Rhetorical Analysis Essay
There are a lot of films produced with different themes. The success of a movie is based on its ability to capture its audience. Roger Ebert reviews one of the successful films in the recent past The Raid: Redemption in this article. The first sentence of the article will give the reader the author’s impression of the movie. It is important for the author to put the reader in the context of the movie so that the reader can understand and relate to the components involved i.e. the language used etc. The author attests that the movie doesn’t have a defined target audience, but anyone interested in a film with too much action can be a target audience. The author argues that the movie involves two components; the antagonist (gangsters) and the protagonists (the SWAT police).
In the beginning, the author seemed to put a traditional argument but later develops and concentrates mostly on a consensual argument. The author’s argument is put together by connecting the major aspects or plot bit by bit. The overall author’s feel and the argument are about the violence in the film. For example, the first paragraph of the article indicates that the film has less 10minutes monolog. The rest of the time in the movie is dedicated to violence. Ebert’s argument is effective in the sense that it takes the reader right straight in the film. The introduction part of the article gives the reader the general plot of the movie. As the Ebert builds his argument all through the passage, the reader is right in the middle of the film.
The claim stated by the author is the violence in the movie. Throughout the article, Ebert uses credible sources to strengthen his credibility and appeal to logos. For example, to prove the success of the movie, Ebert (Par 2) indicates Tomato meter ratings of 93%. Additionally, Ebert uses language to evoke strong feelings that relate to violence in the article. The author’s claim is very high judging by the words he uses in the article. For example, he uses words like ‘bone-crushing, pulse-pounding, skull-smashing’ etc. The article provides facts about the movie and a well-presented plot indicating that the author watched and thoroughly researched the article.
Adding to the logos appeal, the author uses the strong appeal of the pathos. The seventh paragraph of the articles brings out the positive emotional part of the article and the film. The author introduces the seventh paragraph the character, Rama. Although the author shows the violent parts of the movie in most of the previous paragraphs, in this paragraph the author changes the tone. The first few sentences of the paragraph create a sympathetic or rather emotional image. For example, he notes that he tenderly kisses his pregnant wife goodbye’
(Ebert, Par 7). The image portrayed in this part of the article is the tribulations officers on duty go through. The author paints a picture in the reader’s mind that although the character knew he was going to a dangerous task, he had hope that he will come back to his family.
The author acknowledges some characters involved with the film. He does that by highlight both the antagonist and protagonist. There is a bit of logical error in the article. In the eighth paragraph, the author indicates that the movie was filmed in Indonesia. The indication that the movie was filmed in Indonesia is a contradiction of a point in the fifth paragraph where the author had indicated that there was a SWAT team involved. The SWAT police are only found in the United States and not Indonesia. This is clearly a weak area of reasoning on the author’s side.
The main argument in the article is the violence in the movie. The article lacks refutation or a counter argument. The use of refutation in literal works shows the writer’s diverse perspective about the issue addressed.In my opinion, the lack of refutation, in this case, weakens Ebert’s argument. Ebert only presents a single side of the argument and does not offer a counter argument.
I have watched the trailer of the movie. I must admit that it is a superb movie. My personal context compliments the evaluation of the movie by Ebert. I agree with Ebert that the movie is mostly about violence. I somehow disagree with Ebert on the point that the movie is purely violent. Judging from the title and the plot of the movie, the movie is about redemption.
The raid by the authorities was meant to redeem the area of violence. Therefore Ebert’s indication that the movie is pure violence is just implied not accurate. There is the bright side that can be related to the film. The police were able to neutralize the situation and brought back peace and tranquility in the area.
The main claim in this article is violence in the film The Raid: Redemption. The author presents a strong argument in support of the violence in the movie. Before reading this article, I thought it was just an ordinary movie. However, the author has evoked another sense of the movie in me. Now I perceive the movie as violent. Although the author presents strong points to support his claim, it could have been more efficient if there was the use of refutation or a counterargument.
Ebert, Roger. "The Raid: Redemption Movie Review (2012) | Roger Ebert". Rogerebert.Com, 2016,http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-raid-redemption-2012.
Feedback to Learner3/17/17 12:25 PM
I was using the rubric that is part of the 4.3 RAE assignment with necessary adaptation as we are not relying on any textbook. Below are the categories used to score the paper with brief comments:
Summary and Rhetorical Context 1/4:summary is blended with analysis, no clear brief summary. The last paragraph of the introduction is misleading - there is no need to ARGUE that the film has protagonists and antagonists - this is an observation of fact,not anything arguable.
Rhetorical context is not established.
Your Argument Claim 3/8: No claim at the end of the Intro paragraph. Typically, in an academic essay this is where the claim is expected. You state "Ebert's argument is effective in the sense that it takes the reader right straight in the film" in the middle of para 2. While I understand the part "argument is effective," I am confused by the incorporated explanation. The purpose of an argument is to change someone's mind, to convince. Ebert is trying to convince his readers that this is a weak film. Is he effective in that?
Next time, please state clearly whether or not the author's argument is effective or not and, ideally, why.
Development 3/8: Since there is no claim about Ebert's argument early on, it becomes hard to develop the rhetorical analysis in a logical way. You comment on different rhetorical elements: claim, pathos, ethos, but there is no clear analysis of its logos or its logical structure: claim, reasons, and evidence. Unfortunately you also misinterpret the claim of Ebert's argument, so the whole analysis goes awry.
Ebert's claim about the film is that it is weak, and he offers several reasons to back it up. What are his reasons and are they logical? Does he offer any evidence to back up reasons?
Does Ebert establish his credibility well? Does he come off as biased?
MLA Style 3/4: Please italicize the titles of films like The Hateful Eight. Enclose article titles in quotations. Insert page numbers and create a title for the essay.
Grammar/mechanics 3/4: minor issues
Do not contract (doesn't) and do not abbreviate (etc i.e) in formal essay writing.
Voice 4/4 - appropriate
General Requirements - met 4/4
please, consider re-writing the paper for a passing grade. If you decide to do so, start with a claim - a clear statement of whether or not Ebert's argument is effective. Then ask yourself "Why?" The answers should have to do with rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos) in his argument. The answers will also form the topic sentences for the paragraphs and will anchor your own argument. You will be able to use most of your written paper, but you will need to re-structure it as a traditional argument with claim, reasons and ample evidence.