Go ahead and tilt your mobile the right way (portrait). The kool kids don't use landscape...
We've all been there. You're moments away from having to deliver your 5-6 minute long oral to all of your classmates and your teacher, and you're still trying to memorise that one bit that you just can't seem to get down pat. It sucks.
For many VCE English students, the oral presentation is the scariest part of the course; it’s often also the first.
Doing a speech can indeed be daunting— you’re marked in real time, you can’t go back and edit mistakes, and the writing part itself is only half the battle. Nonetheless, the oral SAC can also be one of the more dynamic and engaging tasks you complete in VCE English, and there’s plenty of ways to make it more interesting and also more manageable for yourself.
We’ll break the whole process down into three parts (don’t worry, one of these will be the delivery itself) and have a look at ways to tackle each; hopefully, you’ll feel more empowered to give it a go on your own terms. Don't forget to also check out Our Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for everything you need to know for Oral Presentations.
Part One: Choosing a good topic
(In this section—researching events & issues, topic ideas)
For a bit of a head start on this step, be sure to check out our blog post filled with Oral Presentation Topics for 2020. It's one of our best kept secrets!
In the study design, the description that’s given for the Oral Presentation is:
“A point of view presented in oral form using sound argument and persuasive language. The point of view should relate to an issue that has appeared in the media since 1 September of the previous year.”
Besides this restriction on how current/recent your issue is, the expectations themselves for this task are pretty standard (and therefore pretty broad): you
select a topic or point of view
research arguments and supporting evidence; and
position the audience accordingly in your speech
Getting started on this first part can be tricky though, especially if you want to choose something a bit more original or fresh.
In any case, the first thing you need is an event. As a reminder, an event in the VCE English context is anything that happens which also generates opinionated media coverage—so, it’s not just an event but it has to be an event that people have published opinions about, and they have to have been published since September 1.
You might wonder why we don’t go to the issue straight away. Here’s a hypothetical to illustrate: if you asked me to name an issue, the best I could probably come up with off the top of my head is climate change. However, if you asked me to name an event, I’d pretty easily recall the bushfires—something much more concrete which a) has generated specific and passionate opinions in the media; and b) can easily be linked to a wider issue such as climate change.
So where do you find an event? If you can’t think of a particularly interesting one right away, you could always try Wikipedia. Seriously, Wikipedia very helpfully has pages of things that happened in specific years in specific countries, so “2019 in Australia” might well be a starting point. The ABC news archive is also really helpful since you can pick dates or periods of time and see a good mix of news events from then.
I wouldn’t underestimate your own memory here either. Maybe you attended the School Strike for Climate and/or you feel vaguely disappointed in the government. Maybe there was something else happening in the news you remember (even though it is often about the environment these days). It doesn’t have to be from the news though—maybe there was a movie or TV show you watched recently that you have thoughts about. You could really do a speech on any of these, as long as you suspect there might be recent, opinionated media coverage.
Only once you have an event should you look for an issue. This will be a specific debate that comes out of the event, and can usually be framed as a “whether-or-not” question. The bushfires, for example, might generate debate around whether or not the Australian government is doing enough to combat climate change, whether or not Scott Morrison has fulfilled his duties as Prime Minister, whether or not it’s appropriate to discuss policy already when people are still grieving. All of these issues are going to be more current and more focused than just ‘climate change’, so pick one that resonates for your speech. For a list of 2019-20 issue-debate breakdowns (i.e. topic ideas!), give this a read!
From there, you might delve a little deeper into viewpoints around your chosen issue, and you’d do this mostly by reading opinion or analysis articles (rather than hard news reports). Opinion is great to see what other people are thinking, and could help you bolster or reinforce your own arguments, whereas analysis is good to get a little deeper into the implications of and evidence behind the issue. The actual contention itself comes last—even though you might already have an idea what you think about the issue, you’ll be best prepared to articulate it after doing the research first.
Part Two: Writing a good speech
(In this section—register/tone selection, personas, openings, how formal you need to be, drafting & rehearsing)
For this part of the task, I’d keep in mind a specific snippet of its description: the need to use sound argument and persuasive language.
To be fair, persuasive language mightn’t necessarily be something you actively think about when you write persuasively—you wouldn’t ever really be like “hey, this is a great spot to include an appeal to compassion.” However, while you don’t need to start now, it’s good to have in mind a general register for your speech before you start. It’s one of the first things you might analyse in a written essay for good reason—it’s broad and it sets the tone for your argument/s.
With the bushfires for instance, you might contend that even though grief is a strong emotion, it should also be a trigger for resolute, permanent policy reform. But will you come from a frustrated, this-is-what-we’ve-been-saying-for-years register, or a compassionate look-at-the-damage-caused register, or an assertive, we-need-to-bring-the-community-together-first register?
Maybe you can incorporate a bit of each, or maybe (probably) there are more options, but in any case, making this decision first will help with stringing together arguments and incorporating more persuasive language techniques (PLTs). Note that most PLTs can be used across a number of registers, but there are some that might work more effectively with some of these.
For example:
Register
Arguments
PLTs
Frustrated
Climate activists have been stating the facts for years now; we suffered more extensive damage this bushfire season than ever before and our politicians are still clinging to coal; if this doesn’t trigger change, what will?
Statistics + other evidence
Attacks (on government, climate denialists etc.)
Calls to action
Emotive language
Compassionate
There’s been so much damage, and grief is an understandable and necessary response; if we don’t do something now though, how many more years will we have to suffer through the same (if not worse)?
Appeals to sympathy
Anecdotes (especially if you adopt a persona)
Rhetorical questions
Imagery
Assertive
Never before has the community been so united on combating an issue; even international communities are involved; we have to take advantage of how the issue has brought everyone together to enact meaningful, permanent change now.
Inclusive language
Generalisations (ALL Australians want change)
Appeals to community and/or hope, optimism
Repetition/emphasis
These are things you’ll have to think about for your written explanations, and might also help you shape future research if you need to shore up the speech a little more.
Something you may consider as well is adopting a persona, that is a character and a context for your speech. You don’t have to, but it may help you get started. It can be hard to just write a speech from scratch, but if you’re the mayor of a township affected by the fires and you’re outlining a course of action, it’ll help with your register and outlook.
Openings in general can be tricky though. Try to avoid stating your event, issue and contention outright—the audience doesn’t need to know that “recently, Australia experienced a horrific bushfire season and I’m going to talk about why now is the time to act on climate change.” They’ll figure it out.
Instead, try to start with something that clearly communicates your register and/or persona (if you have one). If you’re a frustrated climate activist, start by illustrating the historical patterns of bushfires getting worse and worse. If you’re a compassionate community-builder, start with anecdotes of the damage. If you’re an assertive leader, explain who you are, what your experience is and how you want to create change. Don’t worry if you feel like the issue won’t be clear enough—again, they’ll figure it out!
The opening also sets the bar for formality in your speech, and it’s honestly up to you how formal you’ll want to be. As a rule of thumb, don’t be so formal that you can’t use contractions (such as “you’ll” and “can’t”)—avoid those in essays for sure, but they’re a natural part of speaking and it’ll feel strange if you don’t use them.
I’d also recommend you draft and rehearse in front of others, highlighting areas where you think are the weakest and asking them for specific advice on those sections at the end. Having specific questions to ask, such as “should I include more data/quantitative evidence in x section?” or “is this specific appeal to x obvious enough?”, also means you get better feedback (since these are much easier to answer than “Was that fine?”).
Part Three: Delivering an engaging presentation
(In this section—body language, eye contact, rehearse rehearse rehearse, tone variation)
Most of you probably find this the most daunting part of the SAC—honestly, me too—but this is the part with the most tried-and-tested tips for success.
With regard to body language, stand with your feet shoulder width apart and, more importantly don’t move your legs. Especially if you’re nervous, swaying or shuffling will be noticeable and make you appear more nervous—when you practise, pay attention to the lower half of your body and train it to stay still if possible. That being said, do use your arms for gestures. Those are more natural and will help engage the audience, though don’t overdo it either—usually, holding cue cards in one hand frees up the other but also stops you from going overboard.
And cue cards brig us up to another important consideration—eye contact. Hold cue cards in one hand as high as you can without it feeling uncomfortable. This means you don’t have to take your eyes away from the audience for too long or too noticeably to check your notes.
Of course, knowing your speech better means having to check your notes less frequently. When I did my speech, I’d read it out aloud to myself 3-5 times a day for a week or two in advance, which made me feel like I was going insane but also meant that my speech was basically memorised. The cue cards were there in case of emergency, but I really didn’t need them at all. Absolutely make sure to rehearse your speech.
Further, when you rehearse, try to pretend that you’re actually delivering the speech. This means:
looking up ahead
holding the cue cards in the right spot; and
not just reading the words but speaking as if to an audience.
This last point is really important—tone variation might come naturally to some but not to others. I always found that building it into rehearsal helped with getting it consistent and natural. Tone variation involves things like emphasising certain words, using pauses or slowing down for effect, or modifying volume. Incorporating some of these elements—even writing them into your notes by bolding/italicising/underlining—will help you break out of monotony and make the speech more engaging as well. Be sure to emphasise things like emotive language and any evidence you might use to illustrate your arguments.
And one last thing—don’t speak too quickly! Easier said than done, but often the icing on the cake for a speech that is memorable for the right reasons.
Wondering where to go from here? Well, luckily, my eBook, How To Write A Killer Oral Presentation, details my exact step-by-step process so you can get that A+ in your SAC this year.
Access a step-by-step guide on how to write your Oral Presentation with simple, easy-to-follow advice
Read and analyse sample A+ Oral Presentations with EVERY speech annotated and broken down on HOW and WHY students achieved A+ so you reach your goal
Learn how to stand out from other students with advice on your speech delivery
Sounds like something that'd help you? I think so too! Access the full eBook by clicking here!
Get our FREE VCE English Text Response mini-guide
Now quite sure how to nail your text response essays? Then download our free mini-guide, where we break down the art of writing the perfect text-response essay into three comprehensive steps.
Oral Presentations - fun and full-scoring. Bet you’ve never heard those words in the same sentence before! As much as the Oral is a SAC that is often feared by many English students, I managed to come out of my presentation not completely terrified - I was actually able to somehow enjoy myself a little up there, and I might have even had a smile on my face when it was all done. And, what’s even better is that I managed to score full marks!
In this blog post, I’m going to be guiding you through how I approached the Oral Presentation in Year 12 to achieve full marks. I’ll be breaking down my Oral Presentation script as well as giving some pointers about giving the Oral Presentation on the day.
Scroll down to the bottom to read my full Oral Presentation script!
The Topic I Chose and How I Chose It
You’ve probably heard a million times before to choose an issue that you’re passionate about. This can often leave you thinking, I don’t know what I’m passionate about! or I’m not passionate about anything in the media right now! I was one of those students in the beginning, but this is how I chose an issue that I ended up loving.
Taking Inspiration From My Other Year 12 Subjects
The subject I enjoyed the most in Year 12 was Legal Studies, and my love for this subject guided me in choosing an issue that I genuinely wanted to speak about. I was lucky to have a Legal Studies teacher who was a big nerd in everything law-related, and he often liked to update us about recent and ongoing legal cases that he found interesting. One case that he told us about that I became very interested in was the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case against Nine Entertainment where some journalists called out Ben Roberts-Smith (a war veteran) for committing war crimes. Roberts-Smith sued these journalists, alleging that this wasn’t true.
I knew I wanted to speak about this case, but I also knew that I had to argue an opinion, and not just provide an overview of the case. So, I began my research into the views of the stakeholders in the case. Something that was very useful to me in my research was news podcasts! In particular, I came across a podcast episode from a podcast called Please Explain(as of 26/02/2024 it seems to have been rebranded and is now called The Morning Edition) by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, where the actual journalists that were getting sued in the case talked about their experiences. After listening to this podcast episode on the way home from school, I found myself really sympathising with the journalists and that’s how I knew that I wanted to speak about this defamation case from the journalists’ perspective.
After some thinking, the contention that I arrived at was this:
More should be done to protect public interest journalism.
So my advice for choosing an Oral Topic that you love is to take inspiration from other subjects you’re studying and enjoying, and to pick up on and research anything that your teachers tell you about that piques your interest!
Breaking Down My Script
The Introduction
A Hook Start
Let me take you back in time. Six years ago, in 2017, many of us in this classroom were in Year 6, probably sitting in a primary school classroom, learning what an isosceles triangle is. And obviously, we had all been paying attention because now everyone’s thinking, “Oh yeah, I remember what an isosceles triangle is!” and we’re all imagining a tall triangle that looks like this.
Grabbing the audience’s attention from the very start of your speech is key! To do this, I tried to open up my speech in an interesting way by encouraging the audience to do something - to reflect on what their lives looked like six years ago. Hook starts such as the one I used (which establish a common ground with the audience) were commonly used among my classmates - they quickly grab the audience’s attention and are relatively easy to implement!
In my Statement of Intention*, I wrote that ‘I initially engage[d] my audience with a hook start, encouraging them to cast their minds back to 2017, and through the imagery of a primary school classroom, I aim[ed] to establish relatability and common ground with the audience, positioning them to be more agreeable to my arguments later on.’
*Statement of Intention - a written statement accompanying my Oral Presentation, where I explained the choices I made in my presentation. As of 2024 and with the implementation of the new study design, students are no longer required to submit a Statement of Intention with their Oral Presentations. However, if you’re curious to know more about Statements of Intention, check out this blog.
Providing Context
Now, while our Year 6 teachers were providing us with the life-changing information that is the different types of triangles, something bigger was happening on Collins Street. A huge news sausage was in the making. Picture this: a conversation between two passionate and overworked journalists, working for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. One of which had heard whispers from his contact book of Australian military circles that our most decorated living soldier was not the person that everyone thought he was, and that he had in fact been involved in war crimes like the killing of unarmed civilians. A shared desire to put these rumours to the test, with an open mind, wanting to disprove them as much as to prove them.
This marked the start of a 4-year long legal battle in the form of a defamation lawsuit lodged by decorated war vet Ben Roberts Smith against two investigative journalists, Chris Masters and Nick McKenzie. And, after more than 100 days of hearings, this battle recently ended, with the judge ruling overwhelmingly in favour of Masters and McKenzie that what they had reported about Roberts Smith was substantially true, hence the two had not defamed him.
I spent a fair bit of time explaining the issue of protections around public interest journalism in the context of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case because it was a bit of a niche issue and I thought that my audience of Year 12 students were unlikely to have known too much about it. To keep this explanation engaging, I tried to explain the case in a descriptive and dramatic way, as if the events were unfolding in front of their eyes, and I tried not to make it sound like I was just listing background information. To do this, I used phrases like ‘A huge news sausage was in the making’, ‘Picture this’, to really set the scene in a dramatic way!
A side note on choosing niche topics for the Oral Presentation: I know it’s often NOT recommended to choose topics that are unlikely to be well-known by your fellow students. This is because it can be disengaging when a student goes on a 5-minute tangent using complicated jargon on a topic that none of the other students know anything about. And… I guess I kind of turned that rule on its head! But this was precisely why I wanted to spend a chunk of my speech explaining the context of my issue - so that my speech would be accessible to my audience, so they wouldn’t be bored, and so we would all be on the same page.
At the end of the day, it’s all about finding a balance between choosing a topic that you love and a topic that is easy for the audience to understand. So, if the topic that you would love to present to the class might be a bit less well-known, my advice would be to make sure to provide adequate context and spend a bit of time explaining key information at the start so that your speech is more accessible to the audience!
Stating Contention
ABC News called it a win for public interest journalism. So why have I brought up this case today to highlight that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism?
After my explanation section, I smoothly slid into contention territory. Even though I didn’t directly state my contention (i.e. I didn’t say “I believe that more should be done to protect public interest journalism”), through the question, ‘Why have I brought up this case to highlight that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism?’, I implied that my contention was exactly that - that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism.
The Supporting Arguments
I actually only had one supporting argument throughout my whole Oral Presentation, and although this might be an unusual way to do it, it worked well for me since I needed to spend quite a bit of time introducing the issue at the start. My one supporting argument was bulky enough that I had a complete speech with just a long introduction, bulky argument and conclusion.
Work out what might work best for you in your presentation. If your issue needs a bit of breaking down like mine did, it might be easier to stick to a very simple structure.
Outlining the Supporting Argument and Providing Evidence
Legal battles in general are a huge issue for journalism because they can be used as a threat to journalists. This defamation lawsuit was only the tip of the legal iceberg for Masters and McKenzie. They also faced challenges to source protection and Roberts-Smith’s numerous attempts to silence the two and other witnesses by sending them legal letters telling them to shut up, to suppress the truth about his actions from coming to light.
I then went on to explain my supporting argument - that legal battles such as defamation cases put public interest journalism at risk (which is why, going back to my overall contention, more should be done to protect public interest journalism). As you can see, I constantly linked back to the Roberts-Smith defamation case because that’s what I wanted to speak about, but I did not have to do this and you absolutely don’t have to - a general explanation would have gotten the job done just as well.
You might be wondering why I didn’t signpost at the start of my supporting argument - in other words, why I didn’t include a sentence like “My first supporting argument is that legal battles such as defamation cases put public interest journalism at risk”. Some teachers love signposting and encourage students to do so. If your teacher seems to prefer clear signposting, go ahead and do that!
TIP: Keep in mind that for anything internally marked, it is important that you keep your teacher/school’s preferences and requirements in mind.
My teacher wasn’t as insistent on signposting, and I personally didn’t like how clear signposting made my speech sound a bit robotic, so to keep the flow of the speech I decided to fluff it out and start my argument the way that I did. You’ll also notice a lack of signposting throughout my speech in general for the same reasons.
The biggest issue about the Ben Roberts Smith defamation case for journalists and news corporations has been costs. Their win has come with a hefty price tag estimated to be around $25 million, and even though the majority of this is to be borne by the loser of the trial, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers will still end up losing millions of dollars, just for defending themselves and their journalists in court.
I backed up my supporting argument with some evidence. To quote my Statement of Intention, ‘I went on to use numerical statistics like “4 year[s]” and “100 days of hearings” to emphasise that much of Masters and McKenzie’s time and energy was taken by BRS’s claim, aiming to evoke sympathy for them and positioning readers to agree that more protections are needed to prevent journalists from being involved in these time-consuming legal battles. I also established costs as another major issue using the statistic of “$25 million” to emphasise that not only are these legal battles time-consuming, but also expensive, and through connotations of immensity when describing this as a “hefty price tag”’.’
Explaining the Argument and How It Is Relevant to the Audience
But why exactly is this our issue? It’s not like we’re the ones having to pay millions of dollars.
But it becomes our issue when this financial burden creates a chilling effect on public interest journalism. Fear of bankruptcy or crippling financial strain forces journalists to retreat, self censor or settle for silence. This financial issue for news organisations becomes our issue as the quality of our public interest journalism deteriorates and we are deprived of vital information.
Throughout my speech, I made an effort to constantly tie it back to the audience and explain why exactly this issue was important and relevant to them. This was important for me to do because the issue I chose was relatively niche so I felt like I had to prove to them that this issue was worth presenting. Even if the issue you’re presenting isn’t exactly niche, it’s important to link back to the audience every now and then and to remind them why it’s important to them. In my case, I explained that defamation cases like the Roberts-Smith case against journalists and news corporations were a threat to high school students having access to information that they should be aware of!
Something else that I attempted to do here was to include some persuasive devices! To quote my Statement of Intention, ‘having established costs as a major issue, I segued into the effect that these costs can have on journalists, listing these effects as causing journalists to “retreat, self-censor or settle for silence”, and through listing and sibilance in the latter half of this phrase, I aimed to make these effects memorable to listeners, emphasising the consequences of the costs of legal battles on journalists and public interest journalism.”’
Evidence
Masters and McKenzie talked about the pressure that was put on them to leave the rumours about Ben Roberts Smith be. Chris explained that his colleagues tried to convince him not to fight with Ben Roberts Smith by telling him that it was like shooting Bambi. Well, I guess in that case, he would have been shooting Bambi for shooting unarmed civilians, which sounds pretty fair to me. Nick explained that convincing their bosses to publish the story was an exhaustive process, and even after successfully having their story on Roberts Smith published, Chris said there was a propaganda war waiting for them, with their former colleagues being hired by other news corporations to criticise them and disassemble their work, with their story being put on the cover of a rival newspaper, as an attack on Chris, accusing him of smearing the memories of dead soldiers, and it was designed to intimidate and hurt him and his biding relationships with people in the military who consider him a deep friend. These attempts of BRS to silence the two are not just unfair - as students, we want to grow up in a world where people are held accountable regardless of their connections or wealth.
After explaining my argument, I backed it up with evidence by going back to the defamation case and giving practical, real-life examples of how this case may have worked to hinder the quality of public interest journalism. I took much of the information in this section from the podcast that I talked about earlier (where Masters and McKenzie talked about their firsthand experiences) - for example, the so-called “propaganda war” that Masters faced after having the story published, rival news outlets who were on the side of Roberts-Smith publishing articles attacking Masters - and explained that this was designed to intimidate the two investigative journalists and deter them from exposing controversial stories against prominent figures. I not only told but also showed my audience that legal battles were a very real threat to journalism. I referred to this section of my speech as ‘personal anecdotes’ in my Statement of Intention and I wrote that I hoped to make my speech more convincing by illustrating the consequences of legal battles that Masters and Mckenzie experienced firsthand.
I tried my best to not make this section sound too much like a “he said, she said” situation by slipping in some of my own commentary. My tutor at the time (yes, I also had an LSG English tutor!) gave me the idea of mirroring ‘shooting Bambi’ with ‘shooting unarmed civilians’, and it was so brutal but I liked it so much that I decided to implement it as part of my commentary. In my Statement of Intention, I wrote that this comparison ‘aims to portray Masters and McKenzie as merely holding him accountable for his actions rather than bullying him, encouraging audiences to view journalists as necessary whistleblowers that require protections.’
My final sentence in this section worked to link all of this back to the audience and remind them, again, why all of this was relevant to them!
The Conclusion
It’s obvious that in the end, it didn’t really matter that, this time, the courts sided with the journalists and news corporations in this legal battle. Because the reality is that the fact that this legal battle existed in the first place has been enough of a threat to public interest journalism, with cover up attempts and pressures to retreat, and may be a sign of many other stories being covered up. If two journalists, working for big news companies, felt the chilling effect of the legal battles that they came across, how much worse is it for smaller news organisations or independent journalists, who don’t have the deep pockets that The Age, Masters and McKenzie had in withstanding these challenges? This is only the tip of the iceberg of other stories that need to be broken and known by the public. We can’t continue to allow the law to be weaponised against journalists and against democracy. Thus, the recent conclusion of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case is a sign that more should be done to protect public interest journalism.
In my concluding paragraph, I did three things:
I wrapped up
I aimed to evoke a sense of urgency on the issue (the bolded part)
I restated my contention at the very end to seal the deal
I didn’t exactly include a call to action in the part where I evoked a sense of urgency, but you totally could if that would work for your speech!
It’s optional to restate your contention as your final sentence, and I opted to do this. I wanted to emphasise the point of my speech again so that my conclusion didn’t sound like it was straying away from the actual contention. I’d say do it if it flows well with the rest of your conclusion because when it’s done right, it really is like ending your speech with a bang!
I’ve Finished Writing a Killer Oral Script. What Now?
When you’ve perfected your speech script, it’s practice time! The way you present the speech is arguably as important, if not even more important than the script itself - presenting your speech in an engaging way can really make your script shine while presenting it in a dull way can make even the best script sound unappealing.
Practice saying your speech out loud as early as possible and work towards having at least 85-95% of your speech committed to memory (especially if you’re paranoid and get anxious about public speaking like me). By the time I presented my Oral, I had memorised about 95% of my speech and the fact that I knew it off by heart gave me confidence and helped me feel less paranoid that I would mess up. This being said, I would definitely recommend having cue cards with dot points of your main ideas or little prompts with you in the presentation (which I also did), just in case you suddenly blank out!
I spent a week memorising my speech, reciting it out loud over and over again in my bedroom. In doing this, I pretty intuitively found the spots where I wanted to include pauses, change up my intonation or emphasise certain words or phrases - I committed these things to my muscle memory. If public speaking doesn’t come naturally to you, it might be a good idea to highlight and annotate your script and physically write in the parts where you want to include pauses or emphasise words. Practice with that script in front of you until you’ve memorised those things.
I also generally focused on my projection making sure to speak loudly, and I paid attention to my speed and diction. I tend to speed up and start rapping my speech when I’m nervous, so I made a conscious effort to speak slower and steadier in my practice runs, trying to engrain the perfect speed in my muscle memory (to varying levels of success haha). I also tried to make sure I was pronouncing everything clearly and that I wasn’t mumbling.
Before I started my presentation, I took a moment to take a deep breath, shake out my nerves and fix my posture. Good posture is the first step to feeling confident or faking confidence (which we all are when we’re up there)!
What I Wish I Had Done Before I Did My Oral Presentation
If I could go back and give my Year 12 self advice on the Oral, it would be this:
Practice saying my speech in front of someone.
I was pretty shy about my speech - you might relate - so I was very reluctant to practice my speech in front of my peers and even my friends. Unfortunately, this meant that I never practised it in front of another person at all, not even once. This is something that I really regret because I didn’t get to practice keeping a good balance between holding eye contact and looking at my cue cards. This ended up being a criticism from my teacher when she assessed my presentation! My teacher also criticised the fact that I didn’t hold an equal amount of eye contact throughout the whole classroom - she wrote that the right side of the classroom must have felt left out because I barely looked in their direction, haha! So, if you can, I really recommend getting out of your comfort zone and practising presenting your Oral in front of your friends or family members… and practice holding eye contact!
If you’ve made it to the end of this blog post, I’m assuming you’ll be having your Oral Presentation soon. Good luck, and try to enjoy presenting your speech if you can, because it’s the first and last time you will ever have the opportunity to present it!
My Full Oral Presentation Script: More Should Be Done To Protect Public Interest Journalism
Let me take you back in time. Six years ago, in 2017, many of us in this classroom were in Year 6, probably sitting in a primary school classroom, learning what an isosceles triangle is. And obviously, we had all been paying attention because now everyone’s thinking, “Oh yeah, I remember what an isosceles triangle is!” and we’re all imagining a tall triangle that looks like this.
Now, while our Year 6 teachers were providing us with the life-changing information that is the different types of triangles, something bigger was happening on Collins Street. A huge news sausage was in the making. Picture this: a conversation between two passionate and overworked journalists, working for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. One of which had heard whispers from his contact book of Australian military circles that our most decorated living soldier was not the person that everyone thought he was, and that he had in fact been involved in war crimes like the killing of unarmed civilians. A shared desire to put these rumours to the test, with an open mind, wanting to disprove them as much as to prove them.
This marked the start of a 4-year long legal battle in the form of a defamation lawsuit lodged by decorated war vet Ben Roberts Smith against two investigative journalists, Chris Masters and Nick McKenzie. And, after more than 100 days of hearings, this battle recently ended, with the judge ruling overwhelmingly in favour of Masters and McKenzie that what they had reported about Roberts Smith was substantially true, hence the two had not defamed him.
ABC News called it a win for public interest journalism. So why have I brought up this case today to highlight that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism?
Legal battles in general are a huge issue for journalism because they can be used as a threat to journalists. This defamation lawsuit was only the tip of the legal iceberg for Masters and McKenzie. They also faced challenges to source protection and Roberts-Smith’s numerous attempts to silence the two and other witnesses by sending them legal letters telling them to shut up, to suppress the truth about his actions from coming to light.
The biggest issue about the Ben Roberts Smith defamation case for journalists and news corporations has been costs. Their win has come with a hefty price tag estimated to be around $25 million, and even though the majority of this is to be borne by the loser of the trial, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers will still end up losing millions of dollars, just for defending themselves and their journalists in court.
But why exactly is this our issue? It’s not like we’re the ones having to pay millions of dollars.
But it becomes our issue when this financial burden creates a chilling effect on public interest journalism. Fear of bankruptcy or crippling financial strain forces journalists to retreat, self censor or settle for silence. This financial issue for news organisations becomes our issue as the quality of our public interest journalism deteriorates and we are deprived of vital information.
Masters and McKenzie talked about the pressure that was put on them to leave the rumours about Ben Roberts Smith be. Chris explained that his colleagues tried to convince him not to fight with Ben Roberts Smith by telling him that it was like shooting Bambi. Well, I guess in that case, he would have been shooting Bambi for shooting unarmed civilians, which sounds pretty fair to me. Nick explained that convincing their bosses to publish the story was an exhaustive process, and even after successfully having their story on Roberts Smith published, Chris said there was a propaganda war waiting for them, with their former colleagues being hired by other news corporations to criticise them and disassemble their work, with their story being put on the cover of a rival newspaper, as an attack on Chris, accusing him of smearing the memories of dead soldiers, and it was designed to intimidate and hurt him and his biding relationships with people in the military who consider him a deep friend. These attempts of BRS to silence the two are not just unfair - as students, we want to grow up in a world where people are held accountable regardless of their connections or wealth.
It’s obvious that in the end, it didn’t really matter that, this time, the courts sided with the journalists and news corporations in this legal battle. Because the reality is that the fact that this legal battle existed in the first place has been enough of a threat to public interest journalism, with cover up attempts and pressures to retreat, and may be a sign of many other stories being covered up. If two journalists, working for big news companies, felt the chilling effect of the legal battles that they came across, how much worse is it for smaller news organisations or independent journalists, who don’t have the deep pockets that The Age, Masters and McKenzie had in withstanding these challenges? This is only the tip of the iceberg of other stories that need to be broken and known by the public. We can’t continue to allow the law to be weaponised against journalists and against democracy. Thus, the recent conclusion of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case is a sign that more should be done to protect public interest journalism.
There are a plethora of controversial issues in the current Australian media that may be perfect for your 2017 oral presentation! Below are just a few ideas to get you started on your way towards acing that SAC. Remember, pick a topic that you’re passionate and enthusiastic about. Don’t forget that there is no ‘right’ opinion, however, make sure you offer a distinctive argument, even if it means adopting an alternative point of view. Good luck!
Should the Australian Government ban the wearing of the burka in public?
Should the homeless be banned from Melbourne’s CBD? (Robert Doyle proposal)
Should the Australia Government continue to fund the Safe Schools Coalition?
Should gay marriage be legalised in Australia?
Should the date of Australia Day be replaced/changed?
Treatment of asylum seekers in detention centres (especially women and children)
Is enough action being taken to diminish the sugar industry propaganda to minimise obesity?
Should on – site pill testing be mandatory at all public events?
Cultural insensitivity in Australia
Is the development of technology and social media encouraging narcissism in young adults?
Victoria’s legal system
Stem cell research
Is the development of technology and social media encouraging the sexualisation of boys and girls?
Drug testing and drug control in Australia (Bourke Street attack)
Fake news being published by researchers to the media
Should Victoria’s juvenile justice system be improved by the Government?
Do students learn as effectively with ebooks compared with traditional, hardcopy books?
Should security footage of detention centres be released?
Is Australia becoming an alcohol and sugar driven society?
Has the notion of privacy been compromised in the 21st century? (internet, technology, terrorism)
Before you start writing your oral presentation, you can't miss our A+ tips that have helped hundreds of students get perfect marks in their SAC. Stand out from others with confidence now.
It’s that time of year again when many VCE English students start brainstorming their Oral Presentation SACs. To help you out, we’ve collated some of the biggest names and issues in the recent Australian media.
Each heading represents a broad, ongoing issue, and under it are more specific debates within each issue. Going down a more precise route with your topic selection can make your speech a lot more engaging and current, so pick a broad issue that speaks to you, and ‘zoom in’ on a debate for your speech. Don't forget to also check outOur Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for everything you need to know for Oral Presentations.
CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Green New Deal
Originally, the 'New Deal' was a bunch of economic reforms that restimulated the economy back into action after the Great Depression. The 'Green New Deal' is a bunch of policies that combines this economic approach with the need to fight the climate crisis. It was first brought before the United States Congress by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in late 2018, but was ultimately voted down. It called for a 10-year transformation of the economy to provide green jobs; transition to renewable, zero-emission energy sources; and eliminate pollution across sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture and transport.
Is this something that we need to adopt in Australia? Is now the best time for that conversation, given the political climate (not to mention the actual climate of the worst bushfire season in history)? And what exactly are the options?
2019 saw the emergence of the 'school strike for climate', an international movement of students skipping school to demonstrate and demand action on climate change. It took off after Greta Thunberg, a Swedish schoolgirl, began protesting outside the Swedish parliament in late 2018.
It sparked widespread discussion on young people, education and the merits of striking. Scott Morrison was drawn into the discussion, stating that he doesn’t 'want our children to have anxieties about these issues', while defending his government’s track record on renewable energy investment.
So - should young people be worrying about these issues at all? Are they missing out on crucial years of education by taking to the streets? And, is what they’re saying really unreasonable at all?
What should a Prime Minister do in a state of national emergency? While Morrison delegated many of the duties to state premiers, are these distinctions important in times of crisis? Is he the leader we deserve after his resounding, miraculous election victory in 2019? Where to from here?
An ETS basically makes carbon gas emissions an economic good that gets bought and sold like any other - corporations that emit more gas will need to now purchase permission to emit, while corporations that emit less will be able to sell their permits. The debate for an ETS in Australia is old (surprisingly perhaps, John Howard first broached the idea towards the end of his Prime Ministership), but became political poison after Julia Gillard introduced it despite promising that her government wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax in the 2010 election. It has since been scrapped, making Australia the only government in the world to ever dismantle an operational ETS.
A decade later, is it now the right time to revisit this discussion? Just why are so many people opposed to policy that would stop corporations from emitting for free? And what does this mean for our international reputation and commitments?
So this is nothing particularly new, but it’s unfortunately still present even as we move into 2020. Should sports stars be penalised for their opinions when they’re exclusionary and harmful, or should we respect them for their sporting prowess? Maybe this speaks more broadly to the standards we expect sporting stars or public figures in general to set as role models…
Bear with me on this one - while she isn’t specifically a ‘social equity’ debate, Lizzo’s emergence as a breakout singer of 2019 intersects with a lot of social equity movements, from body positivity and feminism to racial justice and self-empowerment. Her upcoming shows in Australia sold out in minutes, which speaks to her newfound popularity as a global star.
What is it about Lizzo that resonates with so many people? What and who does she represent? Is the new decade also a watershed moment for diversity in entertainment?
Again, this one isn’t too new, but a fresh wave of activism for equal pay in sport was sparked this year by Megan Rapinoe, the captain of the US women’s national soccer team (which won the World Cup in 2019). She, her team and the men’s team sued the national soccer federation for gender discrimination and other countries, Australia included, followed suit.
Why does the wage gap exist and what are the reasons for closing it? Is a preference for the men’s game enough to justify paying women less (despite the fact that preferences like this are usually rooted in misogyny and are subjective anyway)? And how does this translate between different sports such as soccer, AFLW and tennis (where Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic have clashed over this before)?
Newstart is Australia’s income support for those aged 22 to 64 who are unemployed. Though a form of social security, it’s fallen behind in terms of how much economic security it can provide recently, with years of no real increases (that is, increases which offset inflation - basically things are getting more expensive and even if Newstart increases, it doesn’t give you more purchasing power in reality).
Is it finally time to increase Newstart? There was some discussion around the holiday season being particularly expensive, but should an increase be permanent? How hard is it to get a job in today’s economy? And are the payments enough to live on if you can’t find a job?
'Voice' was the Australian National Dictionary Centre’s word of the year in 2019, in the context of Indigenous representation in the Australian parliament. A Voice to Parliament would enshrine Indigenous input into laws and policies on issues affecting First Nations communities, and has been called for by activists for some time now.
How does this tie into/is this distinct from other issues such as constitutional recognition? Why haven’t we seen a lot of progress or consensus on these issues? And what might it mean for those communities to be able to make autonomous decisions?
Australian teachers have been struggling with increasingly difficult jobs and flat-lining pay in recent years, and teachers’ unions haven’t been able to successfully find a solution to offset these concerns. Tertiary students are now turning away from pursuing a career in education, and there could be many reasons as to why.
What does this mean for the future of Australian education? In what ways do you as a student feel the impacts? And what could be some solutions - perhaps both from a teacher’s point of view, but also from a student-centric viewpoint?
Unfortunately, Australian students have been falling behind many of their global counterparts in terms of educational outcomes - we even hit our worst ever results in the OECD’s international student assessment in 2018.
What does this mean in an increasingly globalised world and is there a way to turn this around? How might a student perspective on this be unique from that of a politician for example, or another stakeholder? And is education an isolated issue, or should we be looking at more holistic solutions that incorporate health-related, economic and/or social solutions as well?
This is another one of those long-running debates, though it’s on the table again as the ACT has recently legalised recreational cannabis. This goes against federal law, which still bans the possession and use of weed, and makes Canberra the first Australian jurisdiction to decriminalise it. Canberra has also led the way on issues such as same-sex marriage, legalising it as early as 2013 (four years before the rest of the nation would follow suit).
Discussion about other drugs such as ecstasy has also been raised as a result, and this piece might be an interesting read on why different drugs have different legal statuses.
Still, is legalising pot the way to go considering how other Western democracies are already moving in this direction? Is it even a harmful drug at all? And what about the others, such as ecstasy? Or even alcohol, for that matter?
This is an interesting and pretty recent phenomenon - climate grief or climate burnout are new terms that have come into existence to describe the mental health impacts of the climate crisis. In particular, they describe the frustration and despair that people may feel as a result, given that progress on reducing carbon emissions is frighteningly slow and natural disasters are becoming more frequent and devastating at the same time.
What is your take on it and who’s feeling it? Do you have to be affected by disasters, or can it also affect young people who feel pessimistic about the future of the planet? And what could be some strategies for overcoming it? What is the importance of seeing climate through a health lens and how might it inspire activism or change?
2019 saw some other new developments in the conversation around mental health in Australia. A report found that mental health concerns are getting more widespread among young people, while government investment doesn’t really seem to be effective.
Meanwhile, we’re also seeing progress on destigmatising mental health issues within sport - overseas, athletes such as Paul Merson and Stan Collymore have shared stories of their battles, while Cricket Australia looks into ways of creating more supportive environments for their players.
How can we streamline the message around mental health, or the relevant support networks? What solutions haven’t we tried yet, and how might the discussion around this shift in the next decade? What are the implications if we don’t address these issues?
Note that this can be a sensitive issue which may cause distress to some people.
NSW recently legalised abortions for pregnancies shorter than 22 weeks after one of the longest debates in their state Upper House. While the choice versus life debate has raged around the world for decades now (i.e. maybe don’t do a pro-choice speech that people will have heard before, and probably don’t do a pro-life speech in 2020), what is the landscape of the debate like in our day and age?
Who opposes it and why? What is the problem with making health issues criminal issues instead (e.g. drug policy as well)? And what other issues might be linked to this? Can someone who is pro-life also support tougher border restrictions that lead to refugee deaths at sea, for example?
Note that this can be a sensitive issue which may cause distress to some people.
Wondering where to go from here? Well, luckily, my eBook, How To Write A Killer Oral Presentation, details my exact step-by-step process so you can get that A+ in your SAC this year.
Access a step-by-step guide on how to write your Oral Presentation with simple, easy-to-follow advice
Read and analyse sample A+ Oral Presentations with EVERY speech annotated and broken down on HOW and WHY students achieved A+ so you reach your goal
Learn how to stand out from other students with advice on your speech delivery
Sounds like something that'd help you? I think so too! Access the full eBook by clicking here!
Can you believe it’s already 2021? To kick off the year in VCE English, you’ll probably be working on your Oral Presentation sometime soon. The past year has flown by, but so much has happened in that year - there are plenty of juicy and controversial topics to get stuck into for your SAC.
Each heading below represents a broad topic and each subheading under it takes you into more specific debates. A more precise topic can make your speech more engaging and current, so feel free to pick a broad issue that resonates with you but don’t forget to zoom in on more specific questions too.
ICYMI, there’s been this global pandemic going around for about a year now. It’ll probably come up in a few speeches this year, but let’s work through some more specific ways of using it in yours.
First up is working from home. In 2020, a lot of people spent a lot of time working from home - but this hasn’t been possible for everyone, meaning that it could be worsening certain forms of inequality. ‘Essential workers’ like supermarket clerks and delivery drivers have not been able to work from home, which might put them at a disadvantage when it comes to the flexibility or even the conditions of their work. Conversely, a ‘tax on remote workers’ has been proposed which would see people pay a 5% tax if they chose to work from home instead.
Is working from home all that it’s chalked up to be? Is it a positive sign of flexibility, or a widening gap between the manual working class and white-collar professionals? What can we learn about working from home now that we can apply to the future? Is it the environmentally responsible thing to do?
All workplaces, especially those with essential manual or physical labour, should provide paid health and safety training to staff who are for example more at risk of disease
A working from home tax is a bad idea - it encourages people to commute and pollute. We should look to ways of promoting flexibility and sustainability instead
Casual workers in manual professions should be given paid sick leave and other entitlements to make their jobs as flexible as remote office workers
2. Education
You might’ve spent 2020 learning from home too. Everything happened pretty quickly right at the start of the year, but as the months wore on it became clearer that some students were adjusting better than others. In particular, ‘digital exclusion’ became a big problem for many students around the country. Inequality is once again a big theme: access to the internet and other technology is vastly uneven, and students who were already dealing with things like mental ill-health were set further back by remote learning. Even though the Victorian government applied special considerations to all Year 12 students in 2020, this is far from a long-term fix.
What can be done about the education system to make it fairer, or even just to make it work better for you? Is it an issue with technology, or are there underlying problems around, say, mental health and wellbeing? Maybe it’s time to axe the ATAR system - would a new scoring system solve these problems?
The government should supply public schools with tech for every student, including iPads and broadband devices
The government should implement a needs-based approach to technology in schools
Schools need engagement staff as well as teaching staff: COVID-19 has shown just how easy it is for students to disconnect
Replace the ATAR with something that measures skills and interests, rather than just results
The Climate Crisis
1. The Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement is an international agreement that was signed a little over five years ago. It binds every country to a commitment of carbon neutrality by 2050 - this means that everyone will be taking as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as we emit. Part of the Agreement is that countries have to commit to new, increasingly ambitious plans every five years, and this deadline has just passed.
How did we do, you might ask. While the mid-century goal still stands, the five-year increment isn’t looking fantastic - most countries, including Australia, haven’t strengthened their climate targets. The Prime Minister was even snubbed out of a speaking slot at a UN climate summit, some suggest because of his inaction on climate. None of this has really snatched headlines though.
Is this something that you’ve been following? If not, is it a problem that this news isn’t really getting out there? What can Australia do better with regard to the climate crisis?
Australia needs to be proactive on the Paris Agreement, rather than doing the bare minimum
Australia needs to transition away from coal
Our country’s lack of climate action is a great source of shame, particularly for young Australians who want a better future
The Australian media should take the climate crisis more seriously
2. Environmental Racism
One aspect of the climate crisis we’re starting to talk about more now is environmental racism. The term started in the US, where it was used to describe the disproportionate impacts of environmental problems like pollution on working class people of colour. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply in Australia though - earlier in 2020, a sacred Aboriginal site was blasted by Rio Tinto in order to expand a mine. Now, taxpayer money is being set aside for fracking in the Northern Territory. This will have an adverse impact on not only the climate, but also the local water quality on which First Nations communities depend.
What can be done about environmental racism? Is it about making changes in government, or about activism from outside the halls of power? If environmental racism is the problem, is there a solution that can tackle both problems at once? Is it even accurate to refer to them as two separate problems?
Indigenous land rights is not just a social movement: it could help us avoid environmental disaster as well
Politicians are too reliant on fossil fuel companies: we need more grassroots activism around climate justice
Fracking is dangerous, its impacts disproportionately affect BIPOC communities and as such it should be banned
3. A Carbon Price?
This topic was kind of on our 2020 topic list, but the debate around climate action has changed a little bit since. A carbon price would make the atmosphere a commodity basically - corporations would have to pay in order to pollute.
But maybe that’s still giving them too much power? If you can just pay your way out of environmental responsibility, who’s to stop you from polluting? Maybe there isn’t a capitalistic or free-market solution to carbon emissions - maybe we need to rethink our entire relationship with land and country. What can and should Australia learn from its First People in this regard?
A carbon price is still necessary, but it’s a stepping stone in a larger conversation
Putting a price on excessive pollution isn’t the same as creating laws to prevent it: as such, it is no longer enough
Race
1. First Nations Justice
You might recall the huge impact that George Floyd’s death had on conversations about race around the world. Though this erupted in a wave of furore last June, the conversation has been shifting ever since. In Australia, we’ve been grappling in particular with First Nations justice. While the Prime Minister’s made attempts to unify the country through certain words and gestures, First Nations leaders such as Lidia Thorpe, the first Indigenous senator from Victoria, have been calling for something more substantive. In the meantime, police brutality against First Nations people continues.
Where to from here? What does the future of First Nations justice look like in Australia, and what is the role of leaders like Ms Thorpe? Where do non-Aboriginal folks fit into this? What could we do better?
Reconciliation is an outdated term; it implies two parties are coming together as equals, when history would tell us otherwise
Lidia Thorpe’s election is the first step in a longer journey towards representation, truth-telling and self-determination
Even after the #BlackLivesMatter movement in 2020, we still a long way to go with anti-racism
Australia is far from a multicultural utopia: we need to learn to treat politicians like Lidia Thorpe with more respect
2. Refugees
In 2019, the ‘medevac’ bill allowed refugees to be brought to mainland Australia for medical care. That bill has since been repealed, but it did allow some refugees to leave their detention centres and receive medical treatment. 60 of them have now been detained in various Melbourne hotels for over a year now. In December, they were moved to a former COVID-19 quarantine hotel, where they will continue to be isolated and detained.
What injustices (plural) are going on here? Did medevac force us to confront our out-of-sight-out-of-mind asylum seeker policy? And if this isn’t the impetus we need to shut offshore detention once and for all, what exactly will it take?
Bring back medevac: it was a bare minimum policy to begin with, and it’s unconscionable that it would be repealed, thereby denying sick people healthcare
Australia’s refugee policy is as lazy as it is harmful: something needs to change
The hotel industry is profiting off detention and we should consider boycotting chains like Mantra
3. COVID-Related Racism
This could’ve gone in the first section, but it poses important questions about ongoing and future race relations in Australia. During 2020, Asian Australians and particularly those with Chinese heritage experienced a sharp increase in racially-provoked harassment. Towards the end of the year, Chinese Australians were asked in a Senate committee hearing to condemn the Chinese Communist Party, which many have described as race-baiting. Many Australians with Chinese heritage have no relation to the Chinese government, so it’s jarring that they’d be called upon to give an opinion like this.
How does race still impact civic life in Australia? If you’re Australian, should you be expected to have opinions about or deny loyalties to foreign governments? Does it matter what race you are, and if so, how is that problematic?
Politicians are increasingly out of touch with Australia’s diverse communities because they are just so overwhelmingly undiverse
Again, Australia is not a multicultural utopia. When times get tough, the racism really jumps out
Australians are yet to confront the reality that there are Chinese Australians (which sounds like a joke, but based on these articles isn’t really a joke) - their behaviour continues to ‘other’ people who actually really are Australian, telling them they somehow don’t belong
More people of colour should run for public office; this starts with civic empowerment in schools
The Media
1. Representation
As it turns out, journalism isn’t a very diverse profession. When issues about disability come up, for example, they’re often covered by abled journalists in a “pity party” or “inspiration porn” manner. When issues about race come up, it’s also often white people who cover them, usually with racist undertones as well. We started seeing a bit of this in 2020: the stories that kept coming up about people breaking COVID restrictions were often targeting minorities - their names and faces would be splashed across newspaper front pages, while their white counterparts were afforded privacy and forgiven for making a mistake.
How fair is the media landscape towards people from minority backgrounds? What different forms might racism and ableism take in the media, and how can we overcome them? Is it as simple as allowing disabled people to tell their own stories, for example?
The media landscape isn’t fair towards minorities: stereotypes can be subtle but persistent
Journalism schools should create more scholarships for diverse applicants
Australian media should adopt a code of ethics around representation of minorities
2. Youth
This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but young people are also one of the groups that are likely to be underrepresented in the media. A report from the Foundation for Young Australians found that there were not only less stories about young people in the media in 2020, but barely half of them actually quoted a young person.
Again, we return to questions around representation - does the media have an ethical obligation to let young people tell their own stories? How much do you, as a young person, trust the media to accurately depict you? What can be done about this?
Young people can no longer trust the media, and this is detrimental to civic society
There needs to be a national youth broadcaster, kind of like the ABC, run by young people for young people
3. Murdoch
Remember Kevin Rudd? The former Prime Minister has been making waves recently for starting a parliamentary petition for a royal commission into media diversity. The petition was signed by a record 501,876 people, and it looks like the commission - a bit like a government inquiry - will go ahead. The ‘media diversity’ in question isn’t about race or disability though - it’s more about media ownership. In Australia, Rupert Murdoch owns almost two-thirds of metropolitan media circulation. He’s also a climate sceptic, which means a large chunk of his media output is also climate-sceptic.
What is the role of media in democracy, and can it still fulfill that role if one person gets to own so much of it? What are some ways Murdoch has used his influence, and what have been the consequences for the Australian people? What should the royal commission look to now achieve?
Because the media holds government to account in the eyes of the people, one person owning this much of the media gives them too much power
Australia’s climate inaction is a direct result of Murdoch’s media empire, and we need to break it apart to get honest debate and coverage
Pop Culture
1. Sia
In December 2020, the Australian singer Sia was caught in a bit of Twitter beef. She defended casting Maddie Ziegler, an abled actress, in a disabled role for her upcoming film. Disability justice activists argued that autistic people should be able to portray themselves, and that roles for autistic people should be written by them as well. Sia later admitted this was “ableism”, but didn’t back down on her decision.
What is the appropriate way for celebrities and creatives to approach representation? Without debating anyone’s actual identity, how can the film industry do better here?
Abled people shouldn’t write roles for disabled people, nor should they play these roles; if a disabled person can’t play the role, then it isn’t appropriate in the first place
Cancel culture isn’t a thing, given how comfortable Sia feels admitting to ableism and then committing to her decision anyway
We shouldn’t cancel people, but we still need new ways to really hold them to account: otherwise, they can still get away with discrimination
2. Grammys
The Grammy Awards have been oft-criticised for racial biases, including once again in this year’s coming ceremony. Black artists like Beyonce are often relegated to subcategories like R&B and rap - of her 24 Grammy Awards, only one was awarded in a major category (Best Music Video in 2017 for ‘Formation’). Meanwhile, she was arguably snubbed for Album of the Year wins in both 2017 (Adele won) and 2015 (Beck won). Now though, the Grammys are hoping to #ChangeMusic and acknowledge the contributions of Black artists to the industry.
What should this look like? Are award wins all it will take? Is a change for the future enough to fix wrongs of the past? Maybe awards aren’t even that important - is cultural impact what really matters?
The cultural impact of Bla(c)k artists can’t be measured through awards
Awards are a necessary first step to acknowledging Bla(c)k talent in the music industry
Radios stations should make more of an effort to diversify their sets, particularly when local BIPOC talent in Australia is at an all-time high (think Thelma Plum, Sampa the Great etc.)
Be sure to check out our Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for more advice on how to write your speech, presentation tips and more. Or, if you really want to dive in further to make sure you absolutely nail your Oral, then you'll definitely want to check out our How To Write A Killer Oral Presentation ebook - it explores essay structure, the written explanation and even has sample A+ essays so that you can learn from past students who have succeeded in VCE!!
Choosing an Oral Presentation topic can be tough. Finding an idea that’s unique, relevant and interesting all at once can sometimes feel impossible; but don’t worry, this is where we come in! Below is a list of 12 potential Oral Presentation topics for you to draw inspiration from, selected in reference to the VCE assessment criteria.
Remember, this blog is not a resource to give you a finished speech idea, these are just jumping-off points. Plagiarism is very harshly punished in VCE and many other students will currently be reading this very same post, meaning it's up to YOU to figure out how you’ll form a unique angle if you pick one of these topics. To help you do this, each section provides an overview of the cultural events that make this topic relevant. Additionally, possible contentions are included, ensuring you can see how arguments about these topics can be effectively made.
Topics
1. Kanye’s blow-up - The necessity of the media to stop platforming celebrities spreading harmful ideas
American rapper Kanye West has always been a controversial figure, but since his endorsement of Trump in 2016 he’s seemingly been on a particularly bad downward spiral. His descent into increasingly more extremist right-wing politics has led to the question of whether the news media, detached and neutral as they might claim to be, should even be reporting on him.
As of writing (late 2022), Kanye’s recent appearances on far-right talk shows to voice support for Hitler and question the existence of the Holocaust (which has no doubt been topped by something equally controversial by the time this gets published) pushes this question right to its limit.
Events like this are undoubtedly big stories that many people would like to know about, but does reporting on them do more harm than good? Do we realistically all have the self-control to ignore these figures when so much of modern news already revolves around controversy and gossip?
Possible Contentions:
Major media companies should reach an agreement to actively avoid covering celebrity behaviour that spreads dangerous ideas.
News media should make an extra effort to disprove the dangerous ideologies of those they cover, rather than presenting them in a ‘neutral way’.
2. Amber Heard - How online discourse can villainise marginalised groups and encourage ‘dogpiling’
A similar celebrity controversy that dominated 2022 headlines was the two-way public defamation lawsuit between actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, which involved accusations of abuse on both sides. One of the most notable parts of this case was the online depiction of Heard, on social media platforms such as Facebook and Youtube.
Heard emerged as the internet’s new favourite punching bag, with an endless stream of videos and memes where her ‘allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault were mocked for entertainment’. Crucially, these were made to criticise her in a way that most clearly mirrored historical sexist stereotypes about emotionally manipulative women. You probably came across examples of these yourself, as platforms like Youtube have a history of directing users to this kind of content.
As such, key issues were identified in terms of how social media warps online discussions of allegations of abuse. Additionally, like the last topic, the very fact that this legal dispute was publicly broadcast raises questions as to whether the media’s focus on this event may have worsened the issue.
Possible Contentions:
Personal legal proceedings between celebrities are not something that should be broadcast to the public.
The online discussion regarding this trial demonstrates the need for increased regulation of hateful and abusive content on social media platforms.
3. Should Australia be made a republic in the wake of the Queen’s death?
The death of Queen Elizabeth II in September of 2022, among many other things, drew Australia back into a debate it's been having for decades; should we become a republic? This would be a shift from our current state of (effectively) being overseen by the United Kingdom as a ‘constitutional parliamentary monarchy’, with the ‘head of state’ now being an Australian citizen rather than the UK monarch.
Although the replacement of the Queen with the new head of state (King Charles III) shouldn’t really shift people’s perspective on this issue, it most likely will. Queen Elizabeth has been the welcoming and approachable symbol of the monarchy for many Australians. Her death could be the catalyst for a shift in public opinion, severing the connection that many citizens still had to the UK monarchy.
This issue can be approached from many different angles, inducing discussion on HOW the process of Australia becoming a republic should occur (especially how the new head of state should be chosen), as well as stepping back and assessing the positives and negatives of making this shift.
Possible Contentions:
Australia’s transition to a republic is a necessary step in helping honour the country’s Indigenous population and rejecting its colonial past
Australia’s transition to a republic, although often framed as an act of national unity, will actually worsen the cultural divides within our country.
Although Australia should transition to a republic, the current rise of nationalist politics makes a public election of the new head of state extremely risky.
4. Are NFTs a positive advancement in contemporary technology?
Whether or not you understand what it actually means, the phrase ‘NFTs’ has probably been inescapable on your social media feeds over the last year. Without getting too detailed, these ‘Non-Fungible Tokens’ are essentially investments into non-replicable representations of artwork, which will (supposedly) increase in value over time.
Despite seemingly being an exciting new technology that could have given control back to artists through copyright ownership, NFTs have instead been heavily criticised for commercialising artwork by reducing it to a literal piece of digital currency. Further issues have arisen in terms of how this technology can easily be used to scam people through misrepresenting the value of individual NFTs, or NFT owners simply taking the money and running.
What do you think? All new technology seems shaky and uncertain at the start, and maybe we should recognise that the current negative impacts of NFTs must simply be overcome with time. How do we weigh the benefit this technology has for individual artists against its potential drawbacks?
Possible Contentions:
For their many flaws, NFTs give the power back to creators and, therefore, need to be improved rather than roundly rejected.
Despite preaching democratisation, NFTs and Bitcoin are both a part of a technological trend that will further increase wealth inequality.
5. How much can Western citizens really do to fight injustice via social media activism?
The effect of the COVID pandemic on developing countries, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and human rights abuses by the nation of Qatar - this year has seen an innumerable number of news stories that would make any reasonable person jump to their phones to see what they could do to help, like signing an online petition or sharing a public post to spread awareness.
However, as you probably know, these forms of social media 'slacktivism’ have historically drawn criticism for their ineffectiveness and self-serving nature. Increasingly though, this debate has become more complicated, moving away from the simplified dismissal of any social media activism that emerged around the turn of the century. Others have rightly pointed out that many influential contemporary social movements, that have had real-world impacts, did emerge from social media, such as the BLM and #MeToo movements.
As such, there’s a lot of room for different arguments here regarding whether a critical perspective of ‘social media slacktivism’ has become outdated in a world that is increasingly unavoidably based on the internet.
Possible Contentions:
Social media activism is unavoidably the way that young people are going to engage with political issues, and a rejection of it is naive and impractical.
Political activism should distance itself from the online world if it wants to make real-world change that doesn’t fit neatly under existing power structures.
6. Is the overload of various media streaming service subscriptions sustainable?
‘Streaming fatigue’ has emerged as a 2023 talking point that may have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. Remember when we just had Netflix offering us a new way of consuming film and TV that was both more convenient and cost-effective than ‘pay TV’ packages (which were often heavily inflated in price and packed with unwanted channels)?
However, as we move into 2023, many have argued that the current subscription landscape now mirrors the previous pay-TV model. Consumers once again find themselves having to pay for an increasingly large amount of services if they want to conveniently access their film and TV shows. Predictably, this has seen a re-emergence of video piracy.
Does this mean that it's fundamentally impossible for us to access our media as conveniently as we’d like to, and the years of Netflix being the only streaming service that had all we wanted were never sustainable? Or maybe corporations are unfairly squeezing every dollar they can out of us, and piracy is a fair and just consumer response?
Possible Contentions:
Through offering convenience that is unparalleled by any other previous technology, streaming services are still worth the cost.
Consumers should actively engage in digital piracy until media corporations create a more affordable streaming environment.
7. Is a post-COVID work-at-home model healthy for the next generation of workers?
Although 2020 and 2021 may be remembered as the ‘years of COVID’, 2022 onwards is perhaps when we will see which long-term impacts of the pandemic continue to stick around. Aside from the permanent placement of public hand sanitiser stations, working from home has emerged as one of the most prominent main-stays from our lockdown years.
Is this something that we should embrace? A lot was said during the lockdown about the mental health effects of being deprived of human connection; is this something we should just forget about when it comes to work? As with many of these issues, the question arises as to whether this shift is an inevitable effect of technological advancement, which we can either accept or fruitlessly battle until it becomes the new normal.
However, the fact that this ‘work from home’ dynamic only emerged due to a pandemic complicates this idea, making it possible that we may have accidentally all become accustomed to a new economic model of work that we would be better off without.
Possible Contentions:
We must actively push back against the ‘work from home’ model; if we don’t, we will suffer both mentally and financially into the future.
Working from home is a win-win; it's more convenient and cost-effective for both employer and employee.
8. How can gentrified and aestheticised versions of social movements be avoided?
I wonder whether you saw the Indigenous name for Victoria’s capital city (Naarm) appear more frequently on your social media feeds this year, with people adding it to their Instagram bios or referring to it on TikTok? What started as a conscious choice to respectfully refer to the city by its original Indigenous name quickly became criticised as a trendy aesthetic for outwardly progressive white Victorians, with terms like ‘naarm-core’ becoming short-hand for a specific kind of trendy fashion that was ‘devoid of any ties to First Nations people’.
‘Naarm-core’, therefore, stands as another example of a movement that may have started with admirable aims, but was drowned out by those who just wanted the social benefits of participating in progressive politics. Think of the recent similar debates about ‘rainbow capitalism’, with similar criticisms being made of brands that co-opt progressive concepts like LGBQTI+ identity purely for social (and financial) capital. The question naturally emerges as to how we can avoid this for future political movements.
Or maybe you disagree with all these critiques? Political discussion moves so fast these days that it can feel like people are in such a rush to criticise things that they miss actual progress being made. After all, the use of the term ‘Naarm’ to refer to Melbourne was undeniably popularised on the back of this trend.
Possible Contentions:
The criticism of political movements that deal with race being tokenised by white people can only be solved by allowing people of colour at the centre of these movements.
People are too cynical about social movements and trends; virality and popularity, despite ‘inauthentic intentions’, often do more good than harm.
9. How can the highly polarised discussion concerning COVID vaccines become more productive?
Another thing you may have witnessed from living in a post-COVID world is an increase in how divided simple issues seem to make us. Ever tried to convince a relative or friend that, no, in fact, vaccines are not designed to implant us with microchips - seems impossible right?
For many people, the pandemic was a tipping point into full-blown conspiracy communities, meaning people are increasingly able to exist within their own social-media realities that don’t need to be bound to scientific truth or objective fact. This all creates a division between those with different beliefs that is somehow wider than before, where we can’t even agree on simple statements of truth.
The debate around what to do about this deals with questions of human psychology, social media (again), but also freedom of speech. Should spreading (potentially dangerous) false information that conflicts with scientific consensus be allowed on social media? Most importantly, how do we encourage actual communication between different sides?
Possible contentions:
Talking in person is the only way for people with vastly different beliefs to find common ground.
Those spreading dishonest and dangerous conspiracy theories about public health cannot be reasoned with, and need to be actively shut down wherever they appear.
10. With the infamous Oscar slap, what ‘consequences’ should comedians and satirists face for what they say?
Here’s a news story that you’re probably tired of hearing about! Actor Will Smith’s act of violence against Oscar host and comedian Chris Rock for a joke about his wife’s alopecia (hair loss) caused manydifferent conversations to happen at once; about toxic masculinity, celebrity culture, violence as a spectacle. These are all totally valid angles for your Oral Presentation, but let’s focus on maybe the most common debate; did Chris Rock deserve this?
Functioning as a comedian hosting an awards night, Rock’s job was to poke fun at everyone participating, and these sorts of roles have often involved controversial comments and jokes. Does this mean they have immunity from any consequences for their words though? What should these consequences look like? And, if we excuse smaller acts of violence, what does that normalise?
The 2015 terrorist shooting of the staff of satirical French magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for their depiction of the Islamic prophet may seem a world away from Will Smith’s slap, but some may argue that this is the logical end-point for a world that believes physical violence is the way to deal with jokes people don’t like.
Possible Contentions:
The idea of comedians actually being threatened by violence is overblown; the slap was an isolated incident.
Protecting the safety of those who make controversial jokes is paramount to maintaining freedom of speech.
11. With Optus and Telstra’s recent data breaches, is placing all our valuable personal information in virtual spaces sustainably safe?
This year saw a record-level data breach from one of Australia’s leading telecommunications companies, Optus. The personal details of almost 10 million customers were given to the hackers.
Then, two weeks later, a similar data breach happened at Telstra. Yes, this time, no customer information was leaked, but information on the company’s employees was again released.
All of this may disturb the image we all have in our heads of online databases as relatively unbreachable, locked away behind thousands of firewalls somewhere in the cloud. In fact, much of modern society operates on this assumption. Maybe you’ve added your credit card details to your Chrome tab because it makes online purchases easier? This convenience comes with the implicit assumption that online personal info is pretty much always safe when protected by a big tech company, but these events arguably prove otherwise.
Cyberattacks are ‘increasing as a threat’, yet danger for the sake of convenience is something that all of us deal with. Maybe you think there are degrees to this; should we draw a line at information that can cause us legitimate harm if given to a malicious party?
Possible Contentions:
Our society is already too technologically dependent to try and ‘go offline’ for the sake of data safety.
Valuables of any kind are always going to run the risk of being stolen, and digital piracy is no different.
12. What is the role of Western countries in resisting the unlawful Russian invasion of Ukraine?
As already mentioned, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was one of the biggest news stories of 2022. Putin’s unlawful decision to attack the country’s capital in February of 2022 has left more than 10,000 people dead and millions displaced from their homes. Virtually all world leaders condemned this act immediately. Yet, almost a year later, the war continues, and documented war crimes occur on Ukrainian soil.
Thinking larger than just social media, the question of what can actually be done to help by the countries who condemn this war has naturally emerged. Many nations have supported Ukraine financially, including the US giving nearly $20 billion. Some may argue that this is not nearly far enough, and that all world powers have a responsibility to wage direct war against Russia in support of Ukraine. Naturally though, many are strongly against Western intervention in this form, believing that countries like the US should not see themselves as all-knowing powers that can intervene in other nations based on their ideological beliefs.
Possible Contentions:
Any attempt to guilt individual citizens about their need to ‘do something about Ukraine’ is completely unfair; the responsibility for any meaningful action is entirely on the government.
The West, particularly the US, has a long history of militarily invading smaller nations for their own purposes; their condemnation of the Russians is hypocritical.
Stasiland and 1984 are studied as part of VCE English's Comparative. For one of most popular posts on Comparative (also known as Reading and Comparing), check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Comparative.
1. Introductions
Stasiland is a memoir-style recollection of the author Anna Funder’s encounters with people affected by the years of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), or when Germany was divided into east and west. It marries the author’s personal growth and development during her period of research with the personal histories of those who acted as both perpetrator and victim of the regime’s atrocities. The result is an emotional and deeply human perspective of this heavily-documented period of history which delves into the lasting yet often invisible marks the GDR left on those it touched.
1984 is on the surface the dystopian narrative of the struggles and ultimate downfall of a man named Winston who lives in the depressingly grungy and hopeless world of Big Brother and The Party. In a more profound sense, however, it is author George Orwell’s warning concerning the possibilities inherent in the development of totalitarianism and how these might come to damage the human race.
When comparing the characters presented in these two texts, it is important to remember that Orwell’s are fictional and Funder’s are her retellings of real people’s stories. Take care to avoid discussing Funder’s characters as constructions, and focus instead on how she has chosen to portray them.
Prompt: Discuss the different ways in which the authors of Stasiland and 1984 explore the intricacies of state power and knowledge.
Sample Introduction
When significant knowledge in any form is gained, it follows that it can be used in any way an individual or group sees fit. Stasiland and 1984 both show that the same piece of information can be used in drastically different ways to suit the purpose of that information’s owner. In both texts, we can observe this in many areas: mass surveillance for security or espionage purposes, recordkeeping to retain the truth or warp it, and medical or physiological advancements used to solve humanity’s problems or deliberately harm and deform people. Such examples force us to consider two well-known maxims, and to decide between the bliss of ignorance and the power of knowledge.
Sample Body Paragraph
In theory, mass surveillance has many benefits; it could be used to prevent criminal activity such as large-scale terrorist attacks and ensure the happiness and wellbeing of citizens. However, it is almost never associated with anything positive. In George Orwell’s 1984, we are introduced to his hypothesis concerning what it would be like if it were to become developed to its full extent. The concept can be divided into three levels; firstly there is the obvious, external activities that we observe in both texts, which include mail screening, a military or gendarme presence in the streets and a network of informers. Secondly there is the introduction of the state into the home, which is achieved by The Party mainly through the telescreen, the most prominent and sinister instrument of mass surveillance in Oceania which gives total access to individual behaviour in the privacy of the home. While Winston seems to have found a loophole in this area by being ‘able to remain outside the range of the telescreen’, The Party carries its mass surveillance to the truest sense of the expression by extending it to a seemingly impossible third level, which introduces the state into ‘the few cubic centimetres inside [the] skull’. Interestingly, while the Thought Police cannot truly ‘see’ what is inside someone’s head, they can still control it; as long as people think that someone can see their thoughts, they will censor them themselves. This shows that the beauty of mass surveillance is that it does not actually have to be universal or all-encompassing to be successful. This is why the Stasi did not need to go to the lengths of The Party to achieve a similar result; the people merely need to believe that it is so on the basis of some evidence, and through this they can be controlled. Ultimately, mass surveillance can never be anything but destructive for this reason; it could put a complete halt to all terrorist plots and it would still act against the people by insidiously forcing them to censor their own thoughts out of fear.
Sample Conclusion
Both Stasiland and 1984 show absolutely that knowledge is a fundamental and intrinsic part of power, as it cannot exist without knowledge. While it is true that knowledge can be held without exercising it in some external display of power, it always shapes the person who holds it in ways both subtle and direct. Knowledge can therefore be seen as similar to Pandora’s Box; once it exists in a mind, it alters it, and the actions it prompts depend only on the desires and will of that mind.
5. Tips
In order to properly understand either of these texts, you’ll need to put on your history hat. Both of them are very firmly rooted in historical events, and to get a good grasp on what they really mean, you need to understand these events. You should research communism and socialism fairly extensively as well as the GDR, but you don’t need to sit for hours and write a book on the subject. All you need to do is trawl through Wikipedia for half an hour, or as long as it takes to get a sense of the subject. They key is to not ignore things that you don’t understand; if you see terms like ‘Eastern Bloc’ or ‘Marxism’ or ‘The Iron Curtain’ and you’ve got no idea what they are, research them! Even terms that you might believe you’re familiar with, like ‘Communism’ could also use a refresher.
The other main point is that 1984 particularly deals very heavily in ideological and philosophical argument. Orwell constructed the events of the plot as one giant hypothetical situation, so try and think to yourself – could that really happen? Is that really possible, or is this whole thing just plain silly? Remember that this text is much, much more than a simple narrative, and address it as such
Want to download this study guide? Click the button below!
Picture this: you’re sitting down at your desk, fumbling your fingers, inspecting the new stationary that you convinced yourself you needed for year 12, resisting the urge to check your phone. Your text response SAC is in two weeks. You’re freaking out because you want, no, need an A+. You decide to write a practice essay for your English teacher. Practice makes perfect, right? You stay up for hours, pouring your heart and soul into this essay. The result? B+. Where did I go wrong?
That’s where I come in! Writing an A+ essay can be really tough without examples and specific advice. Before reading on, make sure you've read our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response and Golden Age blog so you are up to scratch.
In this article I will be explaining some basic dos and don’ts of writing an essay on The Golden Age, providing a model essay as an example. At the end of this blog is also a video based on another essay prompt to help you prepare for your Golden Age studies!
The following prompt will be referenced throughout the post;
‘The Golden Age’ shows that everyone needs love and recognition. Discuss.
Planning: the silent killer of A+ essays
I’m sure your teachers have emphasised the importance of planning. In case they haven’t, allow me to reiterate that great planning is compulsory for a great essay. However, flimsy arguments aren’t going to get you an A+. The examiners are looking for complex arguments, providing a variety of perspectives of the themes at hand. From the above prompt, the key word is, ‘discuss’. This means that you should be discussing the prompt, not blindly agreeing with it. Make sure you don’t write anything that wouldn’t sit right with London.
DON’T
Don’t plan out basic arguments that are one-dimensional. This may give you a pass in English, but won’t distinguish you as a top-scoring student.
For example:
Paragraph 1: The children at TGA need love and recognition.
Paragraph 2: Ida and Meyer need love and recognition
Paragraph 3: Sister Penny needs love and recognition.
The above paragraphs merely agree with the statement, but don’t delve into the many aspects of the novel that could contribute to a sophisticated essay.
DO
Do create complex arguments, or paragraphs with a twist! If you can justify your argument and it makes sense, include it in your essay. There are many ways that you could answer this question, but my plan looks like this:
Paragraph 1: Frank Gold yearns for mature, adult love, not recognition from onlookers or outsiders
Paragraph 2: Ida Gold does not seek recognition from Australia, but love and validation from herself
Paragraph 3: Albert requires love from a specific kind of relationship – family, and Sullivan may view love from his father as pity which he rebukes
See the difference?
The introduction:
how to start your essay off with a BANG!
Personally, I always struggled with starting an introduction. The examiners will be reading and marking thousands of essays, so if possible, starting your introduction with something other than Joan London’s ‘The Golden Age’… is a great way to make you stand out from the crowd. Having a strong start is essential to pave the way for a clear and concise essay. You could start with a quote/scene from the text! This is not essential, but it’s a great way to mix things up. This is my start:
Perhaps nothing exemplifies the power of love and recognition more than the bond between Albert Sutton and his older sister, Lizzie, in Joan London’s ‘The Golden Age’. Many of London’s characters exhibit suffering that requires compassion and support to heal and grow, to distinguish present from past. However, London explores the perspectives of such characters from different aspects of trauma, and emphasise that love and recognition do not always work to heal and mature. Frank Gold, the novel’s resident “sneaky” boy who adjusts to newfound life in the Golden Age Convalescent Home seeks love as an adult, rather than eliciting sympathy as a supposed victim. Here love and recognition are unsuccessful in amending Frank’s troubles when given from the perspective of an outsider, a judgemental onlooker. In a similar sense, Ida Gold seeks recognition not from Australia, who she views as a ‘backwater’, but validation in herself after having been ousted from her Hungarian identity. London, however, makes sure to emphasise the impact that Sullivan has on Frank Gold’s life. Sullivan, a boy only a few years older than Frank, seems content with his future, with his fate, despite his sacrifice of rugby and conventional life. There is a lacking sense of urgency for love and recognition in Sullivan’s life, rather, it appears that Sullivan accepts his fate, regardless of his father’s sympathy or support. Thus, London explores a myriad of ways in which love and recognition may or may not heal wounds inflicted upon individuals.
Remember, there are many other ways you could start your essay.
The body paragraphs: To TEEL or not to TEEL?
I’m sure you’ve heard of TEEL countless times since year 7. Topic sentence, evidence, explanation, link. The truth is that these elements are all very important in a body paragraph. However, following a rigid structure will render your essay bland and repetitive. It is also extremely important to note that you should be using evidence from multiple points in the text, and you should be making sure that your paragraphs are directly answering the question. Write what feels natural to you, and most importantly, don’t abuse a thesaurus. If you can’t read your essay without rummaging for a dictionary every second sentence, you should rewrite it. If vocabulary isn’t your strong point (it definitely isn’t mine!), focus on clean sentence structure and solid arguments. There’s nothing worse than you using a fancy word incorrectly.
DON’T
Don’t overuse your thesaurus in an attempt to sound sophisticated, and don’t use the same structure for every sentence. For example:
Prematurely in the paperback London makes an allusion to Norm White, the denizen horticulturalist of The Golden Age Convalescent Home…
That was an exaggerated example generated by searching for synonyms. As you can see, it sounds silly, and some of the words don’t even make sense. I mean, “denizen horticulturalist”…really?
DO
Do mix up your paragraph structure! If vocabulary is your weak point, focus on clean language.
Here’s mine:
Early in the novel, London makes reference to Norm White, the resident groundskeeper of The Golden Age Convalescent Home. Norm White hands Frank Gold a cigarette, “as if to say a man has the right to smoke in peace”. Here, there is a complete disregard for rule and convention, an idea that London emphasises throughout the text. This feature provides a counter-cultural experience for Frank, pushing him to realise that he is a strong human being rather than a mere victim. This is a clear contrast to the “babyishness” of the home, and is used as evidence of true humanity in an era where society judged upon the unconventional. Frank yearns for a traditional Australian life after his trauma in Hungary; “his own memory…lodged like an attic in the front part of his brain”. Hedwiga and Julia Marai’s caring of him pushed him towards fear and reluctance to trust, yet also pressured him to seek acceptance in a world that ostracises him for his Jewish heritage and polio diagnosis. This here is why Frank desires a mature, adult connection – love that regards him as an equal human being. Frank seeks Elsa’s love and company as she too loathes being reduced to a victim, an object of pity. Frank thereafter uses humour to joke of his wounds; “we Jews have to be on the lookout”. Elsa sees “a look in his eyes that she recognised”, thus their bond enables both characters to heal. London alludes that Frank requires love and recognition not from the perspective of a sorrowful onlooker, rather he longs to be recognised as a mature adult.
I firmly believe in short and sharp conclusions. Your body paragraphs should be thoroughly explaining your paragraphs, so don’t include any new information here. A few sentences is enough. Once again, write what feels natural, and what flows well.
DON’T
Don’t drag out your conclusion. Short and concise is the key to finishing well.
DO
Do write a sharp finish! Sentence starters such as, “Ultimately…” or “Thus, London…” are great.
Here’s mine:
Although trauma is often treated with love and compassion, London details different perspectives on this idea. Whilst Frank Gold requires a specific kind of recognition, Ida and Meyer seek validation in themselves and their relationship, whilst Sullivan is at ease with his fate and does not yearn sympathy from his father.
I'll finish off by giving you an exercise: brainstorm and write up a plan for the essay topic shown in the video below. I'd recommend you do this before watching Lisa's brainstorm and plan. That way, you can see which of your ideas overlapped, but also potentially see which ideas you may have missed out on. Good luck!
Extinction is usually studied in the Australian curriculum under Area of Study 1 - Text Response. For a detailed guide on Text Response, check out ourUltimate Guide to VCE Text Response.
1. Summary: A Brief Snapshot
At the heart of innovative technology and products lies exceptional human creativity. Our brains are practically wired to create and innovate newness. Naturally, the influx of products entering the market creates a consumer frenzy. Suddenly, everything is a commodified entity with a dollar-sign attached to it. Its inherent value lies in how much consumers covet the item.
Let’s take the iPhone for example! An idea of a communication device - both sleek in its functionality and aesthetic - is mass produced, consumed by millions and the cycle perpetuates itself. It is an item so coveted and desired, a 17-year-old boy from China sold a kidney to buy the iPad and iPhone. This phenomenon of consumerism is symptomatic of a contemporary world’s obsession with vanity and aesthetic. Our fixation on the surface-level and glossy facades is similarly echoed by Extinction’s main protagonist, Professor Heather Dixon-Brown, who criticises the ‘charismatic fauna push’ where we are ‘making celebrities out of pandas and polar bears’. While those campaigns are successful in raising better awareness and positivity in the realm of conservation, they do not change the ways in which we live and consume.
How we live today is inflicting a deep ecological impact on planet earth. Furthermore, as urban landscapes inevitably expand, we continue to encroach on the territory of the natural world.
These are the kind of thoughts that popped into my mind after reading Extinction. Hannie Rayson’s provocative play delves deep into the central question of what it means to uphold a personal conviction in the face of self-interest and necessity. Casual flings, extinguishing of life and the friction between ‘ideological purity’ and functionality threatens to unhinge even seemingly robust characters such as Heather Dixon-Brown, an ecologist who preaches that she ‘uses her head, not her heart’. Rayson’s literary work endeavours to capture how the human character is, in fact, multidimensional and never static! As the passionate environmentalists and pragmatic ecologists are entangled in ethical quandaries, the playwright also illustrates how divorcing your mindset from emotion is a universal struggle. Furthermore, she explores how moral conviction is consistently at odds with the demands of the personal and professional domains we inhabit.
Throughout the drama encapsulating mining magnates, environmentalists and ecologists, Rayson combines their fictional voices to echo a cautionary tale of how self-interest and misconception about ‘the other’ may distort rationality. When the CEO of Powerhouse mining, Harry Jewell, bursts into a wildlife rescue centre in Cape Otway, holding a critically injured and endangered tiger quoll, he inadvertently catalyses a conflict that will draw out the prejudices withheld by the trio of environmentalists.
I encourage you to think about the lessons embedded in the play. What are the take-home messages YOU have discovered?
Guiding Questions:
What is the message the playwright is attempting to deliver to her audiences?
When you finished the play, what feelings were you left with?
Which characters did you find likeable? Who aggravated you the most? And most importantly, provide evidence for why you felt that way! Was it because of their problematic ways of dealing with an ideological crisis? Or their fierce passion towards upholding moral conviction?
2. Character Analysis
Let's take a look at these deeply flawed human beings:
Professor Heather Dixon-Brown
Director of the CAPE institute
Interested in only saving species that are ‘statistically saveable'.
Bureaucrat with the realism to match.
'I am an ecologist, not an environmentalist. I use my head, not my heart.'
'Species are like commodities…I just don’t approve of this ‘charismatic fauna’ push - making celebrities out of pandas and polar bears.' (p. 99)
'You want me to close the CAPE. Is that what you want? Then we can bask in ideological purity…' (p. 120)
The never-ending struggle between heart and mind is central theme in the play.
Harry Jewell
An idealist with the knack for alluring women to fall for him.
'You don’t serve your cause by being indifferent to the interest of working people.'
'I know his type: the kind of greenie who’s always saying no. No dams. No mines. No roads.' (p. 114)
'I am not some multinational corporation devouring the Amazon. I’m just a bloke who’s come back home.' (p. 114)
Piper Ross
Zoologist from San Diego Zoo (temporarily transferred)
Andy Dixon’s girlfriend
Gets entangled in a romp with Harry Jewell aka Mr. Evil
'They are all 'worth saving''. (p. 83)
Andy Dixon
A vet who is extremely pragmatic in his mindset towards his work and personal life
Slight aversion to technology
The inevitability of technology supplanting certain occupations
Technological evolution? (Is it the kind of evolution we want?)
'…the great advocate for our native flora and fauna…' (p. 118)
'You should see this dairy farm. It’s all computerised. They’ve got one bloke managing a thousand cows. No human supervision of the milking. No-one to check the udders. I’m just there, doing the rounds. Like a robot.' (p. 82)
3. Themes
Logic vs. Emotion (Pragmatism vs. Ideological Purity)
To divorce your emotions from affecting your decision-making capacity is a universal struggle aptly captured by Rayson’s depiction of Dixon-Brown’s gradual inclination towards the tiger quoll project funded by a coal company. In this case, we can argue that her objectivity and ‘her head’ is seemingly beguiled by the charms of Harry Jewell.
Early in the play, Professor Dixon-Brown is anchored to her desk, filing applications and paperwork instead of ‘getting back to her own research’. This prospect changes when Harry - big coal - offers 'two million dollars on the table' to fund the tiger quoll campaign. Nonetheless, we see the two unexpected collaborators setting a dangerous precedent where one can simply equate a species’ livelihood to ‘commodities’ and ‘a good return’ of profit.
What is compelling about Harry’s character is that he combines both pragmatism and ideological purity. Firstly, Harry has the means and business acuity to manoeuvre a board of directors bent on exploring coal ‘right on the edge of the national park’. However, ‘Mr Evil’ is also inspired by nostalgia and sentimentality over a childhood memory where a tiger quoll steals his drumstick.
Conversely, Andy Dixon-Brown’s stance against the mining industry and automated dairy farms is admirable considering how technology has become a central cornerstone of modern-day life. His partner Piper Ross, a zoologist, echoes similar distaste for mining companies, however, her passion for ‘saving’ all animals eclipses her own presumptions towards ‘Mr Evil’. She is eventually persuaded to head the tiger quoll project.
Whereas, Professor Dixon-Brown enjoys the uncomplicatedness of numbers and statistics. However, her carefully crafted algorithm fails to differentiate between the diversity of animals within the ecosphere. Instead, it filters out populations of 5000 and above to collate only the ‘statistically saveable’.
In this respect, Harry’s actions showcase how a striking a balance between pragmatism and emotion is important.
Unity in a Socially Divisive World
In this play, the ‘us vs. them’ mentality pervades the minds of the protagonists. Through the heated dialogue between environmentalists, ecologists and mining moguls, Hannie Rayson delivers the message that as a society we should not be so reliant on simplifying individuals based on age-old presumptions and surface-level characteristics. Harry Jewell echoes a similar sentiment as he discusses his company’s plans to Piper: 'Who’s this ‘we’? You don’t serve your cause by being indifferent to the interests of the working people.' (p. 92)
Zooming in: Andy & Harry: Let's explore the volatile dynamic between the two males
Andy’s indignant stance against collaborating with the mining industry showcases his resilience in sticking to his moral code. One can argue that his immediate demonisation of Harry Jewell, as evidenced by the nickname ‘Mr. Evil’, is a symptom of Andy’s oversimplified thinking. It is through Andy’s inflammatory and infantile language towards the Mining CEO that Rayson articulates how the politics of conservation is in shades of grey. Conversely, Harry’s admits that he knew Andy was ‘the type of greenie who’s always saying no [from the moment he came through that door]’. In highlighting the binary oppositions of the two men working in different fields, the play acknowledges how prejudice inhibits potential collaborations.
Harry and Andy showcase how our own misconceptions about ‘the other’ detract from our own moral causes - such as in this case, saving the forest. Both men are committed to the same cause. However, Andy’s antagonistic approach towards Harry undercuts his own integrity as he willingly allows prejudice to cloud his thinking simply because it is the more convenient thing to do, as opposed to collaborating and accommodating each other’s interests.
Categorising strangers into convenient stereotypes is pure laziness.
Andy: 'Hope he didn’t damage that cruise missile he’s got out there?' (p. 73)
Harry: 'I know the type - knew him the moment he came through that door. He’s the kind of greenie who’s always saying no. No dams. No mines. No roads.' (p. 114)
Romanticism vs. Reality
Against the backdrop of familial arguments and budding romances, Extinction’s Professor Dixon-Brown’s blunt dialogue about conservation reveals its politicised nature. Her heated dialogue with Piper echoes her frustration at ‘writing [Stuart Decker’s] applications so he can get ‘a sun tan’ conducting research on The Great Barrier Reef and win accolades for it'. Furthermore, she satirically exclaims that ‘[the institute] needs to defend its territory’. Her mocking of the vice-chancellor who acted like they were in a ‘White House Situation Room’ implicitly demonstrates her growing disdain towards the tenuous politics of her workplace. Essentially, Heather’s realist approach exposes what lies beneath the glossy exterior of conservation efforts.
I’ve seen quite a few videos of baby pandas circulating on my Facebook feed, most of them are part of a conservation effort or campaign. The comment section of these videos is like a medley of heart-eyes and exclamations of ‘How cute!!’ This relatively harmless sentiment is dismissed by Professor Dixon-Brown when she states that she is completely disengaged with ‘charismatic fauna’ (p. 99) push - making celebrities out of pandas and polar bears’. Our overwhelmingly positive reactions towards such campaigns is based on a societal gravitation towards the aesthetically pleasing which bleeds into the next thematic idea revolving around our fixation on appearance (surface-level).
Essentially, in the context of this play, the preferential treatment of endangered animals reflects our own biased thinking.
Vanity and Our Obsession With Appearance
The idea of vanity also pervades the sub-consciousness of both male and female protagonists. Against the backdrop of environmental conservation dilemmas, Hannie Rayson manages to entwine a secondary story strand which captures the insecurities peppering the female experience in this contemporary age. The audience learns that Heather Dixon-Brown spends $267 on hair removal every five weeks. Interestingly, her brother, ‘a screaming heterosexual’ (p. 95), likens the hair removal process to ‘getting a tree lopped’. The destructive and almost violent imagery of chopping down a tree echoes the crippling pressure for Heather to ‘sculpt’ herself into a particular ideal of femininity.
It is in this way that Rayson articulates a broader thematic idea that womanhood is still being defined in terms of attractiveness and perseveration of youth. Heather’s internalised insecurities resurface in her heated confrontation with Harry. She accuses him of ‘prefer[ing] a younger woman’ and having ‘never been with a woman with pubic hair’. Both of which Harry indignantly refutes. Through this heated dialogue, audiences gain an insight into Heather’s vulnerability as a divorcee-to-be and interestingly, we are exposed to her assertiveness as she questions 'can’t [you] stomach a woman who stands up to you?'
Her conflicting ideologies on womanhood are best exemplified through Harry who almost admonishes her for embodying ‘some nineteen-fifties idea of relationships’ where ‘sex with someone’ does not necessarily entail ‘a lifelong commitment’. This is also the central conflict faced by all the characters who engage in seemingly non-committal relationships and false expectation. It is through these failed trysts that Rayson disapproves of uninhibited sexual impulses and by extension, criticises the increasing promiscuity in contemporary times. Essentially, Rayson’s fixation on causal sexual relationships mirrors her own opinion that there has been a paradigm shift in how we govern our sexuality and bodies since the 1950s.
Conservation in a World of Destruction
You can define conservation in terms of ‘preservation of… ’, ‘sustaining…’.
In the personal domain, Piper maintains that she and Harry ‘slept in separate tents’ to her boss Professor Dixon-Brown who also doubles as her potential sister-in-law. Conversely, Professor Dixon-Brown is forced to make an ethical compromise to prevent a career besmirching orchestrated by a mass-email insinuating a sordid romance between her and her newest collaborator, Harry Jewell. Her reputation as CAPE’s director is nearly tarnished by the vengeful force of a fling’s ex-wife.
Do I preserve my moral compass or my professional reputation?
Other thematic ideas that relate to this umbrella phrase include: misuse of authority and ethics of the digital world.
Deleting emails is tantamount to rewording/reworking history. Professor Dixon-Brown’s attempt at salvaging/restoring her pristine moral code of ‘using her head, not her heart’ is encapsulated in her desperate dash to the IT servers at 1am in the morning to delete the incriminating email detailing her illicit relationship with Harry Jewell. This, undoubtedly, compromises both of their careers as professionals. Furthermore, their intimate fling casts Dixon-brown as a seducer/a woman who is easily compromised, which is untrue. However, it is the facades that count in the play.
4. Symbolism
Euthanising the Female Tiger Quoll
In this case, by virtue of being female, we can assume the tiger quoll ‘with a crushed spine’ has reproductive capabilities. The injured tiger quoll was a life-giving entity. Technically, if she recovered fully, the tiger quoll could be the solution to its endangered status.
Andy’s swift decision to euthanise the animal in great pain could be in reference to his own desire to ‘make [his life] over’. He has inadvertently projected his own fears and anxieties over his GSS diagnosis onto the critically injured creature. Essentially, in the moment of mutual pain, Andy could resonate with the tiger quoll.
My theory is that the images of casual sex serve as an ironic layer to a play titled Extinction. Both Piper and Heather unwittingly develop sexual relations with Jewell on a casual basis which symbolises how intercourse is no longer purely valued as a means for continuing the species. These ‘efforts’ for reproduction are fruitless.
1. They show how mankind is centred on pleasure and instant gratification, prioritising the self above all matters.
2. They demonstrate how modern living expectations, consumerism and the perpetuation of gluttony have led to a plateau in human evolution.
Real-life Amanda -> Tutor comment translation:
As I was reading the text, a recurring question kept nagging at me: Why are there intimate scenes sandwiched between the layers of ideological conflict and tension?
Tutor -> real-life Amanda translation:
Oh my goodness, are these characters THAT sexually frustrated? Someone’s heart is going to get broken and then we will have to analyse that in our essays. Ughhhhhh.
5. Stage Directions
Weather Transitions
1. The opening scene showcases how vets and environmentalists alike are surprised by the first sighting of a tiger quoll in a decade. Their surprise at this unprecedented occurrence is reinforced by the ‘wet and windy’ conditions. Typically, stormy weather is symbolic of chaos and unpredictability.
2. During a particularly heated exchange between Andy and Piper, the interjection of ‘thunder’ intensifies rising temperament in both characters. (p. 73)
3. When Andy discovers who ‘Harry bloody Jewell’ is, his growing disbelief and rising temperament are complemented by the off-stage sound of ‘the roar of the motorbike’. The audiological stage cue characterises Jewell as an unwanted presence of chaos and noise. As the motorbike’s roar is a sound incongruent with the natural environment encapsulating Harry.
The Meaning of Fire
In Act Two: Scene One, the secretiveness of Harry and Piper’s tryst is underlined by the ‘vast blackness’ and their figures ‘in silhouette’. Furthermore, its fragile and tenuous connection is symbolically related to how both counterparts repeatedly ‘poke[] the fire’ to ensure its longevity through the night. Perhaps, this imagery is referring to how all temptation and sexual energy need to be moderated, which complements Piper’s reluctance to continue their budding relationship.
6. Sample Essay Topics
We've offered a few different types of essay topics below. For more sample essay topics, head over to ourExtinction Study Guide to practice writing essays using the analysis you've learnt in this blog!
Theme-Based
The play, Extinction demonstrates that compromise is necessary in the face of conflict.
Character-Based
As a self-professed ecologist, Heather Dixon-Brown’s decision to collaborate with 'the other’ stems from self-interest. Discuss.
Quote-Based
'I use my head, not my heart.' Extinction explores how human nature reacts under pressure and vice.
How-Based
How does Hannie Rayson explore the idea of emotion in the play Extinction?
7. Essay Topic Breakdown
Whenever you get a new essay topic, you can use LSG’s THINK and EXECUTE strategy, a technique to help you write better VCE essays. This essay topic breakdown will focus on the THINK part of the strategy. If you’re unfamiliar with this strategy, then check it out in How To Write A Killer Text Response.
Within the THINK strategy, we have 3 steps, or ABC. These ABC components are:
Step 1: Analyse
Step 2: Brainstorm
Step 3: Create a Plan
Theme-Based Prompt: Extinction is a play about personal integrity and environmental responsibility. Do you agree?
Step 1: Analyse
This essay prompt is an example of a theme-based prompt. It specifies both 'personal integrity' and 'environmental responsibility' as themes for you to consider. When faced with a theme prompt, I find it most helpful to brainstorm characters and author’s views that are relevant to the given themes, as well as considering more relevant themes that may not have been mentioned in the prompt itself.
Step 2: Brainstorm
Personal integrity and environmental responsibility are central themes, but they aren’t the only themes that Extinction concerns itself with
Environmental responsibility - political, financial, social, pretty much all characters (Piper and Harry as a focus)
Personal integrity - truth versus lie, how we react under pressure, Dixon-Brown and her choice to delete the emails
What is left over? Other kinds of responsibility, e.g. interpersonal relationships
Interpersonal relationships, e.g. Piper and Andy (with a focus on Andy)
Step 3: Create a Plan
P1: Environmental responsibility
Piper and Harry - the tiger quoll project
Potential to talk about idealism versus pragmatism?
P2: Personal integrity
Honesty, morality, ethics
Dixon-Brown’s choice to delete the emails is motivated by selfishness, not by personal integrity
P3: Responsibility to act honestly and transparently in relationships Andy!
He is both environmentally responsible and has personal integrity, but still struggles with his relationships until the very end of the play
If you find this helpful, then you might want to check out A Killer Text Guide: Extinction where we cover five A+ sample essays (written by a 50 study scorer!), with EVERY essay annotated and broken down on HOW and WHY these essays achieved A+ so that you know how to reach your English goals! Let's get started.
This month’s blog post will be short but it contains one extremely valuable point you should take away – especially if you’ll be writing imaginary pieces in the next few months. Creative essays are great because they offer interesting and unique stories; however, there is one common downfall that occurs in writing. Some students create pieces that are too straightforward. Rather than using vocabulary, imagery and symbolism to express a point, they simply write down a statement that sums up what they wish to say. Your aim is to invite the reader to experience the story through your words. This can be done through the character’s thoughts, feelings, actions etc. Thus the well-known phrase among writers, ‘Show, don’t tell’. Keeping this idea in mind turn you into a much more successful writer – and you’ll see the difference!
Example 1
Tell: Katie was very happy.
Show: Katie’s face lifted. Little wrinkles appeared around her bright eyes, her dimples made an appearance that dug into her cheeks as a big grin emerged to show her perfect teeth.
Example 2
Tell: She felt horrible for the weeping children.
Show: Guilt throbbed inside her as she stared at the weeping children. Her heart pounded against her chest, her hands trembling beside her still body, her brain screaming at her to do something.
Example 3
Tell: I was scared.
Show: I hear my breathing; heavy, and rapid. I shut my eyes tightly. I can feel goosebumps running up my arms and down my back.
To test whether or not you are ‘telling’ instead of ‘showing’, think about whether or not your sentence leaves room for questions. In Example 1, ‘Katie was very happy’ would leave the reader thinking – what thought or action showed that she was happy? Whereas ‘show’ demonstrated that she was happy without directly stating it.
The key is to go into the finer details of your story!
In Stasiland, Anna Funder, the author and first-person narrator, meets and listens to the ordinary people of East Germany: those who resisted the GDR dictatorship, those who were crushed by it, and those who diligently and remorselessly worked for it as Stasi informants or officers. As Anna speaks with those whose lives have been traumatised by the Stasi, she reflects on how the reunified Germany has dealt with (or ignored) its citizens' trauma and whether memory can be reconciled. Anna is an Australian working for a television station in Berlin in 1996. As an outsider Anna is uniquely positioned to ask East Germans about their experiences, as they do not have to battle with prior knowledge and experience to share their stories. She is interested in the former German Democratic Republic and what has happened to the East German people since the country reunified with West Germany. She became curious after learning that there are people putting together documents that were shredded by the Stasi.
Anna travels to Leipzig and visits the former headquarters of East Germany’s secret police, the Stasi, which is now a museum. The Stasi were the East German secret police and internal surveillance and defense force. Headed by Erich Mielke, they conducted surveillance on the East German population, aided by a vast number of civilian informants. While in Leipzig, Anna meets with a woman called Miriam Weber, who attempted to sneak out of East Germany when she was just a teenager. Miriam, sleep deprived and tortured, lied about receiving help from an organisation to cross the Wall and was sentenced to jail time. Her husband Charlie was also imprisoned by the Stasi and died while in custody. Miriam was told he committed suicide by hanging, but she suspects he was killed after the Stasi refused to show her his body and went to great lengths to hide Charlie during the funeral.
Returning to the apartment she rents in Berlin, Anna puts an advertisement in the paper calling for former Stasi agents and informers to share their stories with her. She meets with several ex-Stasi men, including Herr Winz, Herr Christian, Herr Bohnsack and Hagen Koch. She also visits and speaks to Karl-Eduard von Schitzler, a hateful man who hosted a propaganda-filled television program that criticised West Germany and gave false information about Communist success. In their discussions the former Stasi agents are concerned with justifying their involvement with the Stasi, although many also remain committed to communist ideals and await with anticipation the next revolution and restoration of the communist government.
Anna rents her apartment from an unpredictable and evasive young woman called Julia. Over time, Julia comes to trust Anna and shares her story of the Stasi cruelly interfering with her life. Anna also speaks with her rock musician friend Klaus Renft – East Germany’s Mick Jagger, and a woman named Frau Paul who was separated overnight from her sick infant son when the Berlin Wall went up and was later imprisoned for inflated charges of assisting people to escape East Germany.
After Anna’s mother is diagnosed with cancer, she goes home to Australia for 3 years, returning to Berlin to meet with some of the people she spoke with during her earlier stay, including Hagen Koch and Miriam. She also finally visits the ‘puzzlers’ in Nuremberg, whose story first sparked her interest in investigating the lives of East Germans affected by the Stasi. Anna is disappointed in the puzzlers, realising that their work is futile and there is no real effort put towards uncovering the lost information.
Almost all East Germans were left reeling at the sudden collapse of their government. For many, the collapse of the GDR took with it ideological security and made them nostalgic for the past. For others, being confronted with the level of the Stasi’s intrusion into their lives was deeply traumatic, as people realised they had been grievously betrayed by their fellow citizens, neighbours and even family members. The nostalgia for the regime that Funder witnesses shows how people cling to certainty and position and sometimes struggle with new freedoms. However, having spoken with so many individuals whose lives were ruined by the Stasi, Anna feels that the old regime was oppressive and authoritarian, and that the East Germans are better off with the challenges of their freedom, rather than stuck with the certainties of their oppression.
Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go is set in a dystopian alternative reality in England in the 1990s. The narrator, Kathy H, is a thirty-one-year-old 'carer' – a clone who looks after other clones who are donating their organs. Kathy is about to retire after a long career as a carer to become a donor herself, meaning she will soon 'complete' (a euphemism for dying). However, this premise is not immediately apparent to the reader. At the start of the novel, Kathy informs us she will be leaving her role as carer in a few months and has started to write down memories of her life, sorting through her time as a 'student' at Hailsham. However, at the start of the novel the reader is not aware that Kathy is a clone, although she appears to be addressing an insider from her world.
In the first third of the novel Kathy reflects on her childhood and teenage years at Hailsham. Hailsham is an institution where clones are looked after by 'guardians' and referred to as 'students', and which at first appears to be a private boarding school with a heavy focus on the arts and creativity. Their best works of painting, pottery, drawing or poetry were selected and taken away by a woman known as 'Madame', for what the students presume, and what is later confirmed to be, a gallery. The students know they are different from their guardians and the people who live outside Hailsham, referred to as 'normals', but the truth of what the clones are and their certain fate is not fully articulated until the characters are adults.
Kathy is close friends with a confident and controlling girl called Ruth and a boy named Tommy, whose work is never selected for the Gallery – an acknowledgement that defines status at the school. Tommy, teased and excluded, struggles to control his temper and often explodes into furies of rage. The students collect items and other students’ artwork for their own memory boxes, bought or traded at the school’s Exchanges and Sales. Kathy buys a cassette tape by a woman named Judy Bridgewater that contains a song called ‘Never Let Me Go’. This song makes Kathy emotional, and one day she is caught dancing to it by Madame, who Kathy is surprised to see is in tears watching her. Kathy presumes Madame is upset because she knows Kathy can never have children.
Ruth and Tommy start dating and Part Two sees the three friends reach early adulthood and move to a place known as the Cottages, to live with other clones from around the country and experience some freedom before beginning their donations or training to become a carer. When Rodney, another Cottage resident, believes he saw Ruth’s 'possible' – an original that one of the clones was modelled off – the three friends along with Rodney and his girlfriend Chrissie, take a trip to Norfolk to find her. Norfolk exists in the imagination of the Hailsham students as a 'lost corner', where things they have lost will be found. While the 'possible' is not Ruth’s original, Kathy and Tommy find a copy of the Judy Bridgewater tape that Kathy had lost. Ruth was secretly desperate to find her possible and hoped to find her working in an office. Ruth dreams of working in an office and her wish that her possible will be an office worker is one of the only suggestions we have that the clones secretly long for more from their lives and view their possibles as versions of them and what they are capable of. Back at the Cottages, Ruth continues to be manipulative and self-promoting, leading to a falling out with Kathy where she decides to leave early to begin training as a carer and falls out of contact with Ruth and Tommy.
Part Three encompasses Kathy’s time as a carer. Years after the time at the Cottages, Kathy organises to be Ruth’s carer and Ruth reconnects Kathy and Tommy, admitting she knew they loved each other and deliberately kept them apart. She hopes they will attempt to get a deferral from Madame. After Ruth 'completes', Kathy and Tommy finally become a couple. They visit Madame to ask for a deferral, who informs them there is no such thing. They learn from Madame that Hailsham was an attempt to reform the treatment of clones in their youth by proving they had souls. In most centers, clones are reared in deplorable, abusive conditions. They also learn that Hailsham had to be shut down. The normals became too uncomfortable with the reality of the clones’ souls but were not prepared to lose their organ supply.Never Let Me Go is a story about injustice and social stratification, where one group is made to suffer for the benefit of another. The 'normals' can deny their mortality while forcing the clones to confront their death sooner than their natural life span, and by shutting down schools like Hailsham, they do not need to think about the ethics of their choices.
Tommy dies and Kathy resigns herself to her fate as a donor. At the end of the novel, Kathy misses Tommy and Ruth, but consoles herself that she will always have her memories with her. Ishiguro explores the extent to which people accept their predetermined fate and how they can find meaning and love within those often-cruel limitations.
2. Textual Features Analysis
A textual feature is a component of the text used by authors to give meaning to their work. It is necessary to engage with the actual construction of the texts and to discuss textual features using metalanguage (terms that describe and analyse language). To write a thorough and thoughtful essay, you need to understand the textual features and how they are connected to overall thematic ideas. Structural features and metalanguage can be used as evidence of authorial intent and deepen our understanding of how writers use literary techniques to develop ideas and create meaning. Let’s take a look at Genre.
Stasiland
Stasiland is an example of creative nonfiction, meaning it tells a story of factual events and real people using literary and poetic techniques. The word ‘creative’ doesn’t give authors permission to exaggerate or dramatise the truth, instead this genre is one of factually accurate prose about real people and events that is told in a vivid and compelling way.
The reason Stasiland is classified as creative nonfiction and not under the genre of memoir is because although the events follow Anna Funder’s experiences in Berlin, they are not predominantly about her. A memoir is the writer’s own personal journey and life, whereas creative nonfiction generally has more public relevance and commentary. In Stasiland, Funder’s experiences in Berlin structure the chronology of the narrative but take a thematic backseat to the stories of the East Germans she meets and the historical events she relays.
Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go has elements of multiple genres: dystopian fiction, speculative historical fiction, science fiction and bildungsroman.
‘Dystopia’ means the opposite of ‘utopia’, but you’ll notice that most dystopian novels are set in societies where the ruling classes believe they are in a utopia. This is true of Never Let Me Go, as the clones pay with their lives and freedom for the utopian elimination of disease and extended life spans of the 'normals'. However, while clearly set in a horrific dystopian world, Never Let Me Gonotably differs from other novels in the dystopian genre, as the oppressed clones never once consider rebelling against the status quo – the most Kathy and Tommy hope for is an extension before beginning their donations and 'completing'. Ishiguro has stated in multiple interviews that he was most interested in exploring why oppressed persons never consider rebelling against their fate – what leads them to passive acceptance of their position in society?
In his exploration of this question, Ishiguro explores the development and growing up of Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy, trying to understand why they all submit without protest to their fate. In this sense the novel is a bildungsroman. Bildungsroman is a genre concerned with the psychological and moral development of a protagonist from childhood to adulthood, focusing on a person’s formation or coming of age. Never Let Me Go follows Kathy, Ruth and Tommy throughout their childhood and adolescence at Hailsham, their experience of limited freedom at the Cottages as young adults, and finally the reality of their short adult life as organ donors.
Of course, Never Let Me Go also fits into the category of speculative historical fiction and science fiction. The novel is set in an alternate historical reality where genetic science rapidly advanced after World War Two (significantly outstripping the real-world) and clones have been used to extend life in the UK for decades. However, Ishiguro does not give much narrative weight to describing the political reality of his fictional world, and neither does he offer much scientific explanation for the existence of clones. As we’ve already discussed, Ishiguro was vastly more interested in using these scientific and political circumstances to create conditions within which to explore characters and, by extension, human nature, so Never Let Me Go fits uneasily in these genres.
3. Themes (Convergent and Divergent Strategy)
Now that we’ve looked closely at both Stasiland and Never Let Me Go, it’s time to discuss in depth the key themes and ideas. Themes are the big ideas about human experience that a text explores, and form part of the message the author is hoping to communicate. A sound knowledge of key themes is essential for developing a thoughtful essay. All essay topics will ask you to explore thematic ideas in one way or another. If you have a strong understanding of both texts’ themes and how they are communicated, you will be able to generate arguments for any essay topic with confidence.
I’ll be adhering to the CONVERGENT and DIVERGENT strategy. This guide doesn’t go into too much detail about using LSG’s CONVERGENT and DIVERGENT strategy, so perhaps familiarise yourself with it by readingHow to Write a Killer Comparative.
Convergent Idea: The Importance of the Act of Remembering
Both Stasiland and Never Let Me Goillustrate the importance of remembering through the very construction of the text: in the narrative voice and narrative structure. Both narrators are looking into the past to try to make sense of history. For Kathy, this is a personal history whereas for Funder it is an act of witnessing a nation’s past and elevating the voices of the victims.
Stasiland is a compilation of the stories of all kinds of people involved and impacted by the GDR, including those who rebelled against the system, those who supported it and those crushed by it. Thus, ‘both sides’ of history are represented. Funder said in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald after the publication of Stasiland that, 'When [Germans] read my book, people in the East are not proud of themselves. They'd rather not be reminded that other people were braver than they were. So there is a huge force to pretend that the Stasi regime was not as bad as it was.' This desire to forget the past so as to ignore confronting the terrible and terrifying truths contained within it is what Funder is working against by writing Stasiland. At one point in the text, she explicitly states what she’s doing:
'I’m making portraits of people, East Germans, of whom there will be none left in a generation. And I’m painting a picture of a city on the old fault-line of east and west. This is working against forgetting, and against time' (Stasiland, 147).
Julia explains the importance of these portraits, telling Anna 'For anyone to understand a regime like the GDR, the stories of ordinary people must be told. …You have to look at how normal people manage with such things in their pasts' (144). These 'things in their pasts' are not just trauma and hardship, but the knowledge that people just like them – their spouses, children, friends and neighbours – were capable of such cowardice, betrayal, self-interest and cruelty. It is this knowledge that Funder wants to preserve – that ordinary people are capable of both extraordinary courage and extraordinary cowardice.
Anna comes across a sobbing man 'I don’t want to be German anymore!...We are terrible…They are terrible. The Germans are terrible' (Stasiland, 253-4). Anna reflects that East Germans were 'long used to thinking the bad Germans were on the other side of the Wall' and now he is forced to ask 'were his people, now broke or drunk, shamed or fled or imprisoned or dead, any good at all?' (Stasiland, 254).
Although Kathy’s narration is entirely from her perspective, her act of remembering is also in many ways a political statement that forces us to consider the inhumanity people are capable of.
Kathy recollects and structures her memories of her childhood and relationships to understand them as a unified whole, essentially establishing her identity. More importantly, it is evident in phrases such as 'I don’t know how it was where you were, but at Hailsham…' (NLMG, 13) and 'I’m sure you’ve heard it said plenty more' (NLMG, 4) that Kathy is positing a reader for her writing. Assuming a reader places her autobiography in a social framework with the purpose of communicating her life, which turns it into a historical account that exists beyond the limit of her death. Kathy’s attempt to leave a legacy by writing down her experiences and structuring her identity is an act of protest against a society that believes she is sub-human, without feelings or motivations, and that her life meant nothing.
Divergent Idea: The Role and Value of Nostalgia
The way memory can be distorted is particularly clear in relation to the idea of nostalgia for a brutal past. This idea is explored differently in Stasiland and Never Let Me Go, with Funder condemning nostalgia as blinding people to the horrors of the past, and Ishiguro illustrating how drawing comfort from the past can help people through difficult times.
In Stasiland, many disaffected former East Germans tell Anna that things were 'so much better before' (Stasiland, 251) the country’s reunification. Anna reflects:
'I don’t doubt this genuine nostalgia, but I think it has coloured a cheap and nasty world golden; a world where they was nothing to buy, nowhere to go and anyone who wanted to do anything with their lives other than serve the Party risked persecution, or worse' (Stasiland, 251-2).
Similarly, while working at the radio station on Ostalgie parties (Ostalgie is nostalgia for life in Communist East Germany), Miriam observes 'a crazy nostalgia for the GDR – as if it had been a harmless welfare state that looked after people’s needs. Most of the people at these parties are too young to remember the GDR anyway. They are just looking for something to yearn for' (Stasiland, 275). Funder is critical of nostalgia because it minimises past injustice.
Conversely, in Never Let Me Go, nostalgia and false memories are shown to be consolatory and even useful. Before Kathy begins to recount her childhood, she mentions a donor who was once under her care who 'knew he was close to completing' (NLMG, 5). He asks Kathy to share memories of her childhood and 'What he wanted was not just to hear about Hailsham, but to remember Hailsham, just like it had been his own childhood. …so the line would blur between what were my memories and his' (NLMG, 5). Although this man is falsifying his memories, he is not editing and revising history like some people in east Berlin, he is replacing them entirely to suppress the trauma of his own past. He is not yearning for a return to an idealised past the way some people in Stasiland do. For Kathy, nostalgia for her childhood helps her reconnect with her friends, creating a sense of belonging and identity. Her attachment to Hailsham strengthens her worldview, her relational bonds and gives meaning to her life. Nostalgic memory in Never Let Me Go brings comfort, although you could argue that it also fosters passivity and acceptance in the face of oppression.
4. LSG’s Bubble Tea (BBT) Strategy for Unique Strategies
Why Is an Interpretation Important?
Your interpretation is what English is all about; it’s about getting you to think critically about the essay topic at hand, to formulate a contention (agree, disagree, or sit on the fence) and argue each of your points with the best pieces of evidence you can find - and it’s something you might already be starting to do naturally.
In this section, we aim to help you develop your own interpretation of the text, rather than relying on your teacher, tutor or even a study guide (including this one) author’s interpretation. By developing your own interpretation, you become a better English student by:
Writing with meaning. For a text to be interpreted, you need a text and an interpreter (i.e. you!). Whenever we read a new text, our interpretation of a text is shaped by our pre-existing beliefs, knowledge and expectations. This should be reassuring because it means that you can leverage your own life experiences in developing a unique interpretation of the text! We’ll show you how this works in the next point.
Remembering evidence (quotes or literary devices) more easily. If you know you admire a character for example (which is in itself an interpretation 😉), you can probably remember why you admire them. Perhaps the character’s selflessness reminds you of your Dad (see how you’re using real life experiences mentioned in Point 1 to develop an interpretation of the text?). You will then more easily recall something the character said or did in the text (i.e. evidence) that made you admire them.
Having an analysis ready to use alongside the evidence. As a result of Point 2, you’ll be able to write a few sentences based on your own interpretation. Rather than memorising entire essays (we’ve talked about this before) and regurgitating information from teachers, tutors, study guides and other resources - which can be labour intensive and actually detract from the originality of your essay - you’re approaching the essay with your own thoughts and opinions (which you can reuse over and over again across different essay topics).
Let’s look on the flip side. What happens when you don’t have your own interpretation?
When you don’t take the time to actively think for yourself - i.e. to think through your own interpretations (we’ve talked about the importance of THINK in theTHINK and EXECUTE strategy here) - when it finally comes to writing an essay, you may find it difficult:
a) to get started - formulating a contention in response to the essay topic is challenging because you have no strong opinion about the text,
b) complete the essay - writing up arguments and using evidence in paragraphs becomes challenging because you have no strong opinion about the text,
c) to score higher marks - ultimately, you end up regurgitating other people’s ideas (your teacher’s, tutor’s or from study guides) because you have (you guessed it) no strong opinion on the text.
Having your own interpretation means that you’ll eliminate issues a, b and c from above. Overall, you’ll have opinions (and therefore contentions) ready for any prompt when you go into your SACs or exams, which means it’ll be easier not only to write a full essay, but an original and insightful one as well.
Your Goal
To overcome the issues above, you need to be confident with your own interpretation of the text. This doesn’t come naturally to a lot of students, and it makes sense why. After all, so many subjects reward specific answers (2 + 2 = 4), whereas English is tricky because there’s so much more flexibility in what constitutes a ‘correct answer’. It’s scary treading the sea of different possible interpretations because you’ll ask yourself questions like:
How do I know if my interpretation is correct?
How do I know if my evidence actually backs up what I’m arguing?
What if I disagree with my teacher, and they mark me down for a differing opinion?
Or worse - I’m not smart enough to come up with my own interpretation!
Let me say that you are absolutely smart enough to develop your own interpretation, and I’ll show you how to do so in A Killer Comparative Guide: Stasiland & Never Let Me Go with LSG’s unique strategy - the BUBBLE TEA (BBT) strategy. By following our step-by-step framework, you can be confident that your interpretation is valid, that it backs up your argument, and that most importantly, you won’t lose marks for it!
5. Sample Essay Questions
1. ‘To conform is to be safe and to survive.’ Compare how this idea is examined in both texts.
2. 'The earlier years…blur into each other as a kind of golden time' (Never Let Me Go) 'I don’t doubt this genuine nostalgia, but I think it has coloured a cheap and nasty world golden.' (Stasiland) Compare what the two texts say about the dangers of willful ignorance.
3. 'For Miriam, the past stopped when Charlie died.' (Stasiland) '…I’d see it was Tommy, and he’d wave, maybe even call…and though the tears rolled down my face, I wasn’t sobbing…I just waited a bit, then turned back to the car, to drive off to wherever it was I was supposed to be.' (Never Let Me Go) What role do love and relationships play in helping people withstand persecution?
4. ‘It is impossible to be free when you are unaware of your confines.’ Compare how the two texts explore freedom and confinement.
4. ‘The past is always harder to access than we think’. Compare the ways in which Stasiland and Never Let Me Go depict the difficulties in uncovering the past.
Essay Topic Breakdown
As with all our essay topic breakdowns, we'll follow LSG's THINK and EXECUTE strategy, as taught in our How To Write A Killer Text Response study guide. The LSG's THINK and EXECUTE strategy follows three steps in the THINK phase - Analyse, Brainstorm, and Create a Plan. Learn more about this technique in this video:
'To remember or forget? Which is healthier? To demolish it or fence it off? To dig it up, or leave it to lie in the ground?' (Stasiland). 'What he wanted was not just to hear about Hailsham, but to remember Hailsham, just like it had been his own childhood' (Never Let Me Go). How does memory inform identity in Stasiland and Never Let Me Go?
Step 1: Analyse
This quote-based prompt is constructed a bit like a theme-based prompt as it directs us to talk about memory’s role in forming identity. However, the quotes act as an additional hint in terms of what else we’re supposed to discuss. We need to identify where these quotes come from in the texts and why they might be significant. The Stasiland quote (from p. 52) comes from the question of what the nation should do with Hitler’s bunker. In the end the only decision was indecision, the mayor buried the bunker and hoped that people in 50 years might know what to do with it. Thus, this quote points to the difficulty countries have in creating a national identity when there is horror and trauma in their history. The Never Let Me Go quote (from p. 5) points towards an ill donor’s recreation of his identity using someone else’s memories. Therefore, this quote points to how memories, even false ones, can reconstruct individual identity.
Step 2: Brainstorm
Because of the direction of the two quotes, I am going to explore memory’s role in forming individual and group identity.
Individual identity:
Kathy and Julia develop greater self-insight through sharing their memories in a structured, logical narrative.
Kathy and Herr Koch fear that the loss of the physical presence of Hailsham and the Berlin Wall will undermine the significance of their memories of these places, which form a substantial part of their pasts and identities. They therefore pay much more attention to preserving their memories of these places to affirm their identity.
Group identity:
East Germany’s rewriting and erasure of history meant that they no longer identified as the same Germans responsible for Hitler’s regime.
The episode in which a distressed man sobs 'I don’t want to be German anymore!' reveals how difficult memories can generate confusion and internal conflict over an individual’s perception of their national identity.
In NLMG, the country’s determined forgetting of the circumstances of the clones allows them to preserve their own interests and maintain an uncomplicated, guilt-free, but false, innocent national identity.
Step 3: Create a Plan
P1: Both texts show that the degree to which one’s memories have been investigated and illuminated impacts how well they understand their identity.
Compare Kathy and Julia and the way they reconstruct their understanding of their identity by reflecting on their memories with the new information offered by hindsight.
Conversely, the ill donor that Kathy cares for at the beginning of the novel sought to purposefully suppress his own identity by replacing his memories. This speaks to the same idea that memories can evolve and shape identity but shows how that can be misaligned with reality and truth (note: this discussion of the donor is your opportunity to use the quote from the prompt, which is a requirement of a quote-based topic).
P2: Sometimes people hold on tightly to particular memories as a way to affirm their identity as losing those memories is akin to erasing or denying the legitimacy of their experiences.
Compare Hagen Koch’s obsession with the Berlin Wall and Kathy’s preoccupation with Hailsham.
P3: Choosing what gets remembered or forgotten in a nation’s ‘official history’ drastically impacts how their national identity is perceived and how well that identity aligns with reality.
'History was so quickly remade, and so successfully, that it can truly be said that the easterners did not feel then, and do not feel now, that they were the same Germans as those responsible for Hitler’s regime'
'I don’t want to be German anymore!'
'To remember or forget? Which is healthier?'
'The world didn’t want to be reminded how the donation program really worked.'
'They preferred to believe these organs appeared from nowhere.'
How can the context of a film be utilised to add complexity to an analysis?
Writing a film analysis can be daunting in comparison to analysing a written text. The task of dissecting a motion picture consisting of dialogue, camera shots and dialogic sound is challenging, but an understanding of a film’s social, cultural and political background can elevate your analysis from standard to spectacular. Thus, before analysing Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 thriller ‘Rear Window’, it is important to consider its cultural, political and social context:
Cultural Context
The Greenwich Village setting of ‘Rear Window’ is located in Lower West Manhattan, New York, and was known as America’s ‘bohemian capital’ during the 1950s, in which avant-garde artists freely explored unconventional lifestyles.
Hitchcock’s decision to use Greenwich Village as the backdrop of the film links its image of human suffering to the failed vision of American progressivist culture.
Despite acting as the main location of progressive culture, such as the beginning of the international gay rights movement, Greenwich Village was also the setting for the broken dreams of its eclectic residents.
This cyclical nature of hope and defeat can be observed in the film, as the audience can perceive the frustrated songwriter destroying his latest work, and Miss Lonely hearts desperately seeking true love in the seedy bars and gloomy alleyways of the ‘bohemian heaven’.
Additionally, it is this social radicalism of Jeff’s neighbours that provides the basis for his voyeuristic habits; by portraying their individual eccentricities though their respective apartment windows, Hitchcock offers to Jeff a range of human peculiarities, which he eagerly observes through his ‘portable keyhole’.
Political Context
‘Rear Window’ encapsulates the rampant Mccarthyism, and subsequent suspicion, at the time of its release in 1954.
The fear of Communist influence in the USA led to heightened political repression from the government, and Americans could only prove their loyalty to the country only by offering others’ names to the government.
As such, Jeff’s insubstantial speculation about Thorwald murdering his bedridden wife is disturbingly reflective of the social strife in 1950s America, as thousands accused their neighbours for treason or subversion without concrete evidence.
Along with heightened political surveillance followed the allure of voyeurism; just as Jeff is contained to his wheelchair, and can merely gaze through his rear window into his wider world - the courtyard, so were Americans during the Cold War; expected to only ‘gaze’, and leave all the ‘involvement and engagement to the politicians’.
Social Context
The suburban setting of‘Rear Window’ reinforces the sense of confinement and suspicion rampant during the 1950s.
After WWII ended in 1952, millions of US soldiers returned to a multitude of suburban homes built using mass production techniques, all overwhelmingly close to another. The Greenwich Village of ‘Rear Window’ is an example of one of these suburbs.
The crowded Greenwich Village apartment complex of the film acts as an effective narrative device, as Hitchcock employs the physical proximity of the apartments to reinforce the overwhelming sense of voyeurism and paranoia amongst neighbours.
How to Analyse a Scene
The Film’s Opening Sequence:
As the blinds roll up to reveal the apartment complex, a medium shot of the wide-open windows of each apartment immediately convey to the audience an environment of an uncomfortable openness. However, despite this, the separation of each apartment by brick walls as a separate entity on its own serves as a symbol of the widespread suspicion characteristic of the McCarthyian era. Within the frame of the main window, the windows of each apartment act as mini frames within the big frame, multiplying the sense of voyeurism present in the shot.
Although seemingly insignificant, the brown tabby cat that runs across the steps of Greenwich Village represents freedom and individual autonomy, later comparable to the character of Lisa in the film. The compounding sense of surveillance during the 1950s add more meaning to the freedom symbolised by the cat, which can then be contrasted to the suppressed independence of the protagonist, who is seen invalid in a wheelchair in the next shot:
By this extreme close-up shot of Jeff sleeping in his wheelchair during the opening sequence, Hitchcock immediately places the viewer in an uncomfortable position as the original and ultimate voyeur, surpassing the intimate boundaries of the protagonist. The camera’s focus on the beads of sweat on Jeff’s forehead signify the intense heat of summer in Greenwich Village, confirmed by the following close up shot of 94F on the thermometer:
The stifling temperature of the season foreshadows imminent tension about to unfold in the film, as does the following close-up shot:
The slow panning from Jeff’s head to his broken left leg in a cast, in tandem with the ominous, epitaph-like words, ‘Here lie the broken bones of L.B Jefferies’, increase the impending sense of tragedy.
Jeff’s profession as a photographer becomes gradually more evident, as the camera slowly pans from focusing on Jeff’s injury to around his room. This close shot of a destroyed, seemingly irreparable camera, literally reflects the cyclic nature of broken dreams characteristic of Greenwich Village, and also signifies that Jeff too has been hurt (literally) by radical pursuits in his progression. It is important to note that Jeff’s room is plain and lacks any decorative sophistication, establishing his character as a simple, ‘everyday’ American man.
The only things adorning Jeff’s small room are his many photographs, all taken by himself. Despite varying in size and setting, they all share a single point of similarity; they all focus on sights of destruction, such as the race car crash or the remains of a volcanic eruption. The framed nature of these photographs signify Jeff’s appreciation for tragic devastation, establishing further doom in the film by lending a darker note to his voyeuristic tendencies.
The last photograph the camera focuses on in the opening sequence is the picture taken by Jeff of an elegant woman, who bears a striking resemblance to Lisa.
This image of ‘Lisa’ in the negative literally symbolises Jeff’s negative perception of his girlfriend Lisa at the beginning of the film. In contrast, the following shot of ‘Lisa’ in the ‘positive’ foreshadows the development of the film, as he begins to perceive Lisa as a possible life partner:
Want to save this for later? Download a PDF version of this blog here.
Get exclusive weekly advice from Lisa, only available via email.
Power-up your learning with free essay topics, downloadable word banks, and updates on the latest VCE strategies.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
latest articles
Check out our latest thought leadership on enterprise innovation.
