How many marks would you lose for not including the extract in mod a part of paper 2? (1 Viewer)

[Leggie]

I completely forgot to mention and include analysis from the extract in my essay for mod a

 

[Epicman69]

idk probably caps your mark at like 16 ngl

 

[d1zzyohs]

I think if you completely avoided it, 16 would be fairly generous. That would mean the marker believed that you approached the question at a HIGH B level, when you didn't use the stimulus whatsoever.
Probably 14 and below - but if you touched on the concepts and inquiries present in the extract, then maybe up to 16 could be reasonable. It's in NESA's hands now... what can you do?

 

[Leggie]

I just gotta hope my cohort carries. I am in band 5 range given that top 100 get a band 6 so I gotta pray

 

[Epicman69]

I just gotta hope my cohort carries. I am in band 5 range given that top 100 get a band 6 so I gotta pray

James Ruse be like

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

just curious, how many times did you guys refer to the extract. I remember thoroughly referencing it, in addition to analysing the quotes like about 4-5 ish times. Felt like that was a bit too less however...

 

[Epicman69]

just curious, how many times did you guys refer to the extract. I remember thoroughly referencing it, in addition to analysing the quotes like about 4-5 ish times. Felt like that was a bit too less however...

I wrote half my essay on the extract

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

Same here sorta, the ideas I discussed in my essays were completely based off the implied concepts in the extract. I would say about 40% of my analysis were off the extract and my remaining quotes for the other text so as to speak, matched the concepts discussed in the extract ...

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

I refered to the extract but didnt see it was a to what extent, how many marks would i lose smh

 

[may22]

just curious, how many times did you guys refer to the extract. I remember thoroughly referencing it, in addition to analysing the quotes like about 4-5 ish times. Felt like that was a bit too less however...

I integrated it into all of my arguments and used my links to push my analysis

Which Mod A texts did you guys have?

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

I refered to the extract but didnt see it was a to what extent, how many marks would i lose smh

As long as your thesis agrees or disagrees I think it's fine (that's what I did in mine by agreeing how the collisions are really prominent). It only gets intricate when you disagree and agree at the same time, in which you need to have an even clearer evaluation...

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

I integrated it into all of my arguments and used my links to push my analysis

Which Mod A texts did you guys have?

Richard

 

[may22]

Richard

Nice, same.

how exactly did you use the extract if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

Nice, same.

how exactly did you use the extract if you don’t mind me asking?

Can't really remember lol, but I think I explored Act 1 scene 1 and 2 of Richard, and then implemented the diegetic conversation about Pacino saying to have a right to an opinion, along with the Scholar's testimony on why he didn't know why Richard married Anna historically. Then I demonstrated the cinematic features, to signify how Pacino overcomes this ambiguity by subverting Shakespeare's notion of fatalistic villany (I.e. another collision since these representations do not align with the modern audience who cannot grasp superstitious beliefs), thereby reasoning how the facilitated discussion enables Pacino to signify Richard's intention to marry Lady Anne, in an attempt of salvaging his image, thereby clothing his vile nature. Secondly, I used the quote on how an opinion is never right or wrong, when I was exploring how and why Pacino sought psychoanalysis (to overcome the contextual collision of a secular audience failing to understand divine retribution) or something.... Surely used it more, just can't remember lol. Wbu?

 

[may22]

Can't really remember lol, but I think I explored Act 1 scene 1 and 2 of Richard, and then implemented the diegetic conversation about Pacino saying to have a right to
an opinion, along with the Scholar's testimony on why he didn't know why Richard married Anna historically. Then I demonstrated the cinematic features, to signify how Pacino overcomes his ambiguity in lfr by subverting Shakespeare's notion of fatalistic villany (I.e. another collision since these representations do not align), as a modern audience cannot understand how Richard married Anne to salvage his image. Secondly, I used the quote on how an opinion is never right or wrong, when I was exploring how and why Pacino sought psychoanalysis (to overcome the contextual collision of a secular audience failing to understand divine retribution) or somethin.... Surely used it more, just can't remember lol. Wbu?

Nice!

I integrated the quote about opinions being neither right nor wrong as part of my argument on the political influences that shape literature (i.e. R3 is propaganda, LFR is after the Cold War), and used that to show how their different sociopolitical environments correspond to a collision of literary representations. Then I used the part about “all of us” having “the right to an opinion” as part of my argument for religion vs secularisation, suggesting that Pacino invites his audiences to develop their own opinion on a psychoanalytic basis. Then the part about the scholar speaking directly to the camera and what he said about Richard and Anne I threw in with my argument on gender roles. Basically how Pacino utilises cinema verite and workshopping scenes/explanatory modes to represent the different values that collide with R3.

I think I also integrated it a bit more throughout the arguments but I can’t remember lol those were the main parts

 

[yanujw]

I wonder why they had included the image of the scholar speaking to the camera for LFR. Was that something you guys analysed visually for your analysis? Or did they just put it to orient students into what scene the dialogue was from?

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

I wonder why they had included the image of the scholar speaking to the camera for LFR. Was that something you guys analysed visually for your analysis? Or did they just put it to orient students into what scene the dialogue was from?

I mean, ig some people could say the close up shot of the scholar speaking, but I thought it does not add any value. They probs included the image to show what scholar it was, since LFR had quite a few different academia voicing their opinions

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

Nice!

I integrated the quote about opinions being neither right nor wrong as part of my argument on the political influences that shape literature (i.e. R3 is propaganda, LFR is after the Cold War), and used that to show how their different sociopolitical environments correspond to a collision of literary representations. Then I used the part about “all of us” having “the right to an opinion” as part of my argument for religion vs secularisation, suggesting that Pacino invites his audiences to develop their own opinion on a psychoanalytic basis. Then the part about the scholar speaking directly to the camera and what he said about Richard and Anne I threw in with my argument on gender roles. Basically how Pacino utilises cinema verite and workshopping scenes/explanatory modes to represent the different values that collide with R3.

I think I also integrated it a bit more throughout the arguments but I can’t remember lol those were the main parts

solid...

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

Nice!

I integrated the quote about opinions being neither right nor wrong as part of my argument on the political influences that shape literature (i.e. R3 is propaganda, LFR is after the Cold War), and used that to show how their different sociopolitical environments correspond to a collision of literary representations. Then I used the part about “all of us” having “the right to an opinion” as part of my argument for religion vs secularisation, suggesting that Pacino invites his audiences to develop their own opinion on a psychoanalytic basis. Then the part about the scholar speaking directly to the camera and what he said about Richard and Anne I threw in with my argument on gender roles. Basically how Pacino utilises cinema verite and workshopping scenes/explanatory modes to represent the different values that collide with R3.

I think I also integrated it a bit more throughout the arguments but I can’t remember lol those were the main parts

Legit the same

I did my first 2 paras on the differing perspectives in the values of the composers i.e moralistic vs pluralistic perspective and then I talked about how it collides due to their differing perspectives as well as form etc. and how Shakespeare uses Richard III as the embodiment of the machiavellian and a symbol of humanism in his era then I compare that with Pacino's renditioning of Richard as an anti-hero similar to his prior roles hence applying "ghosting" and then I tied it back to the interview in the notion that "the right to opinion". I go more in depth with Kimball's reaction to the scholar and link it to the paras.

ANd my second 2 paras were on gender dynamics and how woman are shown etc. the perspectives on woman. I do the same thing as above.

I only referred to the extract in my Pacino paras when I was comparing the collision of perspectives so idk how that'll go but I use the extract to reinforce my points rather than analyse it solely.

 

[may22]

solid...

Thanks. I spent an extra 10 mins on that section tbh