Michael Jackson’s classic music video “Thriller” examines the consequences of buying the artist’s album on customer satisfaction. The enthymeme is, “Thriller is a must-have album... because Thriller features Michael Jackson.” The implicit assumption is that Michael Jackson’s records are must-haves.
The goal of this music video is to get the audience to buy Michael Jackson’s music. The audience is made up of music lovers, including Jackson’s fans. The argument, explained in the enthymeme, is made largely with ethos. The titles at the beginning identify it as “Michael Jackson’s Thriller.” When this music video was made (1982), Jackson was near the height of his career, and this would have lent immense credibility to the video that followed said titles.
Moreover, in the middle of the video, there is a large break in the music for a minutes-long dance routine featuring Jackson (who has become a zombie) and several other undead who have crawled out of their graves. This routine and the break for it, of course, are not in the original song, but allow Jackson to show off his dance moves. At this point, the ethos blends into pathos as Jackson sells the video with his singing and dancing. The audience knows Jackson is credible, and they like him (which is reinforced by his performance); therefore, his performance compels them to want the album.
The argument is more than sufficient; Thriller was a tremendous success, and more than 25 years after its debut, both the song and the music video are classics. It sells Michael Jackson and his music--a fan of music or of Jackson would recognize this latest song and album would not disappoint, and they would likely buy it. The argument is timely and relevant as well; if Jackson was not at the apex of his career, he was certainly close. It was accurate, as well, at least to the audience, in that it confirmed their image of Jackson as a talented performer.
Here's the link, if anyone wants to watch all 13 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyJbIOZjS8
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Paper A
Paper A explores the consequences of voting for someone whose platform you don’t entirely agree with on your ability to feel good about your vote. The enthymeme is, “Voting for one of America’s two major parties, even when you don’t agree fully with either candidate, allows you to defend most of your beliefs, because voting for one of America’s two major parties gives you a greater chance of being represented and heard in the government.” The implicit assumption is that having a greater chance of being represented and heard in the government allows you to defend most of your beliefs.
The goal of Paper A is to get new teenage voters to vote in an election, rather than abstaining from casting a ballot. The audience is teens who are old enough to vote and will be participating in their first election. The argument is made largely using logos.
The author (myself) reasons (uses logos) that by voting for one of the two major parties, the audience makes themselves players in the election. They have a say, and if they can find a candidate that supports the majority of their ideals, they can ensure that the majority of their ideals are represented if said candidate is elected. There are also numbers and figures used; the author uses the example of Ross Perot to illustrate why it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to be elected as president. There is a little bit of pathos as the teens are called to action, but as shown, the bulk of this argument resides in logos.
The argument is fairly sufficient; it gives some good reasons to vote either Democrat or Republican, but the reasons are not as well-suited to teenagers as they could be. The argument would be more timely in October (before the presidential election) though there are elections every year the teenagers could participate in. It is also an accurate argument; though there are certainly drawbacks to voting for someone you do not completely endorse, experts would tell you more of a difference can be made through the two main parties. Lastly, especially with the attention politics and the economy are getting today, arguments like this one are especially relevant.
The goal of Paper A is to get new teenage voters to vote in an election, rather than abstaining from casting a ballot. The audience is teens who are old enough to vote and will be participating in their first election. The argument is made largely using logos.
The author (myself) reasons (uses logos) that by voting for one of the two major parties, the audience makes themselves players in the election. They have a say, and if they can find a candidate that supports the majority of their ideals, they can ensure that the majority of their ideals are represented if said candidate is elected. There are also numbers and figures used; the author uses the example of Ross Perot to illustrate why it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to be elected as president. There is a little bit of pathos as the teens are called to action, but as shown, the bulk of this argument resides in logos.
The argument is fairly sufficient; it gives some good reasons to vote either Democrat or Republican, but the reasons are not as well-suited to teenagers as they could be. The argument would be more timely in October (before the presidential election) though there are elections every year the teenagers could participate in. It is also an accurate argument; though there are certainly drawbacks to voting for someone you do not completely endorse, experts would tell you more of a difference can be made through the two main parties. Lastly, especially with the attention politics and the economy are getting today, arguments like this one are especially relevant.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Angels and Demons
“Angels and Demons” is the sequel to the film “The DaVinci Code,” and will be coming to theaters in May 2009. The trailer examines the consequences of watching the film on moviegoers’ level of enjoyment. The enthymeme the trailer puts forward is, “‘Angels and Demons’ is a great movie...because ‘Angels and Demons’ leaves you sitting at the edge of your seat.” The implicit assumption here is that exciting movies leave you on the edge of your seat.
The goal of the trailer’s creators is to get people to watch the film, and their argument is that the movie is one people should see. The audience is moviegoers (since they will definitely be the ones watching the trailer in theaters) and also fans of the first film, “The DaVinci Code,” and the Dan Brown books the films are based off of. The argument is made using ethos and pathos.
Credibility is given to the film by the fact that it is directed by Ron Howard, a well-known, award-winning filmmaker; stars Tom Hanks, one of the largest names in Hollywood; and is based on the bestselling novel of the same title by the author of “The DaVinci Code” (Dan Brown). People who enjoy Ron Howard’s work, Tom Hanks’ acting, or Dan Brown’s books will be encouraged by this, as Hanks and Howard have been involved in suspenseful films, and Brown writes page-turners.
Pathos is used through the powerful musical score, the short cuts from shot to shot, and the dramatic pieces of the film shown in the trailer (for example, Tom Hanks/Robert Langdon exclaiming, “You’re talking about the very moment of creation,” something exploding, someone diving into water, etc.) These give the audience the impression that the film is fast-paced, compelling, and exciting. There are also shots of buildings in the Vatican, priests, and statues, which, when combined with the score, give the trailer a mysterious feel. There are no long clips used in the trailer, a fact which, when combined with the music and editing, excites the viewer, and leaves them on the edge of their seat. It would be easy to assume is that if the trailer leaves the audience on the edge of their seats, surely the film will, too.
The argument is sufficient; it shows moviegoers in general what they want to see: action, drama, intrigue, suspense, and excitement. Fans of the book or of the previous film will notice it seems to follow after its predecessor in this regard, and should be satisfied (at least, with the trailer). The argument is also timely; the film will be released in May. It should also be accurate; most likely the scenes shown in the trailer will also be in the film, and the ethos points (Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Dan Brown) participate in the roles the trailer has attributed them to. This is an argument that would be extremely relevant to moviegoers and fans of Dan Brown’s book, since it features some of film’s heavyweights and is an adaptation of the novel.
The goal of the trailer’s creators is to get people to watch the film, and their argument is that the movie is one people should see. The audience is moviegoers (since they will definitely be the ones watching the trailer in theaters) and also fans of the first film, “The DaVinci Code,” and the Dan Brown books the films are based off of. The argument is made using ethos and pathos.
Credibility is given to the film by the fact that it is directed by Ron Howard, a well-known, award-winning filmmaker; stars Tom Hanks, one of the largest names in Hollywood; and is based on the bestselling novel of the same title by the author of “The DaVinci Code” (Dan Brown). People who enjoy Ron Howard’s work, Tom Hanks’ acting, or Dan Brown’s books will be encouraged by this, as Hanks and Howard have been involved in suspenseful films, and Brown writes page-turners.
Pathos is used through the powerful musical score, the short cuts from shot to shot, and the dramatic pieces of the film shown in the trailer (for example, Tom Hanks/Robert Langdon exclaiming, “You’re talking about the very moment of creation,” something exploding, someone diving into water, etc.) These give the audience the impression that the film is fast-paced, compelling, and exciting. There are also shots of buildings in the Vatican, priests, and statues, which, when combined with the score, give the trailer a mysterious feel. There are no long clips used in the trailer, a fact which, when combined with the music and editing, excites the viewer, and leaves them on the edge of their seat. It would be easy to assume is that if the trailer leaves the audience on the edge of their seats, surely the film will, too.
The argument is sufficient; it shows moviegoers in general what they want to see: action, drama, intrigue, suspense, and excitement. Fans of the book or of the previous film will notice it seems to follow after its predecessor in this regard, and should be satisfied (at least, with the trailer). The argument is also timely; the film will be released in May. It should also be accurate; most likely the scenes shown in the trailer will also be in the film, and the ethos points (Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Dan Brown) participate in the roles the trailer has attributed them to. This is an argument that would be extremely relevant to moviegoers and fans of Dan Brown’s book, since it features some of film’s heavyweights and is an adaptation of the novel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)