1. How does the filmmaker use rhetorical strategies to construct his arguments? Where do we see his use of logos, ethos, and pathos in developing his thesis and supporting it? How do the style and design of his documentary (the editing, music, 3 tracks, etc.) support his arguments and influence our viewing?
2. Which arguments, if any, did you find effective? Which arguments did you find lacking or problematic? How does the filmmaker's framing of his information strengthen or call into question his evidence?
3. Avery chooses what information to include very carefully. What perspectives were left out? What would be needed for a more "unbiased" approach to the subject, and how would that change the reception of this film?
4. What audience do you think this film was intended for? How are the structural and cinematic elements of the film developed to appeal to that particular audience?
5. Avery later recut another version of this film, leaving out some of his theories, including the diversion of Flight 93 to Cleveland, the voice-morphing technology, and, after talking to more eyewitnesses of the pentagon attack, the theory that a missile hit the building. He said in an interview he was "sucked in" deeper than he should have been, into a "hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off." Does this call into question all of his claims? How does this compare to someone like Michael Moore, or others who make politically charged documentaries in a heat of a political moment?
Sorry--I tend to ask 6 questions in one! Respond to whichever you want, or include your own thoughts about the film.
In response to your second question, I think it's important to realize the amount of information he's throwing at us. His logos is far stronger than either pathos or ethos, and he uses that to bring the audience in. It's almost like a whirlpool, where these facts keep churning the water and you find yourself stuck in the middle. For myself, a lot of the information I had no clue about. A good example of this is the black box argument. These boxes were never recovered from the planes, apparently for the first time in history. Honestly, I didn't know anything about the boxes for airplanes, so when he explains them to the audience and tell us this situation has never happened before, I'm stuck believing him because I have no other knowledge to rebut it. I believe that the filmmaker is hoping for this ignorance on certain subjects so he can introduce the problem to the audience for the first time and shape their viewpoint. Basically, his fast-pace, information rich voiceover is his strategy to rile the audience and see his point.
I agree with you, Paula. Logos was definitely the strongest and most frequent rhetorical device used. In watching the film, I felt that the argument for the destruction of the Twin Towers, seemed to be the weakest one. They relied in this section heavily on "credible sources" (news anchors, reports from people on scene when the planes hit the towers, eye witness reports, etc) to explain that there were several "explosions" that were heard. At some points, I feel like the filmakers were arguing semantics when they quoted people who claimed that a "bomb" went off. Now, I feel as if people who are currently witnessing some catastrophic event are not going to sit back and say "Well, did it sound like a bomb going off? Or did it sound like something crashing?" It's not outside the realm of possibility that these people were distraught, confused, and generally panicing. The sounds of the internal structure of the building collapsing is possibly what they heard. Also, once one media outlet or someone suggests that a bomb was going off, the media (and this filmmaker) can effectively use the "bad news bias" angle to give the public some sort of answer that they're desperately craving.
I think many of his facts and sources were also used out of context. I found myself constantly writing down questions while we were watching the film. In regard to the lack of physical evidence of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon, is it unrealistic for the government to have cleaned up larger fragments of the plane? I'm, admittedly, not a very political knowledgable person, but I feel as though the Pentagon would have the resources and the necessity to clean up a plane that has crashed into and destroyed a portion of what should be one of the most secure buildings in the country.
However, by using that quickly-paced, "fact dropping" method to create a logical argument, I think the majority of the public who views this film will at least take some of their ideas presented into consideration or for further review and research. This makes the film effective to a point.
I noted this in my mid-term essay, but I thought it applies to this discussion also: in Rhetoric, Aristotle writes: “Even if our speaker had the most accurate scientific information, still there are persons whom he could not readily persuade with scientific argument. True instruction, by method of logic, is here impossible; the speaker must frame his proofs and arguments with the help of common knowledge and accepted opinions.” The makers of Loose Change 9-11: An American Coup face this problem. Because the “common knowledge and accepted opinions” about the subject of the film are very different from what Loose Change is arguing, (the film is, in fact, arguing AGAINST ‘common knowledge and accepted opinion’) the filmmakers face a tough challenge. The response seems to be to overwhelm the viewer with logos – to present a mountain of evidence and trust the argument to win out over what the viewer already believes to be true. We are presented with piles of data – images, interviews, evidence of ‘experts’ changing their stories, scientific studies, reports, first-hand accounts, historical evidence that contradicts the official narrative – all put together for us to lead to the conclusion that the truth about the events in question is something other than what we have been told. The effect most likely varies with the individual viewer, but the data does build a level of authenticity that cannot be disregarded out of hand.
2) We discussed this in class as well, but for me what I found most compelling were the stories of the second explosions, since to prove that they had occurred the filmmaker used archival footage from major news networks. I wouldn't say that these images were manipulated, but I found it added to the Ethos of the film to have what most would consider a "credible" source presenting evidence, as opposed to a Voice of God narrator no one knows anything about. Less compelling, I found the incineration of the bodies in the plane crashes. They all had family members who would expect to do something with the remains-- you would think that SOMEONE would have mentioned somewhere that hundreds of people couldn't bury their loved ones. I would've liked to see just one firsthand account from someone who was denied access to their loved one's body.
3. Maybe this is the fairness bias coming out in me, but I would have liked to see any kind of counter-evidence to their claims. I appreciated hearing how the "official" story contrasted with the theories proposed by the filmmaker, but if any response to these theories exist I would have liked to see some sign of them. However, to answer your questions about changing the response of the film, I think this might've angered more the intended audience of the film. I feel that this film was made for those people who already mistrust the government's version of events (or simply government in general), and to hear more "propaganda" might anger an already angered audience beyond logical comprehension.
The oft repeated footage of the towers collapsing in a heap of dust alongside examples of buildings brought down by controlled demolition is visually compelling. How could the comparison not be valid - we are “seeing” it with our own eyes! The filmmaker bases his argument on logos, as he floods us with data, data and more data, bang bang bang, in a voice-of-the-boy-next-door narration which is, in some ways, more convincing than the deep, resonant tones of an authority figure. Our narrator, while perhaps misguided, at least comes across as being sincere in a “Hey, Guys, guess what I found out!” sort of way.
The filmmaker makes wise choices of interviewees and quoted sources, relying on the ethos of the characters to propel his argument: honest-sounding eyewitnesses; a sincere student at the end galvanizing the supporters; Sir Isaac Newton and his theories; a university professor being badgered by conservative pundit Sean Hannity; and Columbia University seismologists who refute the government’s official story. These people back up the logos of the filmmaker’s argument. If his goal was to raise questions in the viewers’ minds, I believe he accomplished that.
I appreciated the lack of pathos in this documentary. I still have a hard time watching some of the footage from 9/11 because the memories are still really vivid in my mind. I think the incorporation of more pathos would have detracted from his argument.
I think the bombardment of logos was the strongest appeal this documentary utilized. Although the evidence was compelling, I don't think he offered the audience enough time to process it all and draw conclusions themselves. The filmmaker told us from the voice-over narration the conclusions we should be drawing from this evidence. He does not allow the audience to be apart of the discovery process, make their own conclusions and join in on the "investigation of 9/11." He tells us what to think and what do after being told (not learning) about "the real 9/11."
I think the filmmaker was targeting a college, 20-something audience. From the beginning sound track, the filmmaker used the same song Tarantino used in Kill Bill, which was popular during the time of the film. I think Courtney mentioned this in class, but it seems the filmmaker was targeting an already distrustful audience of the government. Using the Kill Bill allusion supports the filmmakers purpose of getting the disenchanted audience to question even more their suspicions of the government. The narrator was aggressive with the presentation of information ending with, "Are you angry yet"?
Overall, the perspective he presents about 9/11 is fascinating. I think of 9/11 as the 21st Century's JFK Assassination. The events of 9/11 are told in similar ways that baby boomers recall their memories of JFK's assassination. Perhaps Oliver Stone and Dylan Avery can come up with something together.
I agree. Pathos in this documentary would not have been nearly as effective. People have such a connection to the 9/11 attack, that using pathos would appeal to more of a patriotic duty than anything else. The film was certainly not advocating patriotic duty, but essentially wanted us to question if we really know those authority figures to whom we owe our allegiance.
Our book, however, does state on pg 62, that when applying logos to an argument, "the speaker must frame his proofs and arguments with the help of common knowledge and accepted opinions." I'd say that he VERY effectively framed his logical arguments in terms of common knowledge. He just didn't necessarily have the most accurate scientific information to frame in those parameters.
For me the argument about the explosions in the building appeared the most convincing because we were able to see the footage of the towers falling and the tiny "explosions" below. I find that I am most convinced by something when I can come to the conclusion on my own. This is why I found when the filmmaker used video evidence it was more convincing than him telling the audience a theory without visual proof.
I would agree with Tanya that this film was intended for a 20-something audience. The underground electronic music made me feel that the filmmaker made this documentary in his dorm room with some friends, and he was looking to appeal to people his own age. I also tend to believe that conspiracist are usually part of the younger generation. The filmmaker spoke very informally to his audience which made me feel like he was speaking to his peers.
For question number 3 based on my own viewing of documentaries, I felt that it would have been more informative if the film maker allowed us to come to our own conclusions without his persuasion. That is what I admired when I watched Inside Guantanamo. I definitely would agree with the college aged gear of this film to take action and ask questions that the older generation is not doing. I felt that inspiration while watching. His tone, language and sarcasm also made the film more informal, making me believe it was for a younger audience.
There were several pieces of evidence that I found incredibly convincing and that got my mind reeling. The data he presented about the other explosions within the towers and their subsequent collapse. I also found the investigation of the Pentagon compelling. I think these points were convincing because there were multiple pieces of evidence, much of which was presented as being nearly undeniable, that took on various forms: photos/video, documents, interviews, and research. However, I felt like I was never given much chance to process the information I was given. The film was a constant firing off of facts and data; one point was rattled off, some images were shown on screen, and then we moved on to the next point. I understand that the filmmaker was trying to fit in as much information and as many points in as little time as possible, but I think if it would have been taken slower or if the information would have been presented that allowed the audience to actively think about and digest it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLoose Change 9/11:
ReplyDelete1. How does the filmmaker use rhetorical strategies to construct his arguments? Where do we see his use of logos, ethos, and pathos in developing his thesis and supporting it? How do the style and design of his documentary (the editing, music, 3 tracks, etc.) support his arguments and influence our viewing?
2. Which arguments, if any, did you find effective? Which arguments did you find lacking or problematic? How does the filmmaker's framing of his information strengthen or call into question his evidence?
3. Avery chooses what information to include very carefully. What perspectives were left out? What would be needed for a more "unbiased" approach to the subject, and how would that change the reception of this film?
4. What audience do you think this film was intended for? How are the structural and cinematic elements of the film developed to appeal to that particular audience?
5. Avery later recut another version of this film, leaving out some of his theories, including the diversion of Flight 93 to Cleveland, the voice-morphing technology, and, after talking to more eyewitnesses of the pentagon attack, the theory that a missile hit the building. He said in an interview he was "sucked in" deeper than he should have been, into a "hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off." Does this call into question all of his claims? How does this compare to someone like Michael Moore, or others who make politically charged documentaries in a heat of a political moment?
Sorry--I tend to ask 6 questions in one! Respond to whichever you want, or include your own thoughts about the film.
In response to your second question, I think it's important to realize the amount of information he's throwing at us. His logos is far stronger than either pathos or ethos, and he uses that to bring the audience in. It's almost like a whirlpool, where these facts keep churning the water and you find yourself stuck in the middle. For myself, a lot of the information I had no clue about. A good example of this is the black box argument. These boxes were never recovered from the planes, apparently for the first time in history. Honestly, I didn't know anything about the boxes for airplanes, so when he explains them to the audience and tell us this situation has never happened before, I'm stuck believing him because I have no other knowledge to rebut it. I believe that the filmmaker is hoping for this ignorance on certain subjects so he can introduce the problem to the audience for the first time and shape their viewpoint. Basically, his fast-pace, information rich voiceover is his strategy to rile the audience and see his point.
DeleteI agree with you, Paula. Logos was definitely the strongest and most frequent rhetorical device used. In watching the film, I felt that the argument for the destruction of the Twin Towers, seemed to be the weakest one. They relied in this section heavily on "credible sources" (news anchors, reports from people on scene when the planes hit the towers, eye witness reports, etc) to explain that there were several "explosions" that were heard. At some points, I feel like the filmakers were arguing semantics when they quoted people who claimed that a "bomb" went off. Now, I feel as if people who are currently witnessing some catastrophic event are not going to sit back and say "Well, did it sound like a bomb going off? Or did it sound like something crashing?" It's not outside the realm of possibility that these people were distraught, confused, and generally panicing. The sounds of the internal structure of the building collapsing is possibly what they heard. Also, once one media outlet or someone suggests that a bomb was going off, the media (and this filmmaker) can effectively use the "bad news bias" angle to give the public some sort of answer that they're desperately craving.
DeleteI think many of his facts and sources were also used out of context. I found myself constantly writing down questions while we were watching the film. In regard to the lack of physical evidence of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon, is it unrealistic for the government to have cleaned up larger fragments of the plane? I'm, admittedly, not a very political knowledgable person, but I feel as though the Pentagon would have the resources and the necessity to clean up a plane that has crashed into and destroyed a portion of what should be one of the most secure buildings in the country.
However, by using that quickly-paced, "fact dropping" method to create a logical argument, I think the majority of the public who views this film will at least take some of their ideas presented into consideration or for further review and research. This makes the film effective to a point.
I noted this in my mid-term essay, but I thought it applies to this discussion also: in Rhetoric, Aristotle writes: “Even if our speaker had the most accurate scientific information, still there are persons whom he could not readily persuade with scientific argument. True instruction, by method of logic, is here impossible; the speaker must frame his proofs and arguments with the help of common knowledge and accepted opinions.” The makers of Loose Change 9-11: An American Coup face this problem. Because the “common knowledge and accepted opinions” about the subject of the film are very different from what Loose Change is arguing, (the film is, in fact, arguing AGAINST ‘common knowledge and accepted opinion’) the filmmakers face a tough challenge. The response seems to be to overwhelm the viewer with logos – to present a mountain of evidence and trust the argument to win out over what the viewer already believes to be true. We are presented with piles of data – images, interviews, evidence of ‘experts’ changing their stories, scientific studies, reports, first-hand accounts, historical evidence that contradicts the official narrative – all put together for us to lead to the conclusion that the truth about the events in question is something other than what we have been told. The effect most likely varies with the individual viewer, but the data does build a level of authenticity that cannot be disregarded out of hand.
Delete2) We discussed this in class as well, but for me what I found most compelling were the stories of the second explosions, since to prove that they had occurred the filmmaker used archival footage from major news networks. I wouldn't say that these images were manipulated, but I found it added to the Ethos of the film to have what most would consider a "credible" source presenting evidence, as opposed to a Voice of God narrator no one knows anything about. Less compelling, I found the incineration of the bodies in the plane crashes. They all had family members who would expect to do something with the remains-- you would think that SOMEONE would have mentioned somewhere that hundreds of people couldn't bury their loved ones. I would've liked to see just one firsthand account from someone who was denied access to their loved one's body.
ReplyDelete3. Maybe this is the fairness bias coming out in me, but I would have liked to see any kind of counter-evidence to their claims. I appreciated hearing how the "official" story contrasted with the theories proposed by the filmmaker, but if any response to these theories exist I would have liked to see some sign of them. However, to answer your questions about changing the response of the film, I think this might've angered more the intended audience of the film. I feel that this film was made for those people who already mistrust the government's version of events (or simply government in general), and to hear more "propaganda" might anger an already angered audience beyond logical comprehension.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe oft repeated footage of the towers collapsing in a heap of dust alongside examples of buildings brought down by controlled demolition is visually compelling. How could the comparison not be valid - we are “seeing” it with our own eyes! The filmmaker bases his argument on logos, as he floods us with data, data and more data, bang bang bang, in a voice-of-the-boy-next-door narration which is, in some ways, more convincing than the deep, resonant tones of an authority figure. Our narrator, while perhaps misguided, at least comes across as being sincere in a “Hey, Guys, guess what I found out!” sort of way.
ReplyDeleteThe filmmaker makes wise choices of interviewees and quoted sources, relying on the ethos of the characters to propel his argument: honest-sounding eyewitnesses; a sincere student at the end galvanizing the supporters; Sir Isaac Newton and his theories; a university professor being badgered by conservative pundit Sean Hannity; and Columbia University seismologists who refute the government’s official story. These people back up the logos of the filmmaker’s argument. If his goal was to raise questions in the viewers’ minds, I believe he accomplished that.
I appreciated the lack of pathos in this documentary. I still have a hard time watching some of the footage from 9/11 because the memories are still really vivid in my mind. I think the incorporation of more pathos would have detracted from his argument.
ReplyDeleteI think the bombardment of logos was the strongest appeal this documentary utilized. Although the evidence was compelling, I don't think he offered the audience enough time to process it all and draw conclusions themselves. The filmmaker told us from the voice-over narration the conclusions we should be drawing from this evidence. He does not allow the audience to be apart of the discovery process, make their own conclusions and join in on the "investigation of 9/11." He tells us what to think and what do after being told (not learning) about "the real 9/11."
I think the filmmaker was targeting a college, 20-something audience. From the beginning sound track, the filmmaker used the same song Tarantino used in Kill Bill, which was popular during the time of the film. I think Courtney mentioned this in class, but it seems the filmmaker was targeting an already distrustful audience of the government. Using the Kill Bill allusion supports the filmmakers purpose of getting the disenchanted audience to question even more their suspicions of the government. The narrator was aggressive with the presentation of information ending with, "Are you angry yet"?
Overall, the perspective he presents about 9/11 is fascinating. I think of 9/11 as the 21st Century's JFK Assassination. The events of 9/11 are told in similar ways that baby boomers recall their memories of JFK's assassination. Perhaps Oliver Stone and Dylan Avery can come up with something together.
I agree. Pathos in this documentary would not have been nearly as effective. People have such a connection to the 9/11 attack, that using pathos would appeal to more of a patriotic duty than anything else. The film was certainly not advocating patriotic duty, but essentially wanted us to question if we really know those authority figures to whom we owe our allegiance.
DeleteOur book, however, does state on pg 62, that when applying logos to an argument, "the speaker must frame his proofs and arguments with the help of common knowledge and accepted opinions." I'd say that he VERY effectively framed his logical arguments in terms of common knowledge. He just didn't necessarily have the most accurate scientific information to frame in those parameters.
For me the argument about the explosions in the building appeared the most convincing because we were able to see the footage of the towers falling and the tiny "explosions" below. I find that I am most convinced by something when I can come to the conclusion on my own. This is why I found when the filmmaker used video evidence it was more convincing than him telling the audience a theory without visual proof.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Tanya that this film was intended for a 20-something audience. The underground electronic music made me feel that the filmmaker made this documentary in his dorm room with some friends, and he was looking to appeal to people his own age. I also tend to believe that conspiracist are usually part of the younger generation. The filmmaker spoke very informally to his audience which made me feel like he was speaking to his peers.
For question number 3 based on my own viewing of documentaries, I felt that it would have been more informative if the film maker allowed us to come to our own conclusions without his persuasion. That is what I admired when I watched Inside Guantanamo. I definitely would agree with the college aged gear of this film to take action and ask questions that the older generation is not doing. I felt that inspiration while watching. His tone, language and sarcasm also made the film more informal, making me believe it was for a younger audience.
ReplyDeleteThere were several pieces of evidence that I found incredibly convincing and that got my mind reeling. The data he presented about the other explosions within the towers and their subsequent collapse. I also found the investigation of the Pentagon compelling. I think these points were convincing because there were multiple pieces of evidence, much of which was presented as being nearly undeniable, that took on various forms: photos/video, documents, interviews, and research. However, I felt like I was never given much chance to process the information I was given. The film was a constant firing off of facts and data; one point was rattled off, some images were shown on screen, and then we moved on to the next point. I understand that the filmmaker was trying to fit in as much information and as many points in as little time as possible, but I think if it would have been taken slower or if the information would have been presented that allowed the audience to actively think about and digest it.
ReplyDelete