Rhetorical Analysis 3

Goal: The goal here is to get people psyched about this movie so that they’ll go to see it.

Argument: There’s not much of an argument here…just trying to convince people that this is a movie that they would want to go and see and that it’s a movie that’s going to pack a lot of action, action that’s unlike any they’re going to see in any other movie.

Audience: Generally people who would see movies and people that are old enough to see movies that are rated R. It’s also important to note that the movie is made in the traditional “B Movie” or Grindhouse style and so people that are familiar with this type of film are going to be particularly interested. The film is made in an homage to these old seventies exploitation films.

How: First of all, the fact that the film is going to be directed by Robert Rodriguez lends it a lot of credibility because of his other films that have received so many accolades. Also, film buffs are going to recognize that the film is a seventies exploitation homage and this also lends a lot of ethos appeal. The fact that film enthusiasts will recognize this makes it an ethological appeal. Also, the language, graphic violence and blatant sexuality is supposed to elicit excitement (or disgust) in the viewer which should entice them to see the film.
As far as a “typical” goes, the film and the endorsements are quite a-typical. The announcer is one people are familiar with from narrating other film trailers but his actual words are quite unusual. The profanity and the outlandish nonchalance with which he speaks about the graphic subject makes it hard to really trust him as a narrator.

The film trailer should be accurate. I mean, I think that it genuinely portrays everything that’s going to go on in the actual film. It goes without saying that film trailers try to put the most explosive or interesting scenes in the trailer to bait people to see it. There’s no telling as to whether or not there are more scenes in the film that are just as explosive as those in the trailer, but this isn’t totally verifiable until the film comes out.

Effective?: Absolutely! I can’t wait to see this film!
You can view the trailer here: (Disclaimer: Graphic violence and language IN THE TRAILER…so you know it’s going to be good!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8cCzltPD6Y

SHOPLIFTERS OF THE WORLD UNITE AND TAKE OVER!
Rhetorical Analysis Number 2



Goal: In his article Paul Constant’s first goal is to entertain the reader. His second goal is point out the crippling effects of shoplifting and the powerlessness of store owners regarding it.

Argument: His argument is that shoplifters have a negative effect on independent store owners and that he’d prefer they stole from corporate book chains.
Audience: Specifically, Paul’s article is going to appeal to Independent bookstore owners who have experience with countering shoplifters. On a secondary level, Paul has a very cynical and sarcastic tone, using some four letter expletives that broadens his scope to anyone willing to be entertained by the perils of an independent bookstore owner.

How: Paul first uses an appeal to ethos stating his credibility having worked both for a corporate book store and for an Independent book retailer for eight years. This experience gives him the credibility to speak with some authority on book thieves. Paul also employs a pathological appeal that elicits both sympathy and disgust. He cites other book retailers who’ve had to close up shop due to rampant shoplifting. He also gives a detailed account of the methods certain shoplifters use to get books and even the books that are the most popularly stolen! Paul also tells a story of chasing a book thief down the streets of Seattle, only to see the shoplifter hurl the stolen books into the Puget Sound River. This act is quite despicable and is used to tap into a readers feelings of pity for the authors, booksellers and publishers who’ve had their product wasted mindlessly. The article is short and meant to be a quick read and so there’s not really a sufficient amount of information. While there are personal experiences, it lacks concrete data regarding booksellers’ losses. While this might not be exactly what he’s going for (he may not be a moral crusader for booksellers’ rights is what I’m saying) it’d certainly help his cause if he had a little more information. The information that is provided is certainly relevant to his topic, but it might be exaggerated a bit to make for writing something exciting. This would certainly compromise the accuracy of his statement. His experiences also might not be typical of all booksellers because he seems like an eccentric fellow (chasing thieves down the streets of Seattle and all of that) that might not be true of an average bookseller.

Effective?: Ultimately I enjoyed reading the article, but the only thing Paul Constant convinced me to do was to steal books and get funny reactions from the store owners.

(The story is here)

Rhetorical Analysis assignment 1

You are unhappy. I can see it in your eyes...and your man boobs and folded flesh.

Goal: As with almost any company, the goal here is to convince people to purchase their product. In this case, it’s trying to convince people to buy speed-fit exercise equipment and instructional DVDs.

Argument: The main argument seems to be that being overweight is going to make you unhappy. They’re essentially saying “obesity equals unhappiness and we’re trying to undo your gnawing depression fatty.”

Audience: Initially it seemed that the intended audience was people who are obese, but there is also a strong statement geared towards people who aren’t necessarily overweight, but who are afraid of becoming so. Maybe even shallow people who really feel that their potential happiness is dependant on their weight or their figure. Females seem to be more concerned about this than males. Just sayin’.

How: There’s a strong pathological strategy here. Here we see a flabby body (not sure if it’s male or female, but the hairlessness may be an indication of a woman’s body) folded over on itself, the creases in the flesh creating the illusion of a frowning face. The image is certainly created to elicit disgust and even fear in the viewers. “Wow! Could my body really look like that if I don’t work out? That’s revolting! I don’t want that! Make it go away! It’s staring at me! Gross!” The image, disturbing as it may be, also appeals back to the logical argument addressed earlier. The flabby body’s frown is meant to reinforce the idea that “this flabby body makes a frowning face…your real face will look similar if you’re ever this fat.” Whether or not you agree, the company makes a pretty strong statement that ones weight has a direct correlation on their physical happiness. The frowning face is a symbol that’s easy to interpret but represents a deeper logical argument. It can be debated whether or not sufficient information is provided. We don’t actually know if the owner of this fat body is indeed unhappy (regardless of what the folds in their flesh might say!) nor are the health benefits of weight discussed. Regardless of current trends to be “PC” this day in age, the argument is fairly representative of the general public this day in age. While it may not be accurate on a scientific level, it certainly illustrates many people’s opinions about body image and self esteem. The image and the methods employed are directly related to the company’s argument however, and while they might not explicitly say “we’re in the business of prolonging your life” they’re certainly trying to say “we will make you happier and look better.”

Effective?” Certainly. People are afraid of being fat and this ad plays directly into that fear. Any argument against obesity is an effective one and this is just another angle a company can take to frighten people from gaining too much weight.

If the image isn't showing up you can view it here.