited arse. It’s with the Board of studies. And I seriously believe I put forward a credible point of discussion. Stop being so defensive and try to understand.

 

[fleepbasding]

I haven't even finished reading your post, but I was responding to Peirrote's comments, not yours.

 

[Counterfeit]

I haven't even finished reading your post, but I was responding to Peirrote's comments, not yours.

ah we are one and the same

it just depends which computer i use

sorry, i should fix that

 

[Pierotte]

see, its still me...

Now i would like to quote a supre t-shirt

"same shit, different arsehole" ... although i don't speak shit

... and the t-shirt features george w. bush and hitler
Ah how i love "politically aware" skanks.

 

[fleepbasding]

I fear you have missed the whole entire point of what I’m trying to communicate. Im not saying you answered the question wrong.
Im saying i did.
Im pissed at that. I realise that.

I realise what you're saying, I've been engaging with your argument. Which incidently, hasn't been that you answered the question wrong, but primarily that the question itself was wrong. I think if you look through my posts, I only cited my own interpretations to demonstrate that the question wasn't that bad- never in defence. I feel no need to defend my own response.

But I don;t think the fault lies exclusively on me, it is also the fault of the BOS and their incompetencies in not being able to provide me with a decent question to work with.
Good for you that you did interpret it correctly.
Im simply trying to make you understand that the question was in fact a piece of shit.
Do you seriously believe that they could not have created a better one?? Its our HSC for christs sake, and to me it appeared that they hardly put any real thought into creating a nice succinct, direct question.

I never claimed that the question couldn't have been better, merely that it wasn't that bad, and quite answerable. Infact, I even expressed in post number 21 that "I can think of many sorts of questions that would have better suited me and what I had prepared". So I concede that the question could have been better, but I never claimed to the contrary, so you can't really accuse me of doing so.

Yes, succinctity would've improved the question, but it wasn't like it made it that much more difficult to understand what it was trying to say. I'm sorry that you had trouble with it, but honestly, the majority of people I've talked to (including the "smart" people in my class) have expressed that the question was straightforward.

I do resent you calling my pig headed. Its true, I’m ridiculously arrogant at times, but not in the way that you’re implying. I never once said that I was better than anyone else here or tried to put anyones thoughts down. Im not insulting any of the posters. Im insulting the BOS and highlighting their amateurishness excuse of an exam. I dont need you to act as a defence lawyer for them, or for anybody else in this thread for that matter. Stop acting so high and mighty.

When did I act "so high and mighty"? I'm afraid that cliche really doesn't apply here, for morality has not yet arisen. I'm not sure what your talking about there.

I'll take it as a compliment that you refer to me as a "defence lawyer", which I can only assume is a reaction to me taking a different position to you. I don't consider myself to be arguing for the BOS, merely for the question at hand. And I'm not even so much arguing for the question, as I am against your claims concerning the question. You can try to disparage me with such silly labels, they are actually mildly amusing.

Im not a bloody fool. I KNOW drama is about finding your own understanding of a text through acting it out. Like I analysed 7SG, I looked at each scene and thought about how it could be acted, what i thought was being said, and then researched what the original message was. I would be FINE if the question asked me what I thought, but the question didn't. The question stated that:
"Australian plays explore the different ways people cope when things change or go wrong"
What if I don't believe that? What if I never encountered that? What if that was never my understanding of the play?
Unfortunately that was the case for me.
I don’t believe that Australian plays are about how people cope, and it was so audacious that the question stated that. Where was the chance for me to express my personal view??
I was forced to answer to an insolent view that I didn’t believe and didn’t understand, and that’s not fair. There was no chance for me to compare and contrast my own ideas against anything.

OK, you're not a fool, I've never thought you were, but can see how some of my comments may have impplied that. Sorry. Let's keep this respectful hey?

The question has never asked for your own thoughts explicitly. Infact, here are the last 3 years worth of questions. As you'll see, "discuss" is quite a common instruction of the drama exam...

2002- Question 1 (20 marks)
How does the Australian drama you have studied use particular forms and conventions to explore significant experiences of living in this country?
In your answer you should refer to AT LEAST TWO texts set for the topic you have studied

2003- Question 1 (20 marks)
‘The weakness of Australian drama is that it relies on stereotyped characters to explore serious social and personal issues.’
Discuss this statement, considering the challenges and opportunities for people staging productions of the plays you have studied.
In your answer you should refer to AT LEAST TWO texts set for the topic you have studied.

2004- Question 1 (20 marks)
“Australian plays have been concerned with questions of belonging — to another person, to a family, to a social group, to society.”
Discuss this statement with reference to the performance styles and dramatic forms and conventions of the Australian plays you have studied.
In your answer, refer to AT LEAST TWO texts set for the topic you have studied.

When comparing this years questions to past ones, one doesn't notice much difference. There is no precedent for explicitly asking you for your own interpretation, so I can't imagine why you were expecting it. They also always use a quote to get things going, and the quote always expresses an incomplete definition of contemporary Australian theatre. So, the problem with this years question (besides imperfect syntax and succinctness), when compared to past questions, is what?

You were never forced to agree with the view (admittedly, agreeing is easier), the "Discuss" instruction gives some room for alternative veiws. Either way, my main point is: there were no precedents for your expectations of the question, and this years question certainly hasn't set any precedents in terms of crapiness.

Your last point is valid, yes Australia has undergone rapid change since the 1970’s, but do you understand that what I’m saying is that I don’t believe Australian plays are designed to show off this change… but then again that’s not what the question wanted anyway… It wanted me to talk about PERSONAL change within the plays experienced by the characters, as if that is all that happened in the plays.
I don't agree. I never saw an example of that. How can I discuss a statement I never explored?
The BOS simply assumed that is ONE singular way a student could have potentially viewed a play.

I largely sympathize with you on this points, as some past questions would've certainly left me stumped. For example, the 2004 question that stated Con Aus Theatre was about "questions of belonging" would've been difficult, because I'd never considered the plays in this light. But the challenge is still to adapt.

If the question had included the simple word ARGUE instead of discuss I would have been fine. Bit it didn't. It said DISCUSS... well there was no room to discuss anything.

I've already explained why you shouldn't have expected an "ARGUE" question.

Do you see what I’m trying to say? My argument is not with you, you conceited arse. It’s with the Board of studies. And I seriously believe I put forward a credible point of discussion. Stop being so defensive and try to understand.

If your argument was with the BOS you would be telephoning them and expressing your views. The BOS doesn't visit this forum, so the only argument you'll get here is with other users. Unless if you weren't expecting anyone to disagree with you.

You have "put forward a credible point of discussion", and a discussion (with opposing views) is what you've got. I've understood what you've expressed, and acknowleged points of agreement, and highlighted aspects I've disagreed with.

 

[Pierotte]

heh Fleepblasting...

I despise youre rational stance on bloody everything!

But in a way i respect the fact that you think things through, and well i guess im just passionate in my hate for the question and wanted to whinge.
I knew id accomplish nothing, but a lovely long winded argument every now and then keeps us sane.

Im over it now... its out of my system.

Have we reached an understanding? I don't really know, but it no longer really matters.

Cheers, it's been fun
I sincerely hope you do well
And well, i hope i do well too

-Pierotte/Counterfeit
xox

 

[fleepbasding]

heh Fleepblasting...

I despise youre rational stance on bloody everything!

But in a way i respect the fact that you think things through, and well i guess im just passionate in my hate for the question and wanted to whinge.
I knew id accomplish nothing, but a lovely long winded argument every now and then keeps us sane.

Im over it now... its out of my system.

Have we reached an understanding? I don't really know, but it no longer really matters.

Cheers, it's been fun
I sincerely hope you do well
And well, i hope i do well too

-Pierotte/Counterfeit
xox

ha ha, yes, we've come to an agreement I think! In many ways my general sentiments towards Australian theatre HSC drama exam questions are similar. And I completely understand you wanting to let off some of the hate on a forum, don't we all?

I'm just very, very bored... and yes, long-winded arguments nurture both our egos, they are most beneficial!

goodluck to you to.