Thursday, 19 May 2011

On the Murder of James Bulger- TV voiceover

On the Murder of James Bulger- TV voiceover
Venables and Thompson: Monsters or Children?

James Bugler. The two year old who was abducted, tortured and murdered by Jon Venable and Robert Thompson. The little boy who simply went shopping with his mother on a normal afternoon but was never seen alive again. This documentary will take you into minds, courtroom procedures and interrogations with the two ten year old boys, who committed this senseless act and will impose the question, are they Monsters or Children?
The case has brought about national grief and fear for James Bulger and for so many citizens children. Venables and Thompson are now the youngest killers in the modern history of Britain but the reasoning behind their actions is still unknown to all of us. How can we view them? Murders, kidnappers, cold-hearted or confused, ignorant, innocent? Can we get out of our minds that these slaughterers and sex offenders were only 10 years old? Could we forgive their disregard to the act they committed because their minds are not fully developed? These questions were thought of by the legal team for this case and were taunted the minds of the public viewing this unheard of story.
To take any life is uncalled for by any person, but to know that the life of an innocent two year old boy was easily taken is never thought about. Venables and Thompson did not confess their roles in this crime until they were interrogated every day. They cried wildly and spoke of ‘playing in the subways’ with each other and without James Bulger. However, The legal team soon find out that this was false and that Bulger was with them all the way until they stopped and began their monstrous deed. Venable spoke of bricks, metal bars, kicks and undressing of the two year old who surely did not have a clue about the situation he was in. I did kill him was the outcry of Venable. Monster or Child?

Commentary
The use of the 3 powerful verbs at the beginning emphasizes the actions towards the killers to state the ‘monsters’ area of the task. The rhetorical questions in the middle paragraph is there to question the listeners on the impression they get from the killers to answer the title. The repetition of the slogan, monsters or children, was used to make known the purpose of the documentary so that the listeners could decide. The reference to a quotation from the article is used to state that this piece is factual and not fiction so that the listener knows it is reliable. The use of the victims name is proper pronoun form is there to make known as well as create empathy for him. The last rhetorical question is used to leave a lasting impression on the listener.

5 comments:

  1. www a brave and at time successful attempt. A clear sense that you know the text and have used it in some ways. Appropriate address to the mainstream audience through some sensational language.

    ebi not perhaps as consistent as it might be, you could benefit from reading some documentary commentaries and/or listening to some popularist TV genres: a good one for this is Crimewatch.

    A COMMENTARY WOULD BE GOOD!

    ReplyDelete
  2. WWW - Fits purpose well
    EBI -

    ReplyDelete
  3. WWW- Effective and grabbing opening with the use of short sentences and power of three. Shows clear understanding of the text. I like the way the Opening paragraph relates to the end paragraph.

    EBI- Could have been longer

    ReplyDelete
  4. www the commentary is written in the form needed, well done. This objective approach is liberating. YOu have made a range of comment about the choices made and the purpose behind this decisions.

    The piece is particular good where you draw on the material more closely, recasting the facts into a different form.

    ebi the questions are strictly speaking not rhetorical because they don't demand one particular answer agreed on by both questioner and listener. IN fact these questions are at the heart of the documentary and are the very ones which need an answer to be discovered. Better if you are more detailed in your analysis of your own work and identify more techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WWW : the whole piece engages the audience well also good use of the commentary

    EBI : Maybe a longer commentary

    ReplyDelete