1. Aristotle states that the ultimate argument uses ethos, pathos, and logos. Is there a particular rhetorical strategies that you feel persuades you the most? What rhetorical strategy do you feel is best for documentaries?
2. What do you feel was the most evident rhetorical device used in the Born into Brothels, and how did it affect the overall tone of the film?
3. How do you feel rhetorical devices impact a documentary? How would the Born into Brothels be different if another rhetorical device was used?
I am genetically predisposed to logos; both of my grandfathers were engineers, my father is an engineer, my mother got her masters in mathematics. My father tells me that I "think like an engineer", even though I am a poetry-loving, wanna-be writer with a degree in English. I appreciate a well-crafted argument and am suspicious, if not out-right dismissive of appeals to emotion. I feel most documentaries, especially the ones that are issue-oriented and/or agenda based, are best served by establishing a strong ethos and then laying out the logos.
That said, I am also drawn to films that have a strong element of pathos. One of my favorite documentaries is 'Rivers and Tides' by Thomas Riedelsheimer, about British artist Andy Goldsworthy and his ephemeral sculptures made from natural materials such as leaves and icicles. That film hooks the viewer on an emotional level, as most art does. (Speaking of emotional hooks, I have to say that Baraka bored me -- much of it felt like I'd seen it before, and the message, while powerful, did not need an hour and a half to convey.)
The most evident rhetorical devise in Born into Brothels? Pathos. We feel for these children. The film shows us precocious characters in a filthy, dangerous, at times abusive environment. We uncover the potential of these kids when they are given access to what we in the West would consider a pretty basic tool (the camera). It makes a point of showing the joy and wonder the kids experience when they are taken out of the brothels even for a day (the zoo, the beach). We care about the efforts to get them into schools, we cheer when the passport finally arrives and out talented little ragamuffin gets to 'fulfill his dreams'. Clearly, the movie plays on our heartstrings more than anything else.
I think it would be hard to present the 'Born into Brothels' story while stressing ethos and logos over pathos. Any discussion of the situation would have to mention the children's situation, which naturally lends itself to an emotional appeal. Any argument, whether it be for better conditions for the children, or against the bureaucracy that makes it hard to help them, or against the societal conditions that bring about this situation, or any of the myriad other subjects raised by this film would be unnecessary -- Western viewers need no convincing of any of these points; we make these arguments ourselves as a basic reaction to the situation presented.
Wes, I agree with you that the most prominent rhetorical device was pathos. I also feel that a sense of ethos was evident in the voices of the children. We find the children credible. They come across as sincere, truthful, guileless, and we believe them. We do not question their stories at all. There wasn't one moment when I wondered, does that child have a hidden agenda? Is she exaggerating about the conditions at home? Is he trying to manipulate the filmmaker and/or the viewer to come over to his way of thinking? Our text references Aristotle's standard that "each speaker must earn the credibility of the audience." These children, in the natural telling of their stories, earned our credibility. The pathos was generated from the ethos of the children's character.
The rhetorical devices used in a documentary shape the way the film is portrayed. Filmmakers understand what devices to use to get the desired effect . In Born into Brothels, the pathos is overwhelmingly apparent, while logos and ethos fall to the side. I think this is what make Born into Brothels so captivating; it lets the viewer see through the eyes of the children and allows the audience not only to sympathize, but to an extend empathize with these kids. Had the film been made with a logos feel to it, heavy with facts and statistics, then the film wouldn't have been so unique and interesting. The pathos route allows the audience to connect with the children and to learn and grow with them. We feel closer to the situation and more apt to help. Facts through logos, though captivating as well, feels stiff and cold compared to the way Born into Brothels was presented.
I am guilty and must admit that I am a pathos kind of girl. I am easily persuaded by that but in my defense I also need some logos to help back that up for me. I would definitely say that I need that emotional appeal first though. I think in a documentary it should be a mix of both as well but with maybe more logos appeals. 'Born into Brothels' definitely had that pathos appeal which I believe is what captured me, the film makers humanism in this situation and her fight to try and "save" those children in their "horrid" conditions. I would agree with Wes that this type of documentary would have to have an emotional appeal to obtain the desired outcome of stressing awareness of the conditions of these innocent children. In a documentary I think some form of pathos is needed to drive a message home to the viewers. Some also need an influx of logos and some like 'Born into Brothels' did not need as much.
Nice response, Wes. I agree pathos is the anchor that holds onto our hearts. After rewatching the first 25 minutes, I found most of the scenes faded out. One scene in particular was the scene where they were looking for Koshi's grades and the scene fades out with Koshi looking down in despair. I think the fade out effect contributed to the overall tone of disappointment. Zana's disappointed in the system, society, and the brothel culture that perpetuates "working the line."
I think a well crafted argument utilizes all three rhetorical appeals effectively. If the purpose of the documentary is to get the audience to think, feel, or do something, the audience has to believe the information you are providing them. Whether that is in the form of sweet little Puja introducing the various subjects and their personalities or Shelby Lee Adams sitting behind his desk with a sign that reads "Say yes to God." I think a solid argument uses all three appeals, but getting your audience to think, feel or do something can still happen without the use of all of them.
Did anyone think the pathos section of this chapter was underdeveloped? I never saw the film they referenced, The Fog of War, and I wasn't able to make the connections. I understand the appeals from my previous studies, but I would have liked the author to have referenced another film to enrich my understandings.
This chapter helped me the most when analyzing documentaries. I've never really looked at documentaries in this way; I've always looked at documentaries as innocuous and somewhat boring. But using this process has helped me appreciate and be critical of documentaries.
Tanya, I agree that The Fog of War seemed to be a surprising choice to illustrate the rhetorical device of pathos. I've seen this film - it's a captivating character study of Robert McNamara, who served as Secretary of Defense under three presidents and was a tremendously influential, powerful and charismatic figure. But evoke a sense of pathos? In the film, he discusses, among other things, the obliteration of Japanese cities with the bombing of Hiroshima, and the carnage wrought by the Vietnam War. He says, "How much evil must we do in order to do good?" I would say the pathos comes from hearing this man, who was always so self-assured, analyze past events and acknowledge that difficult decisions had to be made and that they might not have been the right ones. McNamara's cold factual retelling of the devastation of war and the threat of nuclear attack has a chilling effect on the viewer. I would say this is the source of the pathos, whether the emotional response comes from the occasional break in McNamara's usually ironclad demeanor or from the horror of the facts themselves.
1. I am easily persuaded with pathos. As an emotionally driven person, I can almost be completely sold to what the filmmaker is trying to say when using a single strategy or hitting me with a double combination of ethos and pathos. I believe that we live in society that thrives off of forming emotionally driven conclusions, and not so much all the facts and logos.
2. When connecting Born into Brothels and our reading, pathos was the driving force. By getting to know the children so well, I was almost forced to like them and sympathize with their situation. I didn't care about the statistics, only what the filmmaker was attempting to deliver. The pain in the children's eyes and blatant explanations of how they almost despised the place in which they were living.
I feel that I am easily persuaded by pathos, but I find a logistical argument more sound, and generally accept the facts more easily with logos. From a documentary point of view, I think that the agenda and purpose of the filmmaker are what determine the rhetorical device that is used most often or more prevalently in the film. I would think that, in looking over the notes for documentary types, there are specific documentary modes that will use certain rhetorical methods. For example, a poetic documentary would most likely use pathos-because the visual aspect must be majestic and breathtaking-which certainly plays upon our emotions. Observational and expository documentaries, I feel, are the two modes which I feel use all of the methods together most effectively.
Wes, I'm much like you. One would be hard-pressed to convince me of just about anything based on Pathos; you're going to have to present some concrete Logos and strong Ethos for me to take your and your point seriously. I think Pathos helps me connect with certain subjects, people, and situations, but it doesn't stand up without facts and authority. I feel that documentaries need to focus primarily on Ethos and Logos, and use Pathos as a complimentary device. Documentaries are supposed to be centered on truth above all else and I think, in most cases, Pathos is the farthest from this objective.
'Born Into Brothels' definitely relies on Pathos. I can appreciate that within the specific subject matter it dealt with because, really, how many statistics do we want spewed between scenes of these unfortunate kids? However, I think I would have rather had the filmmaker be more direct and methodical on camera about the process she intended to undergo in order to get these children into school. I think the documentary could have had two distinct sections interwoven together - one focusing on the Pathos of the children and their environment and the other concentrating on the filmmaker's efforts to get them out and maybe some facts about the community, schools, brothel culture, and the frustrating bureaucracy of the system. I think I would hold this documentary in higher regard and more factually well-rounded.
1. Aristotle states that the ultimate argument uses ethos, pathos, and logos. Is there a particular rhetorical strategies that you feel persuades you the most? What rhetorical strategy do you feel is best for documentaries?
ReplyDelete2. What do you feel was the most evident rhetorical device used in the Born into Brothels, and how did it affect the overall tone of the film?
3. How do you feel rhetorical devices impact a documentary? How would the Born into Brothels be different if another rhetorical device was used?
I am genetically predisposed to logos; both of my grandfathers were engineers, my father is an engineer, my mother got her masters in mathematics. My father tells me that I "think like an engineer", even though I am a poetry-loving, wanna-be writer with a degree in English. I appreciate a well-crafted argument and am suspicious, if not out-right dismissive of appeals to emotion. I feel most documentaries, especially the ones that are issue-oriented and/or agenda based, are best served by establishing a strong ethos and then laying out the logos.
DeleteThat said, I am also drawn to films that have a strong element of pathos. One of my favorite documentaries is 'Rivers and Tides' by Thomas Riedelsheimer, about British artist Andy Goldsworthy and his ephemeral sculptures made from natural materials such as leaves and icicles. That film hooks the viewer on an emotional level, as most art does. (Speaking of emotional hooks, I have to say that Baraka bored me -- much of it felt like I'd seen it before, and the message, while powerful, did not need an hour and a half to convey.)
The most evident rhetorical devise in Born into Brothels? Pathos. We feel for these children. The film shows us precocious characters in a filthy, dangerous, at times abusive environment. We uncover the potential of these kids when they are given access to what we in the West would consider a pretty basic tool (the camera). It makes a point of showing the joy and wonder the kids experience when they are taken out of the brothels even for a day (the zoo, the beach). We care about the efforts to get them into schools, we cheer when the passport finally arrives and out talented little ragamuffin gets to 'fulfill his dreams'. Clearly, the movie plays on our heartstrings more than anything else.
I think it would be hard to present the 'Born into Brothels' story while stressing ethos and logos over pathos. Any discussion of the situation would have to mention the children's situation, which naturally lends itself to an emotional appeal. Any argument, whether it be for better conditions for the children, or against the bureaucracy that makes it hard to help them, or against the societal conditions that bring about this situation, or any of the myriad other subjects raised by this film would be unnecessary -- Western viewers need no convincing of any of these points; we make these arguments ourselves as a basic reaction to the situation presented.
Wes, I agree with you that the most prominent rhetorical device was pathos. I also feel that a sense of ethos was evident in the voices of the children. We find the children credible. They come across as sincere, truthful, guileless, and we believe them. We do not question their stories at all. There wasn't one moment when I wondered, does that child have a hidden agenda? Is she exaggerating about the conditions at home? Is he trying to manipulate the filmmaker and/or the viewer to come over to his way of thinking? Our text references Aristotle's standard that "each speaker must earn the credibility of the audience." These children, in the natural telling of their stories, earned our credibility. The pathos was generated from the ethos of the children's character.
DeleteThe rhetorical devices used in a documentary shape the way the film is portrayed. Filmmakers understand what devices to use to get the desired effect . In Born into Brothels, the pathos is overwhelmingly apparent, while logos and ethos fall to the side. I think this is what make Born into Brothels so captivating; it lets the viewer see through the eyes of the children and allows the audience not only to sympathize, but to an extend empathize with these kids. Had the film been made with a logos feel to it, heavy with facts and statistics, then the film wouldn't have been so unique and interesting. The pathos route allows the audience to connect with the children and to learn and grow with them. We feel closer to the situation and more apt to help. Facts through logos, though captivating as well, feels stiff and cold compared to the way Born into Brothels was presented.
DeleteI am guilty and must admit that I am a pathos kind of girl. I am easily persuaded by that but in my defense I also need some logos to help back that up for me. I would definitely say that I need that emotional appeal first though. I think in a documentary it should be a mix of both as well but with maybe more logos appeals.
ReplyDelete'Born into Brothels' definitely had that pathos appeal which I believe is what captured me, the film makers humanism in this situation and her fight to try and "save" those children in their "horrid" conditions. I would agree with Wes that this type of documentary would have to have an emotional appeal to obtain the desired outcome of stressing awareness of the conditions of these innocent children. In a documentary I think some form of pathos is needed to drive a message home to the viewers. Some also need an influx of logos and some like 'Born into Brothels' did not need as much.
Nice response, Wes. I agree pathos is the anchor that holds onto our hearts. After rewatching the first 25 minutes, I found most of the scenes faded out. One scene in particular was the scene where they were looking for Koshi's grades and the scene fades out with Koshi looking down in despair. I think the fade out effect contributed to the overall tone of disappointment. Zana's disappointed in the system, society, and the brothel culture that perpetuates "working the line."
ReplyDeleteI think a well crafted argument utilizes all three rhetorical appeals effectively. If the purpose of the documentary is to get the audience to think, feel, or do something, the audience has to believe the information you are providing them. Whether that is in the form of sweet little Puja introducing the various subjects and their personalities or Shelby Lee Adams sitting behind his desk with a sign that reads "Say yes to God." I think a solid argument uses all three appeals, but getting your audience to think, feel or do something can still happen without the use of all of them.
Did anyone think the pathos section of this chapter was underdeveloped? I never saw the film they referenced, The Fog of War, and I wasn't able to make the connections. I understand the appeals from my previous studies, but I would have liked the author to have referenced another film to enrich my understandings.
This chapter helped me the most when analyzing documentaries. I've never really looked at documentaries in this way; I've always looked at documentaries as innocuous and somewhat boring. But using this process has helped me appreciate and be critical of documentaries.
Tanya, I agree that The Fog of War seemed to be a surprising choice to illustrate the rhetorical device of pathos. I've seen this film - it's a captivating character study of Robert McNamara, who served as Secretary of Defense under three presidents and was a tremendously influential, powerful and charismatic figure. But evoke a sense of pathos? In the film, he discusses, among other things, the obliteration of Japanese cities with the bombing of Hiroshima, and the carnage wrought by the Vietnam War. He says, "How much evil must we do in order to do good?" I would say the pathos comes from hearing this man, who was always so self-assured, analyze past events and acknowledge that difficult decisions had to be made and that they might not have been the right ones. McNamara's cold factual retelling of the devastation of war and the threat of nuclear attack has a chilling effect on the viewer. I would say this is the source of the pathos, whether the emotional response comes from the occasional break in McNamara's usually ironclad demeanor or from the horror of the facts themselves.
Delete1. I am easily persuaded with pathos. As an emotionally driven person, I can almost be completely sold to what the filmmaker is trying to say when using a single strategy or hitting me with a double combination of ethos and pathos. I believe that we live in society that thrives off of forming emotionally driven conclusions, and not so much all the facts and logos.
ReplyDelete2. When connecting Born into Brothels and our reading, pathos was the driving force. By getting to know the children so well, I was almost forced to like them and sympathize with their situation. I didn't care about the statistics, only what the filmmaker was attempting to deliver. The pain in the children's eyes and blatant explanations of how they almost despised the place in which they were living.
I feel that I am easily persuaded by pathos, but I find a logistical argument more sound, and generally accept the facts more easily with logos. From a documentary point of view, I think that the agenda and purpose of the filmmaker are what determine the rhetorical device that is used most often or more prevalently in the film. I would think that, in looking over the notes for documentary types, there are specific documentary modes that will use certain rhetorical methods. For example, a poetic documentary would most likely use pathos-because the visual aspect must be majestic and breathtaking-which certainly plays upon our emotions. Observational and expository documentaries, I feel, are the two modes which I feel use all of the methods together most effectively.
ReplyDeleteWes, I'm much like you. One would be hard-pressed to convince me of just about anything based on Pathos; you're going to have to present some concrete Logos and strong Ethos for me to take your and your point seriously. I think Pathos helps me connect with certain subjects, people, and situations, but it doesn't stand up without facts and authority. I feel that documentaries need to focus primarily on Ethos and Logos, and use Pathos as a complimentary device. Documentaries are supposed to be centered on truth above all else and I think, in most cases, Pathos is the farthest from this objective.
ReplyDelete'Born Into Brothels' definitely relies on Pathos. I can appreciate that within the specific subject matter it dealt with because, really, how many statistics do we want spewed between scenes of these unfortunate kids? However, I think I would have rather had the filmmaker be more direct and methodical on camera about the process she intended to undergo in order to get these children into school. I think the documentary could have had two distinct sections interwoven together - one focusing on the Pathos of the children and their environment and the other concentrating on the filmmaker's efforts to get them out and maybe some facts about the community, schools, brothel culture, and the frustrating bureaucracy of the system. I think I would hold this documentary in higher regard and more factually well-rounded.