Paradise Lost Argument Essay

As this scene slowly transition, viewers find two more officers standing beside the creek. The dialogue “Robin Hood Hills – West Memphis, Arkansas” are presented just below the screen. Filmmakers adjust their cameras at this point, so that viewers can finally hear some communication between the officers. This grabs viewers attention as they can hear one officer saying, “Don’t let nobody come up here. Don’t want nobody in here.” The communication between the officers appeals to ethos because filmmakers place themselves in the shoes of the officials. Viewer’s also realize that the officers want to protect the community, by assuring that no one comes into contact with the austerity of the crime. Thus, filmmakers communicate their of goal of trying

to engage themselves in the investigation soliciting an appeal that makes viewers feel that they can trust what the filmmakers will show them next.
Furthermore, one of the disadvantages of Paradise Lost is the fact that for all of the fundamental information provided, key elements are introduced; however, they are rarely explored.

Some supporting factors receive more light than others. Filmmakers do this as if to grant viewers permission, to interpret the habits and patterns applied during the film and formulate their own theories while also leaving them in the dark about other details.Viewers are forced to think and react by themselves. The filmmakers, for example, focus a lot of their attention toward the court scenes in which they appeal to experts who help assess the situation. In one scene, which takes place at the trial of Damien and Jason, a certified “expert occultist” provides proof of the satanic orientation involved during the murders. Viewers come to find out, that this occultist receives his degrees from a mail-order institution. This institution does not require any coursework or classes for him to become certified. The cameras seem to prolong this particular scene; however, filmmakers fail to provide viewers with more footage of the defendants and their alibis. An appeal to a viewer’s common sense is triggered here, as he or she note the film makers intentions to promote a feeling that the defendants are obviously more guilty than

innocent.
There are deluge of family appearances throughout this film. Filmmakers particularly focus a lot of their camera time, on John Mark Byers the step father of one of the victims, Christopher Byers. There is a particular scene, where the filmmakers apply syllogism and appeal to reasoning. Syllogism, is a rhetorical device that which begins an argument with a citation to something that is general and thus, proceeds to draw a conclusion about something much more specific. This explains the scene, where Byers was accused of playing a part in the killing and sexual mutilating of the three boys. Byers handed over a knife to the filmmakers. This knife was found to have the remains of human blood on it, but the police were said to have only checked the blood type. When this was done, the results matched both Byers and one of the child victims. However, the forensic results proved the DNA test impossible. Filmmakers focus quite a bit of time on this particular scene to convey their doubts on Byers. They appeal reasoning, as filmmakers influence how viewers percieve Byers. They almost appeal to pathos as well due to the fact that viewers may begin to feel suspicious about the role Byers plays in this film and in the court case.
Overall, Berlinger and Sinofsky begin building credibility with personal facts answering vital questions they anticipate the viewers will ask. They also include reputable experts, reasoning and employ emotional appeals by paying more attention to certain details than others. They are succesful at achieving the big picture through rhetorical devices.