Don't forget to also check out Our Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for everything you need to know for Oral Presentations.

Since September 2015, the current affairs has been raging with numerous controversial topics - perfect for your oral presentation! Here are some of the more interesting issues that would be a good starting point for your oral. Remember to offer an interesting and unique argument, even if it may mean adopting the unconventional or unpopular point of view on the issue!

Oral presentation topics 2016

1. Should we have 24 hour public transport on weekends?

2. Gender selective abortion in Australia

3. Should the driving age in Australia be lowered?

4. Cricket star Chris Gayle’s treatment of journalist Mel McLaughlin

5. Should children be vaccinated?

6. Should the voting age in Australia be lowered to 16 years?

7. Should singer Chris Brown be denied entry to Australia?

8. Cultural appropriation in Australia

9. Should an Australian Prime Ministers be removed from office without a general election?

10. Should Australia be a republic?

11. Should the Australian flag be changed?

12. Is Australia Day racist against Indigenous Australians?

13. Adam Goodes booing: Are AFL football crowds racist?

14. Australian of the Year - Rosie Batty: Victim blaming

15. Should UBER be made legal in Australia?

16. Should baby formula be limited in sales?

17. Should greyhound racing be banned in Australia?

18. Is Australia’s border security policy justified?

19. Should Australian Open arenas have sports betting advertising?

20. See more Oral Presentation Topics 2017, click here.

Reckoning & The Namesake are studied as part of VCE English's Comparative. For one of our most popular posts on Comparative (also known as Reading and Comparing), check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Comparative.

Contents

1. Inheritance of Trauma 
2. Identity and Naming
3. Memory and Retrospect

Magda Szubanski’s memoir, Reckoning, and Jhumpa Lahiri’s bildungsroman, The Namesake, follow misguided protagonists as they attempt to reconcile and ‘reckon’ with complicated family histories. Magda is burdened by her father’s legacy, whilst Ashoke’s distressing train accident lays the foundation for Gogol’s uncertainty, exposing the inescapable and often inscrutable marks that trauma leaves on the identities of later generations. With a large focus on inherited trauma, identity and memory, we’ll be breaking down some crucial quotes from each of these texts to better understand these key themes. 

For a deeper look into some of the themes in Reckoning and The Namesake, check out this earlier post. And, if you need a refresher on how to properly embed quotes in your writing, take a look at How To Embed Quotes in Your Essay Like a Boss. 

1. Inheritance of Trauma

Whether it be the hardships of war or the adversity of misfortune, both texts observe family timelines steeped in history and trauma. Magda and Gogol are inadvertently burdened by their parents’ experiences, which remain obscure and confusing to the two protagonists and only complicate their identities. 

Reckoning

We were tugboats in the river of history, my father and I, pulling in opposite directions. He needed to forget. I need to remember. For him, only the present moment would set him free. For me, the key lies buried in the past. The only way forward is back. (p. 13)

This quote is intrinsic to the authorial intent behind Szubanski writing her cathartic memoir. The experiences of Magda’s father in war-torn Poland are, as Magda expresses, ‘passed on genetically’. Yet, with Zbigniew’s instinct to ‘[clamp] down tight on all feeling’, his trauma remains unrevealed and unexamined during much of Magda’s life. This impenetrable history impresses onto Magda as intergenerational trauma, which leaves her an ‘unregulated mess’, constantly  ‘ricocheting between feeling nothing and feeling everything’. 

As Magda accurately describes, both she and her father are metaphorical ‘tugboats in the river of history’, drawn in completely opposite directions to resolve their traumas. For her, digging into the ‘buried’ past is vital to understanding her father and herself. As she puts it, ‘the only way forward is back’. This is entirely the opposite for Zbigniew, who is unwilling and unable to articulate his trauma in anything other than ‘incoherent…jottings’ and ‘fragments’. Burdened by his past, Zbigniew prefers living in the present moment where he can suppress and avoid the past. However, this difference in how the two approach trauma leads to a strained father-daughter relationship founded upon a lifetime of misunderstandings and secrecy that only deepen their inability to understand one another. 

‘Even at that young age,’ Mum told me, ‘I knew, I knew I had done something wrong.’ When she told me this her face caved in, stricken with remorse. Actors can never replicate this look. Meg didn’t punish her, but ‘Oh! The look of disappointment on my poor mother’s face.’ Now, today, more than eighty years later, my mother still feels the stinging sense of guilt. 

History repeats. That story of how, when I was six, I got blood on my best dress before a trip to take Dad to hospital. Mum slapped my leg in hasty anger. I understand now, of course, that it was herself she was slapping. Her life-loving, disobedient six-year-old self. We are bookends, she and I. (p. 346)

Intergenerational trauma surfaces as ‘patterns’ within the Szubanski family, where regret and resentment are passed down as ‘hand-me-down trinkets of family and trauma’. Magda uses the metaphor of ‘bookends’ to describe her and her mother’s remarkably similar experiences dealing with familial trauma. In other words, both Magda and Margaret are mirror images of each other, both having a shared experience of supporting and living with ill fathers. When Magda gets ‘blood on [her] best dress’ before another trip to the hospital, Margaret ‘slap[s her] leg’. Although Magda initially mistakes this reaction as ‘hasty anger’, hindsight allows her to understand that Margaret was preoccupied with a ‘stinging sense of guilt’, and was reprimanding herself - the ‘disobedient six-year-old self’ who had similarly ruined her own ‘special dress’. This realisation suggests that even though trauma ‘repeats [like]…history’, there is a generational difference in the way individuals are able to process and respond to situations of grief, poverty and war. 

‍The Namesake

And suddenly the sound of his pet name, uttered by his father as he has been accustomed to hearing it all his life, means something completely new, bound up with a catastrophe he has unwittingly embodied for years. "Is that what you think of when you think of me?" Gogol asks him. "Do I remind you of that night?"

"Not at all," his father says eventually, one hand going to his ribs, a habitual gesture that has baffled Gogol until now. "You remind me of everything that followed." (p. 124)

Just as Magda inherits Zbigniew’s harrowing war experience, Ashoke’s own ‘persistent fear’ from the train derailment that cripples him lives on through his son’s name. His chance rescue whilst ‘clutching a single page of ‘The Overcoat’’ is meaningful and life-altering. For Ashoke, naming his child after the ‘Russian writer who had saved his life’ emphasises his profound appreciation for surviving the accident. His son Gogol is a comforting reminder of ‘everything that followed’. In this way, Gogol acts as a symbol of both redemption and hope, representing Ashoke’s optimistic appraisal of his accident and his determination to make the most of his miraculous rescue. 

But for Gogol, the memory of his father’s accident is entirely foreign and lacks any real meaning for him. His childhood pet name ‘Gogol’ - which he has always resented for making him feel out of place around other kids - suddenly becomes ‘something completely new’ when he discovers the truth about Ashoke’s accident. Gogol feels enormous pressure to live up to his father’s expectations as he represents a ‘catastrophe he has unwittingly embodied for years’. This is the source of much of Gogol’s guilt, confusion and resentment (towards his name, father, family and entire culture) and gradually erodes his sense of self. However, this inscrutability of the past only deepens Ashoke’s and Gogol’s similarity, whilst complicating and straining their father-son dynamic. Ashoke is unable to recognise the burden he has placed on his child, whilst Gogol alternatively cannot appreciate or truly understand being a miracle and source of salvation for Ashoke. Like with Magda and Zbigniew, here, father and child are unable to understand each other, creating a schism in their relationship which they are never able to reconcile. In any case, Lahiri conveys that the actions of enduring and processing trauma are intertwined and often leave permanent traces across future generations.

But Gogol is attached to them. For reasons he cannot explain or necessarily understand, these ancient Puritan spirits, these very first immigrants to America, these bearers of unthinkable, obsolete names, have spoken to him, so much so that in spite of his mother’s disgust he refuses to throw the rubbings away. He rolls them up, takes them upstairs, and puts them in his room, behind his chest of drawers, where he knows his mother will never bother to look, and where they will remain, ignored but protected, gathering dust for years to come. (p. 71)

Lahiri also indicates generational similarities in how individuals relate to trauma. As a second-generation migrant who has always felt displaced from his culture, Gogol’s graveyard field trip allows him to experience a semblance of belonging in Massachusetts for the first time and relate to America’s ‘very first immigrants’. While Ashoke profoundly connects to the Russian writer Nikolai Gogol, his son Gogol refuses to get rid of the etchings of archaic names. These ‘ancient Puritan spirits’ with similarly ‘unthinkable, obsolete names’ like his own provide Gogol with a source of relief and offer proof that he is not alone in his differences. He feels protective of them - conveying his own desires to defend himself against childhood bullies, and also providing a way to preserve this first true moment of belonging. 

Just as ‘The Overcoat’ resonates with Ashoke, Gogol feels connected to the etchings and conceals this single page from his mother Ashima, who is resentful of the peculiar American school excursion. Similarly, Ashoke struggles to convey the deep significance behind his own liberating ‘single page’ from the Russian book. In this way, both pages remain ‘ignored but protected’ and, for both father and son, symbolise the power of literature and storytelling to salvage their profoundly intimate and life-altering moments that are unfathomable to others. 

2. Identity and Naming

Both Reckoning and The Namesake suggest that hasty personal reinventions can only temporarily suppress, rather than truly resolve, trauma. The ‘self-made man’ Gogol strives to be, and the ‘mostly-self created…Little Englishman’ identity that Zbigniew carves for himself, are simply ‘bandaids plastered over’ unresolved grief and hardships. Cut off from family and history, these facades only worsen their inner discontent and complicate identities. 

Reckoning

For my father Australia was love at first sight. The moment we landed he knew he had done the right thing. The blast-furnace heat invigorated him. Only mad dogs and my father would go out in the midday Australian sun. He wouldn’t just go out in it…he would mow the lawn in it. We had a big, bumpy, untamed backyard and when the mercury hit 103 degrees Fahrenheit he’d be out there dragging the lawnmower across every inch of it. Wearing Bombay bloomers and a terry-towelling hat, singing Polish songs over the din of the mower. (p. 44)

Escaping battle-scarred Poland and the origins of his trauma, Zbigniew is a migrant who ‘could not shed his Polishness fast enough’. He ‘crosse[s] the world to get away’ from his destroyed and tarnished home. Zbigniew begins a ‘second life’ as Peter, and like the Polish amber Magda’s cousin gifts her, Zbigniew is ‘transformed by pressure’ (a metaphor for the natural formation of amber) into the ‘Little Englishman’. This persona is a role he takes with grave determination - an echo of the ‘killer instincts’ he suppressed from his abandoned life as a Polish assassin. Bewildering the rest of his family, Zbigniew relishes the ‘invigorat[ing]…blast-furnace heat’ of Australia, and acts the part of a true Aussie in his ‘Bombay bloomers’ and ‘terry-towelling hat’. This characteristically Australian ensemble essentially functions as another battle armour he equips himself with to protect his blemished soul, tainted by a history so ‘bizarrely awful’ that his only way to survive is by ‘clamping down tight’ through an ironclad persona. 

Magda recalls him ‘forever trying to tame th[e] lumpen block’ of ‘untamed’ and ‘unpredictable’ soil in their yard, ‘dragging the lawnmower across every inch’. This crystallises the truth of his life: no matter how committed Zbigniew is to perfecting any project, simply plastering order (trying to tame the lawns by mowing them) over chaos (heat + lumpen, untamed, unpredictable soil) leaves the trauma unresolved.

The rest of it went smoothly and before too long I had my entire sharpie uniform. Only one thing was missing—a Conti. This smart striped cardigan, worn high and tight, was the centrepiece of the ensemble, the definitive wardrobe item of the sharpie. But none was available, not in Croydon anyway. We had to settle for a plain cardie, rolled up at the bottom until it sat under my boobs. I never did get a Conti. I think it was a sign. (p. 126)

Like her father, Magda toys with personas herself. Identity is fluid and inconstant for Magda, often fluctuating between a form Zbigniew would be proud of, one she hopes would trigger any emotional reaction from him, and one desperate to fit within the social climate of Croydon. She cultivates a variety of comic personalities and, like her father, pursues her own ‘tennis madness’ by becoming madly obsessed with the sport and playing competitively. Magda also attempts to embrace the dutiful Catholic ‘good girl’ personality she believes would satisfy her father, but she rebels when he continues to ‘display [no] emotion at all’ and embraces the Sharpie youth gang uprising in her neighbourhood. However, Magda ruefully mocks the contradictory nature of her Sharpie persona, describing her conversion as a hybrid - a ‘convent-school Sharpie’ - rather than the ‘true Sharpie chick’ she aspires to be. But, while all of these personas attempt to unite the ‘disparate, confusing parts’ of her identity, they just suppress the ‘real girl’ behind the mask and leave her more dissociated from herself than ever before. 

Magda goes to great lengths to ‘smoothly’ acquire the perfect Sharpie disguise, but even with the ‘entire Sharpie uniform’, her facade is flawed; she lacks the Conti cardigan, which is the ‘definitive wardrobe item of the sharpie’. Her Sharpie identity becomes a parody of the authentic Australian youth gang. The flaws behind her imitation persona are worsened when Magda tries to replace the Conti ‘centrepiece’ with a simple ‘plain cardie, rolled up at the bottom’. Magda only realises this when she barely avoids a ‘beating’ by a ‘predatory Sharpie’ whilst vulnerable, dressed in her convent-school uniform, and unrecognisable as a fellow gang member. Here, she is finally able to concede that she has only been ‘playing at being a bad girl’ and laments, ‘I never did get a Conti. I think it was a sign’ - wryly foreshadowing the inevitable dissatisfaction of teenage facades. 

The Namesake

"I'm Nikhil now," Gogol says, suddenly depressed by how many more times he will have to say this, asking people to remember, reminding them to forget, feeling as if an errata slip were perpetually pinned to his chest. (p. 119)

Gogol’s place in the world as an ‘American Born Confused Deshi’ (ABCD) is his own ‘awkward [truth]’. Like his own name which he scornfully labels a ‘scratchy tag’, his status as an ‘ABCD’ is another brand he is ‘forced permanently to wear’. He is both ashamed and resentful toward his second-generation migrant identity and feels ‘neither Indian nor American’ whilst mocked for his nickname that is ‘of all things Russian’. Indeed, Gogol’s entire adolescent experience is eclipsed by his confusion about ‘who he is’ as he struggles to obtain any stable foundation for his identity. 

Unlike the costumes and disguises that Magda and Zbigniew embrace, Gogol takes action by solemnly changing his name to Nikhil, the ‘one that should have been’ given to him all those years ago. But even Gogol is acutely aware that this ‘scant’ persona leaves him having to repeatedly reinforce and assure others (and himself) of his identity. Gogol actually rejects the name ‘Nikhil’ on his first day of preschool, foreshadowing the inward dissociation he experiences later in life. He is again ‘afraid to be Nikhil, someone he doesn’t know.’

Similarly, the flask Gogol’s sister Sonia gives to him for his thirtieth birthday, inscribed with his new initials NG, becomes a symbol of his inability to ‘break from that mismatched name’. Lahiri indeed suggests that identities are unavoidably ‘engraved’ with the layered ‘randomness’ of their lives and cannot be easily dissolved. 

And then he returned to New York, to the apartment they’d inhabited together that was now all his. A year later, the shock has worn off, but a sense of failure and shame persists, deep and abiding. There are nights he still falls asleep on the sofa, without deliberation, waking up at three A.M. with the television still on. It is as if a building he’d been responsible for designing has collapsed for all to see. And yet he can’t really blame her. They had both acted on the same impulse, that was their mistake. They had both sought comfort in each other, and in their shared world, perhaps for the sake of novelty, or out of the fear that that world was slowly dying. Still, he wonders how he’s arrived at all this: that he is thirty-two years old, and already married and divorced. His time with her seems like a permanent part of him that no longer has any relevance, or currency. As if that time were a name he’d ceased to use. (pp. 283-284)

For the majority of his life, Gogol alternates between feeling irritation and resentment for his Bengali heritage, and profoundly longing to be truly Indian. Gogol has several failed relationships and romantic encounters: Kim, with whom he introduces himself as Nikhil ‘for the first time in his life’, then Maxine, who attracted him with the ‘gift of accepting her life’. But, like his indulgence of and immersion in the Ratliff’s self-satisfied American life, the interactions with these women feel like a ‘betrayal of his own’ culture, family and identity. 

It is ‘familiarity’ that draws him to Moushumi, a childhood Bengali family friend with whom he ’s[eeks] comfort’ in their shared culture. For Gogol, his relationship with Moushumi represents the possibility of salvaging a childhood he spent disliking, but for Moushumi it’s a betrayal of her principles of independence. She has ‘turn[ed] her back’ her Indian and American ties to embrace a third culture in France, a country with ‘no claim’ on her and none of the cultural pressures of her heritage. 

Gogol longs - ironically - for stability and ‘fall[s] in love with Gothic architecture’; he equates his failed marriage with Moushumi to a ‘building he’d been responsible for designing’. This is essentially Gogol’s way of dealing with the trauma of his divorce, translated into a form he can understand and process. And yet, even a year after their separation, a ‘sense of failure and shame persists, deep and abiding’ - Lahiri suggests that trauma, grief and heartbreak are embedded into our identities and we don’t require a set length of time to accept them. 

Both Moushumi and Gogol come to realise that they were sustained merely by ‘the same impulse’ to erase discomfort, their marriage ‘collaps[ing] for all to see’. Their relationship becomes meaningless and their time together dissolves like a ‘name [Gogol had] ceased to use’. Lahiri conveys that re-entering and recreating a life once discarded (as harshly as Gogol discards his own name) is impossible, even irrational. 

3. Memory and Retrospect

It is no surprise that retrospect and remembrance emerge as central themes in both Reckoning and The Namesake. Gogol’s resented ‘namesake’ itself is a conduit for redemptive memory, whilst Magda ascertains the value of history to ‘salvage’ the present.

Reckoning

I wanted to know; I didn’t want to know. Without realising it I plotted a course somewhere between the two. My father, unable to get any further with his own attempts at a reckoning, had simply closed the door on the past. And now I was about to open that door. (p. 290)

Retrospect specifically becomes a vital motif in Reckoning as Szubanski uses her memoir to ‘join up the dots of [her]self’ and gain perspective on her father’s ‘unresolved and unexamined feelings’. Through her adult perspective, she reflects on her early doubts as she is finally able to appreciate and understand her heritage, reading ‘Dni Powstania’ and ‘Exodus’ on the Poles’ shame. Although Magda and Zbigniew ‘[pull] in opposite directions’ for most of her life, only by becoming the ‘collector of [Zbigniew’s]…stories’ and taping his ‘confession’ are the two brought to some level of understanding. Magda is finally able to ‘rozumiesz’ (to understand) that her father had ‘never helped the Nazis’, and on some level, ‘feel the feelings [her] father could not allow himself’. Perhaps more importantly, Zbigniew is able to share the paradoxical nature of his guilt - ‘what he had done in the name of good’ - feeling neither ‘ashamed’ nor ‘proud’ of his past. His reflection through the outlook of a ‘half old, half young’ version of himself mirrors Magda’s own introspection - in this sense, the ways in which Magda and Zbigniew are resolving (or at least learning to accept) trauma are ‘repeat[ing like]…history’ in their family. 

I was never told anything much about Luke. But my mother’s eyes—beneath the humour—were haunted by a deep, fretting sadness. Behind the querulous hypervigilance, the nitpicking, the irritability, there cowered a terrified child. A child full of panicky uncertainty about everything. I wanted to reach back and grab her hand and pull her through time and…what? I wanted to hug my mother when she was a child, to tell her everything was all right. (p. 336)

Szubanski observes how generations of poverty and war have shaped her mother’s ‘flinty’, unyielding determination to ‘just…get on with it’ and move on from adversity. Her ‘deep, fretting sadness’ hidden ‘beneath [her] humour’ is compassion and grief for her father, Luke, who ‘woke every night screaming’ after the war. This resonates strongly with Magda because her own father’s war experience mirrors Luke’s. The two families (Magda’s family, and her mother’s family) are forced to ‘[walk] on eggshells for fear of detonating [them]’. 

However, Magda is able to understand that her mother’s capricious tendency to ‘cling like a python then turn and snap like a crocodile’ is a product of her trauma, which allows Magda to understand Margaret’s character on a more intimate and genuine level. Magda, as a neglected and ‘terrified child’ with ‘panicky uncertainty’ herself, empathising with Margaret’s own troubled childhood allows Magda to offer her mother the comfort and support she craved when struggling alone beneath Zbigniew’s ‘exacting…standards’. Through this, Szubanski seems to suggest that although the legacy of trauma is an ongoing and deeply complex process, ‘reach[ing] back’ to process unresolved traumas together becomes a precious and vital way to ‘salvage’ bruised relationships. 

The Namesake

There is no question of skipping this meal; on the contrary, for ten evenings the three of them are strangely hungry, eager to taste the blandness on their plates. It is the one thing that structures their days: the sound of the food being warmed in the microwave, three plates lowered from the cupboard, three glasses filled. The rest of it—the calls, the flowers that are everywhere, the visitors, the hours they spend sitting together in the living room unable to say a word, mean nothing. Without articulating it to one another, they draw comfort from the fact that it is the only time in the day that they are alone, isolated, as a family; even if there are visitors lingering in the house, only the three of them partake of this meal. And only for its duration is their grief slightly abated, the enforced absence of certain foods on their plates conjuring his father's presence somehow. (pp. 180-181)

Even in death, Ashoke’s spirit is able to heal his fractured, grief-ridden family - truly and ultimately ‘transcend[ing] grief’, fulfilling the destiny his name’s meaning set out for him. Surrounded by meaningless condolences and forced sympathy - the ‘calls’, the ‘flowers’ and the ‘visitors’ - the Ganguli family is left ‘unable to say a word’ or process their loss in a safe and judgement-free space. The ‘mourner’s diet’ that sustains them, even in all its ‘blandness’, is able to ‘slightly [abate]’ their grief; it ‘conjur[es Ashoke’s] presence’ and unites the ‘isolated’ Gangulis ‘as a family’. Ironically, these cultural traditions that young Gogol so adamantly refused become the ‘only thing that seems to make sense’. Preserving and honouring Ashoke’s memory, this forsaken custom becomes an unanticipated lifeline for a family torn apart by cultural expectations, irreconcilable differences and shared tragedy. 

"Try to remember it always," he said once Gogol had reached him, leading him slowly back across the breakwater, to where his mother and Sonia stood waiting. "Remember that you and I made this journey, that we went together to a place where there was nowhere left to go." (p. 187)

Unlike Magda and Zbigniew who are able to reconnect in life, Gogol’s own poignant flashbacks with his father are cherished only after his death. However, it is only with this hindsight that Gogol is truly able to appreciate these initially resented, perhaps forgotten, moments as meaningful connections to his family. Gogol’s relationship with his father is tragically underpinned by a lifetime of misinterpretations and misunderstood trauma, the two unable to understand each other’s disparate outlooks on life and culture. However, when they visit Cape Cod both Gogol and Ashoke are, if only momentarily, pioneers. They are exposed to the world, just as Ashoke had been when he migrated to America; the two travelling ‘together to a place where there was nowhere left to go’. 

Gogol indeed grapples with a desire for stability and meaning throughout his entire life, bewildered by the ‘unintended’ series of ‘defining and distressing’ events. However, family indeed becomes the source of true security for Gogol. ‘Remember[ing]…always’, he preserves the memory of his father, and resistant to time and change, it remains a comforting constant amidst the ‘randomness’ that characterises and complicates his family’s life.

How can we write about a film in a way that shows our knowledge of its complexity in the way it conveys ideas through visuals and sound?  

While this blog post focuses on the construction of Invictus, the concepts around analysing film and writing about it apply to all other Year 11 and 12 multimodal texts. If you are studying Ransom with Invictus for the Comparative component of VCE English, you may also find out Ransom and Invictus study guide helpful.

What contrasts Invictus from Ransom, is, of course, that we can see Clint Eastwood’s depictions of post-Apartheid South Africa through his visualisations of, for instance, characters emotions and behaviours, by the formation of cinematic techniques. We can see the divided community in which the narrative is set; involving the rift between Afrikaners and black South Africans.  The added challenge of writing about a multimodal text such as Invictus, is that its composition through these film techniques should be integrated as textual evidence in a cohesive and effective way.  

Some key study design points:

• ‍“The features of written, spoken and multimodal texts used by authors to convey ideas, issues and themes.”
• “The ways in which different texts provide different perspectives on ideas, issues and themes and how comparing them can offer an enriched understanding of the ideas, issues and themes.”
• “Use textual evidence appropriately to support comparative analysis.”
  

A good way to approach analysis of textual evidence is through looking at quotes.  However, to further show our understanding of the text is perhaps to discuss the context of these quotes; examining what the director is showing us along with this dialogue.  What are the expressions portrayed by the characters? What does the framing reveal to us about the characters, symbols or the setting? What is Eastwood wanting us to understand about the narrative through the combination of these techniques? By asking these questions we can try to grasp what the intentions of the director are.

Some key film techniques to think about may be camera framings/angles, acting, lighting, editing, mise en scène, symbols, etc. (see terminology at the end of this blog).

‍

Analysing a frame

A useful idea might be to go through the film multiple times, pause at certain moments and note what you can both see and hear. Turn on the subtitles to help decipher the dialogue – note these quotes down.  It may also be worthwhile to read through the actual script to Invictus; from this we can learn of the intentions of Eastwood from a different perspective – in what he wanted to show his audience in each scene.

For example:‍

INT. SPRINGBOK DRESSING ROOM - DAY                        

         The sound of cleats approaching on concrete. Exhausted

         footsteps. The DRESSING ROOM ATTENDANT PUTS CASES OF BEER

         (cans) on a side table, rips them open, backs away --

         -- as the Springboks enter silently, faces miserable,

         shoulders slumped. They've lost another game.

What is the setting? What can we see happening in this setting? Who is there? What are the behaviours and expressions of the characters? What does the type of camerawork tell us? What does the lighting and colour tell us? These might be some questions to consider.

MANDELA ENTERS LOFTUS VERSFELD STADIUM AS NEW PRESIDENT

In this scene, Eastwood utilises wide, high angle framing to represent the enormity of the stadium; filled with Afrikaners who, predominantly, detest the new President.  Still, even as the framing is constantly filled with these Springboks sports fans, the director shows us the smiling, confident Mandela, who warmly waves to his new ‘partners in democracy’ without fear or distaste.  We can see this as the camera draws in on Mandela’s facial expressions.  Moreover, the courage of Mandela is exhibited as he exits the stadium and a sports fan hurls a drink at him.  Even despite that he ‘sees everything’, Mandela continues to wave and smile at the crowd.  

‍

MANDELA ENTERS ELLIS PARK STADIUM FOR WORLD CUP FINAL

On the other hand, this scene, whilst it continues to demonstrate the steadfast, affable nature of Mandela, shows the unification of South Africa.  Through Mandela’s support of the Springboks by wearing the green and gold, we can understand that the Springboks have subsided from once being a ‘prominent symbol of the apartheid era’.  By contrast to his first appearance, Mandela is now upheld as a leader to all; there is no jeering or booing, but lively backing of both the Boks and The President.  Mandela has fundamentally transformed the team who once brought ‘shame upon our nation’ into something to be proud of and excited for.

The camera pans around the stadium depicting cheering and applauding fans, who are even carrying the new South African flag.  Even more interestingly, the black South Africans who widely scorned the Springboks, are now watching the rugby final in support of their team; their country.

‍JASON AND HIS TEAM MEET THE NEW BODYGUARDS

Eastwood utilises tight, close-up framing in this scene as to allude to the confrontation between black and white South Africans.  By this, the director draws us in to the agitated, bemused expressions on Jason and Linga, who immediately clash with the new SAS bodyguards they must partner with.  Jason stresses the personal bond between his team and the President – ‘[Madiba] that’s what we call him’.  This immediately shows the distaste that the black South Africans have towards their ‘enemies’, the Afrikaners.

Madiba implores that ‘reconciliation starts here’ and ‘forgiveness starts here’; Mandela assembles this new team of bodyguards because they are his representatives and ambassadors.  He wants the ‘rainbow nation’ to start here.

Writing an analysis

Once we understand what’s happening in some important scenes, we can think about how this understanding can be implemented into pieces of writing.

Consider the quotes: ‘Pienaar’s team’, ‘shame upon our nation’, ‘somebody gets the axe’ and ‘tails between their legs’.  This is what TV host, Boland Botha, and the rugby president, say after the Boks perform poorly in their rugby match.  Accompanying this scene are close-ups of Francois Pienaar, who is made to be the blame for the momentous loss.  

We could approach an analysis of this by embedding quotes amongst a discussion of the cinematic techniques; explaining what we learn about the character of Pienaar through these.  By including both quotes and some context in the cinematic construction, it displays a clear knowledge and understanding.

For instance, we could write:

“Eastwood demonstrates Pienaar as a prominent leader in the Springbok team.  He is made out to be responsible for ‘[his] team’s’ dismal performance.  Tight, close-up framing shows the audience a defeated Pienaar, a captain and leader who has brought ‘shame upon’ the South African nation, and as the rugby president suggests, deserves to ‘get the axe’.  The harsh, low-key lighting of the frame draws in on the raked and bruised Pienaar, who is isolated as the key to the Boks having ‘their tails between their legs’ throughout the game.”

‍

Have a go at analysing the film and finding a way to balance embedded quotes with examples of the director’s techniques.

All in all, while it is not crucial to talk about specific production techniques as such, it can help give you an edge in demonstrating that you know the ins and outs of the text.  It helps show your comprehension of the context, themes and ideas presented, which is key to exemplifying a capacity to perceive authorial intent.  

‍

Some useful terminology

Camera shots/techniques:

• Shots: extreme long
  shot/long shot, medium shot, close-up
  shot/extreme close-up
  
• Establishing
  shots: first shot of a new scene, shows the audience where the scene is taking place.
  
• Depth of
  field: distance between closest and furthest objects giving a focused image. 
  

Camera angles:

• Bird’s-eye
  view, low angle, eye-level, high angle
  
• Skewed angle:
  camera set on an angle (horizon line is not parallel with the bottom of the
  frame)
  

Camera movements: 

• Zooming, panning/tilting, tracking, hand-held

Mise en Scene: the arrangement of a frame; the artistic look of a shot in its elements of lighting, colour, camera techniques, sets, costumes, etc.

Lighting: high-key (bright, low shadow and contrast) or low-key (underlit, strong contrast between light and dark)

Point-of-view: the perspective from which the text is portrayed; the audience are driven to identify with characters portrayed.

Opening/resolution: how a narrative is introduced in setting up characters, settings, etc., how these develop and resolve at the end of a text.

Motif: a distinguishable feature which portrays a theme and idea about a character, setting, etc.‍

For more information on film techniques, watch this video:

For a detailed list of film techniques, learn more here.

Don't forget to also check out Our Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for everything you need to know for Oral Presentations.

Welcome to 2014! As many of you will already be in your second or third week of schooling, it’s likely that you’re getting plenty of workload from across your subjects. Some of you may very well be preparing for your oral presentation SAC that’s coming up very soon! If that is the case, I’ve collated a list of some popular topics that have cropped up in the Australian media since September last year. The list is intended to help you brainstorm different issues you may wish to debate in your speech, with the contention left for you to decide once you have researched enough on the topic! Check it out below:

1. Treatment of asylum seekers 
2. Processing of asylum seekers
3. ‘One punch law’
4. Street violence
5. Should mathematics be compulsory in schools?
6. Shark culling in South Australia
7. The end of car manufacturing in Australia
8. Sex education and homosexuality
9. Work-for-the-dole scheme
10. Needle vending machines
11. East-West tunnel
12. Cory Bernadi’s book – The Conservative Revolution (Abortion)
13. Should we smack our children?
14. The Indigenous employment gap
15. Tecoma McDonalds
16. Sexism in the media
17. Animal cruelty
18. Treatment of fare evaders
19. Wearing the hijab in schools
20. Carbon tax
21. Childcare wages
22. Should the government fund private schools?
23. See Oral Presentation Issues in 2013 for other ongoing issues

Listening is always viewed as the easiest section in an EAL exam, however, it is also the easiest section for students to lose marks as many of them may carelessly misread the question and/or comprehensively fail to answer the question. I personally find listening really challenging as it requires you to concentrate on multiple things at the same time, for example, the characters’ main contention, emotions, tone shift, and the context of the recording. However, as long as you do more practice, you will soon be able to master the listening skills! Here are the 4 steps that you will have to know if you want to do well in listening!

1. Read the background information of the text

Use your reading time (15 minutes) wisely and spend around 2-3 minutes in the listening section. The background information of the text is extremely important as it tells you the context of the recording which can also give you a basic idea of the characters involved in the text and the content they will be talking about. From the background information quoted from the VCAA 2019 EAL Exam, you will be able to recognise the two characters (Sue and Joe) involved in the text and you can also relate their conversations to the garage sale.

“Sue lives in a small seaside town. She presents a regular podcast called Sue’s Local Stories for the local radio station. Today she is talking about garage sales with John, who has just moved to the town. A garage sale is a sale located in a person’s garage or in front of their house, where they sell their unwanted items.” - Background information of Text 2

2. Scan through the questions carefully

Look for the keywords in the question, such as the 5W1H (Who, When, Where, What, Which, How), the character names, and the number of points that needs to be answered in each question. READ THE QUESTIONS FOR EACH SECTION CAREFULLY. That’s the only piece of advice I can give you to avoid losing marks on careless mistakes. Usually, the questions in listening are quite straightforward and easy to follow. Hence, it is particularly important for you to understand what the question is actually asking and what you are expected to answer in order to secure full marks in that specific question.  

Examples of the 5W1H Questions

• Who is he referring to when he says “You”?
• When did he open his first bookshop?
• Where did he go after his graduation?
• What message is he trying to convey in his speech?
• Which phrase did he use to express how dry it was in the desert?
• How does he express his anger?

3. Note taking

You should be using the spaces provided in the exam answer booklet to jot down any key words and phrases that are related to the questions. Do not bother to fill in the answers on the answer line just yet, as you are very likely to get distracted, hence, it may increase the risk of missing the answer for the next question. Remember that your notes should be as concise and clear as possible so you will be able to write down the answers immediately once the recording stops.  

Examples of notes

Question 1: Which type of animal does Sarah think is cleaner? Give an example and comment on her delivery.

• Cat
• “MUCH MUCH cleaner” → emphasis
  

Question 2: How does Ryan show his feelings about plastic waste? Comment on his language choice and delivery.

• Exclaims → “putting sea life in a serious situation”
• Critical tone → emphasise the harm caused

4. Focus on the questions that you’ve missed

Bear in mind that you will have the chance to listen to the recording two times in total so please DO NOT stress if you miss out any answers or you are not sure about the answers after the first time. Highlight the questions that you have trouble with and focus on them when the recording is played the second time. 

If you have any spare time, I would recommend you to go through all your answers and check them in case you have any careless mistakes. Alternatively, if you are really confident with all your answers in the listening section, you could definitely start doing other sections in the exam, such as the Language Analysis and Text Response section.

Types of Questions you may get in Listening

In this section, I am going to introduce a few question types that can be seen in SACs and EAL exams. You will be able to perform well in all listening tasks if you do enough practices and are very familiar with these different questions:

• Support your answer with one piece of evidence from the text
• Give an example of delivery and language use to support your answer
• Give an example of the character’s indirect language
• What is the purpose of the text?
• Describe the character’s tone
• Describe the interaction between the characters
  

1. Support your answer with one piece of evidence from the text

This is a basic question type that can be seen in nearly every single listening task. It just means that you will have to quote a word or a phrase from the text in order to support your answer. Please ensure that your spelling is correct and the phrase that you quote is in the exact same wording as what the characters have said in the recording. You will only get the mark for your evidence if the above two rules are followed.

2. Give an example of delivery and language use to support your answer

You have to pay attention to the tone, pace and wording of the characters in order to answer this question. This kind of question is kind of tough, however, as long as you can memorise couples of examples of delivery, you will be able to answer this question effectively. 

Here are some examples of delivery and language use:

• Repetition — “No, no, no”
• Imperatives — “Do not do this…”
• Fast pace — “[quickly] What are we supposed to do now?” 
• Pausing — “But…”
• Place emphasis on words — “We have to STRIVE for our rights!”
• Increased volume
• Asking a question rather than making a direct statement
• Emphatic tone — “Do what I said!
  

3. Give an example of the character’s indirect language

An indirect language refers to an expression of the content of a statement in a longer or unclear fashion. It is often used in negotiation, diplomacy and in different types of embarrassing situations which can avoid the person from directly saying what he/she means.

Here are some examples:

“Oh… well… I am just browsing”

"Ummm… I am still thinking about it”

4. What is the character’s main argument?

In order to answer this question, you will have to pay attention to the standpoint of the character and be able to find the strongest point raised by him/her in the text. That’s why you have to read the background information of the listening task carefully and deliberately before you actually start looking into specific questions. This will enable you to have a basic idea of the character’s viewpoint towards the issue. Besides, the aim of this question is to test your understanding towards the text and your ability to interpret the character’s reasonings. Therefore, I would recommend you to focus on how the character is structuring his/her argument in order to help you to find the strongest argument. Bear in mind that your answer will have to be precise in order to secure full marks. No marks will be awarded to you if your answer is vague and not straightforward.

5. Describe the character’s tone

Here are some examples:

• Outraged tone — “Can you stop?”
• Astonished tone — “Wow!”
• Nostalgic tone — “I missed my hometown”
• Patriotic tone — “I am proud to be an Australian.”
• Amiable tone — “Nice to meet you.”
• Encouraging tone — “You can do it!”
• Accusing tone — “How could you make that mistake!”
  

You can also read through 195 Language Analysis Tones if you want to learn more tone words in order to drastically improve and expand your vocabulary. You are encouraged to memorise tone words as you will be able to apply them on your Language Analysis section as well!

6. Describe the interaction between the characters

Words to describe positive interactions:

• Genuine
• Direct
• Smooth
• Efficient
• Intimate
• Friendly
• Caring
• Polite
• Kind

Words to describe negative interactions:

• Disrespectful
• Awkward
• Tense
• Strained
• Defensive
• Unpleasant
• Sarcastic
• Damaging
• Unfriendly

For more resources on the Listening Exam and VCE EAL, check out The Ultimate Guide to EAL.  To see further advice, resources and samples for listening practice, see EAL Listening Practice And Resources (Part 1), EAL Listening Practice (Part 2), Tips on EAL Listening and How To Take Speedy Notes During Listening Component of VCE EAL Exam.

Don't forget to also check out Our Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for everything you need to know for Oral Presentations.

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!

‍

1. Should the Australian Government ban the wearing of the burka in public?
2. Should the homeless be banned from Melbourne’s CBD? (Robert Doyle proposal)
3. Should the Australia Government continue to fund the Safe Schools Coalition?
4. Should gay marriage be legalised in Australia?
5. Should the date of Australia Day be replaced/changed?
6. Treatment of asylum seekers in detention centres (especially women and children)
7. Is enough action being taken to diminish the sugar industry propaganda to minimise obesity?
8. Should on – site pill testing be mandatory at all public events?
9. Cultural insensitivity in Australia
10. Is the development of technology and social media encouraging narcissism in young adults?
11. Victoria’s legal system
12. Stem cell research
13. Is the development of technology and social media encouraging the sexualisation of boys and girls?
14. Drug testing and drug control in Australia (Bourke Street attack)
15. Fake news being published by researchers to the media
16. Should Victoria’s juvenile justice system be improved by the Government?
17. Do students learn as effectively with ebooks compared with traditional, hardcopy books?
18. Should security footage of detention centres be released?
19. Is Australia becoming an alcohol and sugar driven society?
20. 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.