Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

In my Film as Rhetoric course this week, we are watching the documentary Why We Fight (2005), a scathing film that argues that the Bush Administration manipulated the media into selling the war in Iraq as retribution for the events of 9/11.  Likewise, the Bush Administration has escalated the "industrialized military complex" to such an extent that America's foreign policy is dictated by the economics of war.  WWF director Eugene Jarecki comes short of saying that the White House's foreign policy has been corrupted for decades by Defense Contractors, like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Halliburton, who gain enormous profits on the business of war.  But, while watching the film, though, I immediately thought of Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. And, while Moore is one of the most recognizable documentary filmmakers, I think there were interesting rhetorical differences between WWF and F9/11. Specifically,  Jarecki seems to rely on the Aristotilean appeal of ethos and logos (as discussed in Book 1, Chapter 2 of Rhetoric); whereas, Moore seems to rely primarily on pathos than the other two appeals.

For instance, Jarecki does not comment directly on the Iraqi war but uses political advisors, military personnel, and several American citizens to provide the dialogue and commentary throughout the film. Jarecki enables these individuals to comment on the war without having to speak directly on the topic himself. Jarecki, then, relies on the ethos of the speakers to present the historical and political information, or the logos. As Bill Nichols notes in Introduction to Documentary, this rhetorical choice "implies a content-orientated desire to convey information, rely on facts, and make points about the world" (15). Additionally, Jarecki doesn't rely on elaborate or highly stylized  graphics to illustrate his points. The authorities look right off camera and the camera is pulled into tightly framed, close-up, and eye-level shots. Specifically, Jarecki uses eye-level shots because they enable the audience to "forget that there's a camera at all" (Giannetti 14). In this case, if the audience forgets that there's a camera, they accept the authority or ethos of the speakers because their commentary doesn't appear to be crafted or produced by a non-objective filmmaker.

However, Moore relies on quick editing and graphics to help convey his message to audiences in F9/11. For instance, in F9/11, Moore argues that the American public was misled by the Bush administration through the American media--a media that, by continuing to serve the interests of the government over the interests of its audience, was aloof and disconnected from that very audience. In order to convey that sense of disconnection, misinformation, and confusion, Moore uses grainy newsfootage that appears filmed off of a television prompter and quick editing of shots. In fact, the tempo of F9/11 is significantly faster than the tempo in WWF--as can be seen in the musical selections between the two movies. (Moore relies on more upbeat, contemporary music that often provides additional commentary to the topic while Jarecki uses classical and soft background music as a means of transitioning and connecting sequences.) Likewise, Moore's voice can be heard commenting and narrating the movie--an effect that helps Moore to direct his audiences' responses.

I don't point out these rhetorical differences to imply that one filmmaker is more effective or "better" than another; rather, these differences illustrate the rhetorical choices made by the respective directors and that different rhetorical appeals are more effective for different audiences. I might argue, though, considering the popularity of Moore's work in contrast to Jarecki's that the American public is more easily persuaded by pathos-based appeals. However, I found Jarecki's historical examination of American foreign policy extremely effective and might argue that Jarecki, while not as appealing to such a wide audience, is the better filmmaker because I felt like he treats his audience as if they were intelligent, compentant individuals who are able to make rational decisions when given all of the information (a point he goes back to throughout his movie--an issue he raises with the media and the Bush Administration, as well).   However, who knows what's really the case? Are Americans capable of distinguishing ethos and logos from pathos?  Probably not--which is why Moore is the more popular filmmaker of the two.  Afterall, we're still in Iraq fighting a war (I never supported or believed in to begin with) because of the pathos of 9/11.  A pathos-based appeal that manipulated American's senses of fear, patriotism, security, revenge, and smite.

Fahrenheit 9/11.  Dir Michael Moore.  2004.

Giannetti, Louis.  Understanding Movies.  10th ed.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.

Nichols, Bill.  Introduction to Documentary.  Bloomington, ID:  Indiana UP, 2001.

Why We Fight.  Dir Eugene Jarecki. 2005.

posted by: rgregory at 00:20 | link | comments (4) |

Comments:

#1  19 September 2006 - 03:27

 

I find your assessment of Fahrenheit 9/11 to be right on; Moore's appeals are heavily pathetic. While I own the film myself and appreciate his rhetoric, I sometimes find myself wishing he'd take a more "serious" (read, logical) approach. I'll have to see the other film now and see how they compare.

Do you remember Oliver Stone's editing of the "military-industrial complex" speech given by Eisenhower and narrated by Martin Sheen in the opening scenes of JFK? It's very riveting, and with its shots of family-centered shots and dream-like images of Kennedy's "Camelot," along with John Williams's swelling score, it creates a heavily pathetic effect. I'm stirred everytime, even though I'm not always sure what to make of every point of the film.

It might be interesting to look at as a point of comparison. There's a major Hollywood film which opens with a documentary-like sequence.

Mo'nonymous

#2  19 September 2006 - 15:31

 

Brandon,

Interestingly enough, WWF also uses the Eisenhower speech throughout the movie (particuarly at the beginning and at the end) as both an ethos-based appeal and as an emotional appeal. Eisenhower sits at his desk in the oval office, stoic and contemplative, urging the American public to be weary of the "military-industrialized complex." Jarecki notes often Eisnehower's conflicts w/ the Department of Defense over spending and his fears that American's fear of cold war would lead to an armenent of enormous proportions. It's chilling, though, to watch this stoic man sit behind the desk warning Americans to be careful not to go too far. And, then, here we are--too far. It gave me chills when watching it.
R

Mo'nonymous

#3  26 September 2006 - 05:04

 

Rochelle, I just finished Why We Fight. Very compelling filmmaking, and you're right: the logos and the ethos emphasized here just made for a better documentary. I found it refreshing. I've stayed away from some documentaries because of the overweening pathos. Thanks for sharing this. I'm probably going to watch it once more before I take it back.
--BDB

Mo'nonymous

#4  26 September 2006 - 20:30

 

I knew that you'd like it. And, I, too, have been avoiding documentaries lately. Just too much beating over the head.

Same reason why I can't watch Rush Limbaugh or anyone on Fox News. YES! We get it. You support Bush and the war. Get over yourself and your bowties.

Mo'nonymous

Comments: