Moore’s video, what to say, what to say?? The movie was actually a documentary discussing and describing Flint, Michigan and the effects of the GM Motor factories that were there then laid of their workers and closed the factories. Well I will say that it had all three aspects of Rhetoric, it contained Pathos, Ethos and Logos. But more importantly it contained Logos. Not saying that it didn’t contain or that the other parts of rhetoric were less important, but Moore had a specific reason for doing what he was doing. Moore traveled basically all throughout most of Michigan State finding testimonies of people that were laid off, information from P.R. personal of GM Motors, and more importantly trying to about the CEO of GM motors response and/or reaction to the shutting down of the factories.
Moore went through a brief history of the city Flint, and how prosperous the city was, the amount of jobs it had thanks to GM Motor factories opening. However, the factories closed leaving the city practically jobless, and many homeless do to the lack of money. I believe Moore produced the documentary to prove to the Big Guys of the companies that the People have a voice as well. The Logos, I think he primarily used, was the testimonials from individuals who had worked at the factories and all the facts and statistics that were announced during the video. Not only did he gain testimonials of the little people of the city and state but of the Public Relations people of GM Motors, but he also pursued and tried multiple times to gain the CEO’s response.
Logos was used so tremendously I was astonished or better yet amazed at the amount of information given on top of the testimonials of the people. I believe Moore did a phenomenal job of portraying the good guys and the bad guys with the use of primarily Logos, but with the help of Pathos and Ethos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Chris, good post, though I know Michael Moore isn't your favorite. At the end of your post you say how Moore splits people up into good guys and bad guys. In your life experience, have you found that most people can easily be divided into these two categories? i.e. some people are all good (i.e. totally innocent) and some people are all bad (i.e. totally culpable)? Do you think that good/bad guy dichotomy is intentional on Moore's part? From a logical standpoint, is there information Moore highlighted or excluded that would have affected how you perceived the major players?
I agree with you and think that Moore did a good job at pointing out the bad and good guys, but he never got a chance to talk to the Department chair in GM. If he would have got a chance to talk to the man, maybe he would have realized how down hill Flint had gotten. he did do an outstanding job showing the uses of Rhetoric. This movie was interesting and different from anything else we have analyzed.
Post a Comment