GATTACA – TEXT RESPONSE

You have done well with this essay. Your introduction flows well and you have tried to articulate the complex nature of discrimination, by highlighting the prejudice that exists among the ‘valid’ community, within the main part of your essay; however, you never really linked sound reasoning with the evidence you present. Jerome’s silver medal, and the sadness that causes, is not indicative of him being less than perfect; it is proof of the fact he has become dependant on being seen as the best and in some way discriminates against himself for what he sees as ‘failure’. When you are discussing issues make sure that your explanations are as refined as possible. You didn’t even consider the fact that Vincent’s parents chose to leave his birth to God, you just assumed that they couldn’t afford it when there is lots of evidence to suggest that their choice was a moral one rather than financial.

 

You make an interesting point about the ‘burden of perfection’ but I don’t think you articulate it properly. It sounds a little extreme to say that the ‘valids’ were discriminated against more than the ‘invalids’. If you can say you would rather be an ‘invalid’ than a ‘valid’ in this world, then your assertion makes sense. I think what you wanted to say was that the ‘burden’ of perfection’ was the result of a belief among this society that genes could tell us everything there is to know about a persons potential and that this belief in the prophetic power of genetic screening prevented the ‘valids’ from trying to be better than they were. If their potential had already been accurately assessed, as they all believed it had been, then there was little point in trying to get any further in life. Had you been able to articulate this you would have been able to discuss the fact that the only person who believes in himself is Vincent, the one person who has not been screened to find out what his ‘potential’ is.

 

You have maintained a solid structure throughout which is really pleasing but you don’t go into the question in enough detail. You could have discussed what the discrimination of this world tells us about the people in it or what it tells us about the director and his opinion on genetic engineering. You didn’t choose the best example when discussing the discrimination that occurs within the valid community, you should have spoke about Anton and Lamar’s son. You didn’t mention the words ‘valid’ or ‘invalid’ once, this is not good.

 

Your ideas are interesting but lack any basis in the world of the film. You spend a lot of time talking about Jerome and Vincent wanting the same thing and that Jerome had been engineered to achieve the same thing. The first part of this is correct but the suggestion that Jerome was engineered to be an astronaut threw me a little. How do we know this? Do you think all modified people are engineered for this purpose in their society? You then spent time listing the similarities between Vincent and Jerome but this isn’t the point of the question. The point is to discuss how they came to share the same dream and how their relationship develops during the film.

 

 

 

2010 ISSUES ORAL COMMENTS

(B+)

You had great voice projection, which was really engaging for your audience. Your images were evocative and this was just what such a topic demanded. I loved your use of PowerPoint and your structure made it easy to follow. I noticed your use of repetition as a persuasive technique and it was very effective. You clearly felt quite passionate about your issue and this was even more persuasive. Well done.

(A)

You began with a solid introduction that set out the topic, your position and who you were really well and you drew the audience in immediately with a strong bold voice. The structure of your presentation was good and you spoke in clear and fluent language. The research that you had done was relevant and extensive and you fielded questions from the audience well. Good job.

(D+)

Your PowerPoint was put together well and helped the audience visualise the topic but you used the word ‘whales’ when you should have said ‘dolphin’ and this became rather confusing.  Your rebuttal was effective and showed you had a firm understanding of the subject in hand. You were a bit under time and this cost you marks. Your voice needed to be louder too.

(B)

You spoke with a really entertaining persona and utilised a kiwi accent to good effect. The costume you wore helped enhance this effect and you spoke with confidence and composure. However, you did repeat yourself a number of times and it was clear this was due to you losing your train of though; memorising your speech better can help avoid this in the future. You could have provided some kind of image so we had an idea of what the horse looked like and the success it achieved. Make sure you don’t just rely on you confidence and acting skills when doing your oral in Yr 12; some people take in information visually too.

(C)

Your lack of visuals made this presentation less than in could have been and you read your speech too much, which prevented you from engaging with the audience fully. You had a good structure and you used a rebuttal well but it never really felt like you were speaking with real authority on the issue; it often felt like it was a personal opinion you were trying to convince us of.