By Vanessa Ciccotosto, Stéphanie Théberge and Chloe Demers
THE ART OF PERSUASION
In this blog, we will
explore how documentary filmmaker, Michael Moore, use rhetoric, the art of
convincing people through films and speech, to convey his thoughts about the
United States. We will be examining Bowling
for Columbine (2002), as viewed in class which informs the viewers about
the pros and cons of gun control, and Where
to Invade Next (2015) which speaks about
ways to improve the United States social problems. By watching these two
movies, we will explore how Moore employs logos, pathos and ethos in his films
to convey his arguments.
PROS AND CONS OF GUN CONTROL
Bowling for Columbine (2002):
During the week that we watched Bowling for Columbine, a 119 minute movie released October 11, 2002 in the United States, we compared differences between Canada and the USA concerning gun laws. Canada is a nation of hunters and has tones of guns but somehow, they aren't as violent as the Americans, since the American death toll is at the rise of 11,127 and keeps rising. However, Canada's death toll is only 165, a much lower number compared to the US. Also, after watching the movie, we learned how certain celebrities are being blamed for brainwashing Eric and Dylan, into committing the massacre. Here is a link that compares USA death tolls to other nations:
Like we saw in class, Bowling for Columbine brings up many issues concerning gun control such as the causes of the Columbine High School massacre, on April 20th, 1999. Michael Moore chose this particular title for the movie, because, before the massacre, it was assumed that the only class Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold showed up to was their morning bowling class. Throughout the movie, Michael Moore interviews many people concerning the United States violent crime rate and the Columbine massacre such as Matt Stone, Marilyn Manson, Charlton Heston, etc. There were many issues Moore showcased in the movie such as getting free gun by opening a bank account in Michigan, the weapons of mass destruction that are made at Lockheed Martin in Littleton, the comparison between Canadas and the USA crime rates, the cartoon “A Brief History of the United States of America, the case involving the refund of bullets from Kmart etc. However, the main key issues that were shown in the film were one of the most controversial, when Moore touched base on the social welfare case, when the little boy accidentally brought a hand gun to school to show his friends and by mistake he pulled the trigger and shot his six year old little girl classmate. A lot of people were saying that it is because he is from a lower class that his mom wasn't really home all the time to actually be in his life, it was just a lot of speculation on what really triggered the little boy to kill his classmate. Comparing Canada to the United States; but the main question that Moore as questioned is to why Canada is not a violent country with the amount of guns they actually have, America have a the right to bear arms and certain states have a law that is called the "Open gun law" with enables people to walk around with their guns around in public.
Another main key issue is when Moore meets with Charlton Heston former NRA and Moore asks him the same question "why is Canada not as violent as to United states". Mr Heston couldn't really answer his question as to why Canada isn't violent like America, in many cases Moore will ask Mr Heston questions as to why certain things are the way they are, Mr. Heston wouldn't really give any answer to anything; towards the very end. When Moore brought up the death of the little six year old girl, we can see that he was becoming overwhelmed with the questions he was being asked and he just gets up and walks away, later throughout the scene we see Moore placing the picture of the little girl on the wall for Mr Heston to see. We have provided a link that encloses information timeline based on school shootings that happened in the USA and across the globe:
There
are three key concepts that are displayed through this film, Logos, Ethos and
Pathos.
Ethos: Ethos is term used
for believing something because of one's credibility, and Moore uses Ethos in
his film where he is seen speaking to people who really seem to know a lot
about guns, and to why American homes are armed. Moore has shown footages of
people shooting on shooting rages and one scene where he features people on a
military camp shooting some rounds. Moore interviews these people (the ones who
are shown on ranges and on camp)who support the argument on guns, that the
Government needs to do something about the gun control issues before it gets
out of hands and gets worse.
Pathos:
Pathos is generally used for appealing to emotions that alter the viewers
judgment. Moore tends to play with the viewers emotion throughout the film,
Moore knows how to play with emotions very well. By viewing funny scenes and
showing factual stuff to make the viewers smile for a little bit, then he
shifts mood and shows something very emotional like viewing actual security
camera footage of the Columbine shooting. Also by viewing interviews by victims
of the massacre, the one teacher that witnessed a little boy who shot and killed
a six year old girl in class, and by showing recordings of dispatching calls to
police on the day of the shooting at Columbine. That tends to play with the
viewers judgment on certain situation in the film.
LET THE INVASION BEGIN!
Where to Invade Next (2015):
On December 23rd, 2015, director Michael Moore released his documentary film titled Where to Invade Next. The film spans 2 hours and follows Moore as he travels through various countries, in order to determine how the United States can improve their country based on the living habits of other nations.
Throughout the movie, Moore “invades” these countries by “stealing” some of their ideas regarding social issues, so that he can bring them back to the US and fix their problems. When he finds that one of these ideas is worth “stealing”, he plants an American flag, claiming that he’s bringing this idea back to the United States.
The “invasion” begins in Italy, when Michael Moore decides to interview a young couple and learns that unlike Americans, Italians have 8 weeks of paid vacation each year and 5 months of paid maternity leave, whereas the US has none. To support this information, he interviews Claudio Dominicali, the CEO of Ducati, the motorcycle company, and learns that his workers need this time off to let out some stress, so that when they get back to work, they are relaxed and productive. After Italy, Moore visits a small village in Normandy, France and compares their cafeteria school lunches versus the American school lunches. There he learns that even schools in the poorest districts of France have a balanced meal composed of 4 courses, unlike cafeteria food in the United States that don’t always use the healthiest and freshest foods to feed their students.
The next stop is Finland, where Moore interviews the Finnish Minister of Education, Krista Kiuru to find out their secret to why they have the smartest students in the world. Unlike schools in the United States, Finland offers almost no homework to their student and there are no standardized tests, because they want their students to have time to be a kid and socialize and play with their friends and family. All schools in the country offer the same education so there is no need for elite private schools or standardized tests.
Moore goes on to invade, Slovenia, one of the countries who offers free tuition, Germany, a country where workers have labor rights and work life balance, and finally Portugal, where there is no death penalty and drugs are legal until he finally arrives in Norway. In Norway, he learns that their prisons are treated more humanely compared to those in the US, because inmates are offered their own room, their own bathroom, materials provided for hobbies and books. The guards have no guns, because the inmates respect them enough that they don’t need them. By interviewing the warden, Tom Eberhardt, at the Bastoy Prison, he learns that Norwegian prisons are only meant to take away their prisoners freedom and help them get back to society as a changed person.
Moore makes two more stops in Tunisia and Iceland, before ending his journey at the Berlin wall with his old friend, Rod. He goes over the things he’s learned throughout his journey and realises that most of the ideas he “stole” from the countries he visited were in fact American ideas, like the idea of no cruel or unusual punishment, the idea to eliminate death penalty and even the idea of no homework.
Just like in Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore uses the same rhetoric concepts in Where to Invade Next to convince the audience into believing his views presented in the documentary. He even uses the three form of rhetoric address such as logos, ethos and pathos to persuade his audience. For logos, he provides statistics and facts about the countries he visits. For example, schools in Finland are ranked highest on the Global Education Rank at #1, unlike the US that is ranked 29th. Also, American prisons treat their inmates in such an inhumane way that nearly 80% of prisoners are rearrested within 5 years whereas only 20% of prisoners are rearrested in Norway. For ethos, he interviews many credible people, because of their high social position. In fact, Moore interviews the CEO of Ducati to learn why he offers 8 weeks paid vacation and paid maternity leave, as well as interviewing the warden of the Bastoy prison in Norway,Tom Eberhardt, to ask him how he treats his inmates and why he does it in such a humane way compared to the US. As for pathos, he plays with the audience's emotions to make us laugh of feel sad during some scenes of the documentary. For example, he would play comedic music during striking videos of American inmates being abused by their guards in order for them to cooperate. Also, he shows us images of American cafeteria meals compared to French cafeteria to see how unappetizing the American food look next to the French food. Using these three forms of address allows him to persuade his viewers into believing his point of view mentioned throughout the documentary, which is, making the US better by “stealing” some ideas from various countries.
In the link below, you will find additional information on the movie Where to Invade Next and learn about the “Hammer and Chisel Award”, which essentially is an award given to individuals that have made America a better place.
CAN FEAR SAVE SOCIETY?
Both of the Michael Moore documentaries presented teach the audience about our modern day fears. The news and media illustrate our faults but does not provide ways to improve or change in a positive way. This instills fear in citizens which only leads to more violence and distrust between each other. These documentaries display our faults and how other countries and nations have fixed them. For instance, Bowling for Columbine perfectly depicts gun violence in America and how easy it is to buy, trade and own guns and ammunition there. Due to this access to firearms, nearly the entire American population owns guns in fear that they are not properly equipped to defend themselves, despite there not being any alarming threats. In Where to Invade Next, Moore exhibits how different countries have solved most of America’s social problems. This is shown through free education in Slovenia, legalization of drugs to stop crime in Portugal and the success of the women’s rights movement in Iceland. In both documentaries real life problems, gun violence and social issues, are presented and offered solutions. This allows the audience to reflect on how simple life and society could be if we work for basic rights and freedoms. In the link below, the Elephant Journal has eloquently illustrated 25 acts that can make our world a better and more positive place.
As citizens of the world, we have the desire to improve our ways of living by promoting peace, freedom and human rights. While watching these documentaries we see both the evil, scared side of society which lives in fear and negativity, and we see the happy, contemporary side of society which lives in relative peace and comfort. Seeing these two sides juxtaposing one another, challenges our way of perceiving the world around us. Many people do not realize that they live in a scared society; this makes it difficult to witness other countries’ achievements and trends. However, some people do see that change has to be made to better ourselves, our community, our society and our world. When those people, those who want change, watch these films, particularly Where to Invade Next, they see the great achievements of these countries that knew change had to be done and followed through with their plan to improve.
The world needs to improve, that is blatantly obvious. Problems such as world hunger, war, injustice against minorities, sexism, racism, climate change and rape culture are just a few issues with our world. I am angered to see the disrespect we show not only the planet on which we live but the people we live among. Our society has set up unrealistic standards for its citizens. Women must be thin, dress well, present themselves in a non threatening way and pretend to be happy while torturing themselves. Meanwhile men must act macho, preferably tall, muscular and should not respect women or fellow men. Not only is this destructive to the people currently living in this world but also to our future generations. How will they feel when they cannot match up to the impossible standards made decades ago? We need to change by fighting these injustices that we face everyday. Recycle, inspire, protest and stand up for a better world so the next generations do not have to suffer the way we have. From the economy to GMOs and climate change, Sarah Collins, of the Huffington Post, writes about these worldly concerns in the link below.
The world needs to improve, that is blatantly obvious. Problems such as world hunger, war, injustice against minorities, sexism, racism, climate change and rape culture are just a few issues with our world. I am angered to see the disrespect we show not only the planet on which we live but the people we live among. Our society has set up unrealistic standards for its citizens. Women must be thin, dress well, present themselves in a non threatening way and pretend to be happy while torturing themselves. Meanwhile men must act macho, preferably tall, muscular and should not respect women or fellow men. Not only is this destructive to the people currently living in this world but also to our future generations. How will they feel when they cannot match up to the impossible standards made decades ago? We need to change by fighting these injustices that we face everyday. Recycle, inspire, protest and stand up for a better world so the next generations do not have to suffer the way we have. From the economy to GMOs and climate change, Sarah Collins, of the Huffington Post, writes about these worldly concerns in the link below.
Michael Moore has a particular way of making his films. His documentaries have both, very stimulating rhetoric that allows the audience to be convinced of what he says, as well as humour. He explores the realms of rhetoric and plays with logos, ethos and pathos to full enthrall his audience. Without using reasoning, credibly and emotion, his audience would not likely listen to his points and what he wants the world to learn. He also uses his quick wit to attract the audience’s attention even further. The viewers want to see how Moore can make fools out of the people he interviews. His sarcastic tone and quirky remarks grasp the spectators attention so that he can lay down facts and important information that needs to be heard and understood so that change can come to the world.
PERSUADED AND INSPIRED
Michael Moores use of rhetoric managed to
successfully convince his audience that change needs to be made in the United
States if they want to live in a peaceful, happy world. Through both, Bowling for Columbine and Where to Invade Next, Moore was able to
present his arguments in a way that allowed us to see that that these problems
don’t exist in other countries, because they have found simple solutions to
them. All in all, Moores
documentaries manages to persuade his viewers into believing that things need
to be changed for the better concerning gun control and
social problems in the US.
Michael Moore expertly uses pathos as noted by the blog entry. He appeals to our emotions when he pokes fun at the easiness of getting the free gun after opening a bank account. However, this scene was staged because it would have taken six weeks of background checks. Therefore, it’s important to be careful when we watch documentary films because not everything should be considered true especially in a film like this where were drawn into the emotions- Alicia T.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say. I would even add that Peter Wilshire's text on "Bowling for Columbine" by Micheal Moore name "Presentation and Representation in Micheal Moore's Bowling for Columbine" covers many instances where Micheal Moore is biais in his movie. It demonstrates like you said that not everything in a dcoumentary should be blindely believe to be the truth.
DeleteThe power of rhetoric was perfectly explained and how Michael Moore used it to enhance his message. Everything that Moore says is seemed to be believed in the eyes of the audience. That is where we have to watch out and really pay attention to what is being shown throughout the film. Ethos connects with this as Moore uses some interviewees to get his point across based on their credibility even if these people aren’t experts in the topic being discussed.
ReplyDelete- Tomas Colicchio
I liked your post. However...this team needed a proofreader. There were multiple spelling and grammar errors throughout all three parts.
ReplyDeleteAs for your content, great job. The formatting was smooth and the links and images added to the post instead of feeling out of place, each section had it's own title to properly categorize and distinguish itself from the other sections, and the tone felt very professional.
If you want to improve it though, please, proofread. Just because there's no red line underneath a word doesn't mean it's always correct.
--Robert Fox
Good entry! I found that the movie “Bowling for Columbine” is a good documentary that tries to teach the audience about the gun problem. Michael Moore uses a lot of techniques to make us understand his point of view and at the same time questions the opposing side. This documentary film really made me think of “Polytechnique”. “Polytechnique” is a documentary on the shooting that happened, December 6,1989 in this university in Montreal. Both filmmakers used an emotional appeal to connect with the audience, they also used original footage of the event to show how real the issue is.
ReplyDeleteJessica Joncas
"Polytechnique" is indeed related, but it's not a documentary: it's a fiction film inspired by the events.
DeleteI liked your post and found it very interesting! I enjoyed how you connected logos, ethos and pathos to Michael Moore, and demonstrated the use of these techniques shown in Bowling for Columbine. Although I agree with what Michael Moore is saying, I believe that the way he illustrates certain things, can make him seem less credible. For example, when he went to go get the free gun at the bank, the way he cut the film, made it seem like he got the gun in the same day, which is not the case. I agree with the message he is trying to convey, but others can see this as manipulating the audience. It just exhibits the fact that we need to be aware of what we are watching, reflect upon it and not just feed in to everything we are shown. I find the topic of gun control extremely important, and I think that although Moore is criticized for different things in his films, I believe that his passion and humour is something that made this film enticing.
ReplyDelete-Kayla Douglas
I think the type of documentary film Michael Moore creates is very important to society. Even though, like it was mentioned in the entry, he used the three different types of persuasion; logos, pathos and ethos, it is very important to get his message across. He needs to express to America, in a very dramatic way, the severity of gun control. It is not normal that a teenager can just go to K-Mart and pick him/herself up a brand new gun like they would go by a pack of gum. This team explained beautifully what the use of rhetoric was and I think that it would give any reader a better perspective on the matter at hand.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Senthivel
I really enjoyed reading this blog and how Bowling for Columbine uses logos, pathos and ethos to convey its message; however, I disagree with the statement in the introduction that says "Bowling for Columbine (2002), as viewed in class which informs the viewers about the pros and cons of gun control". In my opinion, I think the film was more about showing how America needs gun control. I believe Michael Moore was using logos, pathos and ethos (like you guys said) to convince the audience that having stricter gun control in America would prove itself to be a “pro” for the country. I don't recall the film showing the "cons" of America getting stricter gun control, but this is just my personal take on the film.
ReplyDeleteJuliet Nolet
While Moore doesn't talk too much about the 'cons', he still allows some gun owners to describe why they believe guns ownership should not be regulated.
DeleteI found it very compelling how well Michael Moore played with the concept of Pathos in Bowling for Columbine. He had a dramatic way of communicating the severity of the gun control issue but his message did get through and was quite revealing. For example, like the bloggers mentioned, when he showed cartoon clips making fun but also displaying reality and quickly afterwards rolled the footage of the actual shooting in Columbine high school, it was very shocking and it made us as viewers believe exactly what he wanted us to believe.
ReplyDeleteOverall a solid blog that was successful at mentioning the important details of the movie Bowling for Columbine. I completely agree that Michael Moore uses strategies (pathos, ethos, logos) to convince the viewer of his point of view. I feel like every documentary has a certain purpose to it which makes them unique from each other’s. Although Michael Moore is trying to send a message to the viewers, I find that his technics are taking away a lot of the truth found in documentaries. Maybe showing both the positives and the negatives of guns and letting the viewers make their decision would be a better angle to look at the subject.
ReplyDelete-Ramez
I enjoyed reading your post, it was thorough and informative. Your explanation of Pathos, Ethos and Logos was detailed and smartly related to the film. You are definitely correct when describing how Moore entices and captivates his audience in order to get his point across. Although I would argue that many techniques used by Moore tend to discredit him. What you guys should have mentioned when talking about gun control is that a comparison between Canada and the United-States is simply not realistic nor does it advance the argument for Gun control in the USA. A few studies published recently such as: "Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008" by Professor Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD of McMaster University, have shown that homicide rates in Canada have not gone down since Canada began to adopt Gun control Legislation. Starting with bill Bill C-51 (1977), then C-17 (1991), and finally C-68 (1995). Homicides rates have stayed constant and what is truly interesting is that in 1974 roughly 150 people where killed with a firearm, that number has stayed constant even up to the present day. Asking for increased gun control in the USA while stating Canada as the main example would not be accurate, even dare I say misleading. For example, Statistics Canada found that firearms owners in Canada where two times less likely to commit any type of crime in comparison to the rest of the entire population. The real differences we can observe in gun violence between Canada and the United-States are socio-economic. If the United-states offered the same quality and opportunity of life that Canadians enjoy there would be much less gun violence. Also its important to look at the broader context, believe it or not but many of the States in the U.S with higher rates of firearm ownership such as; New-Hampshire,Vermont, Maine, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin and Tennessee, all have similar firearm violence and homicides rates as Canada. Where most homicides and Gun Violence is occurring is in the populated cities where gun control laws are the most prevalent, and firearm ownership the lowest. What I am trying to say is that it is important to examine all of the facts and attempt to discern the real issues and root causes behind the problems we face. It's allot easier to blame firearms and their ownership instead of examining the socio and economic reasons that drive up crime rates and violence. Overall great job!
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Copithorne
"1974 roughly 150 people where killed with a firearm, that number has stayed constant even up to the present day"
DeleteIndeed, but the population of the country went from 22 million to 30 million. That makes a big difference!
Moore’s formula for creating documentaries largely consists of comparing countries and ideas in a very satirical way (as seen in Bowling for Columbine and Where to Invade Next?). His use of comedy really does add a different perspective on delicate issues such as school shootings or everyday American mistreatments. In other words, the humor used allows him to approach these topics in a way that is relatable to someone who is not an expert on them. As for the blog, the ideas are very well articulated and ordered.
ReplyDelete-Giancarlo
Great entry! I like that you went in depth with ethos, logos and pathos. I found the movie Bowling for Columbine one of the more interesting movies that we have watched. I didn't even realize Michael Moore's use of rhetoric right away during the film as I was pulled in by his incredible use of playing with our emotions. It was only after the film when I realized how Michael Moore's perspective was portrayed as the only perspective on America's gun problem. I also found it interesting in the film how Michael Moore emphasized how the media in America puts fear into people heads, which could be a reason many people feel the need to keep guns in their home.
ReplyDelete-Cory Rubinovitch
I liked the overall blog. There were definitely parts that I felt were missing or at least not properly explained or brought up. One thing I feel that you guys forgot to put in and that should have been mentioned is that part of why America keeps so many guns around and seem so trigger happy is because of misled fear of non existent things by the media. Even though you mentioned fear, you didn't mention the media misleading people and instilling fear in them by manipulating information and sometimes making up things to keep the sales of guns going. There is definitely business corruption involved in this matter and I feel that it is a thing to note. Otherwise I liked the blog entry. Good job guys.
ReplyDelete-Sean(Karan) Handa
I really enjoyed reading this blog. I found that Michael Moore's use of logos, ethos and pathos was very well explained. Michael Moore's documentary showed me a warped side of American culture. "Bowling for Columbine" was made in 2002, but this warped violent American culture can be seen right now on television in the presidential election that is taking place. When I watch the news, it is clear to me that the culture is very different in the U.S than it is in Canada. I see comments that are racist, sexist and violent coming from people who may be future leaders of the U.S. It's terrifying to watch and I know these are not problems that can be fixed overnight, but I hope the people of the U.S can come together and fight to end these injustices. Well done guys!
ReplyDelete-Sebastien Christie
Great entry! I find that Micheal Moore's documentaries are some of the most interesting ones. Partly because of his personality but mostly because of his choice of controversial subjects. He really opens the eyes of the viewers to the subject of gun control and the easiness of buying a gun with the techniques of pathos, ethos and logos. Also, I completely agree that the factor of fear is a large factor in these kinds tragedies.
ReplyDeleteVery good entry!
ReplyDeleteYou clearly explained the way Michael Moore uses Ethos, Logos, and Pathos in his documentary film. I have to admit that his manipulation technique into making the viewer take his side, and therefore, believe in his facts (eg : how Canadians don't lock their doors) is quite impressive and makes one want to watch his second documentary film. His intelligent use of humor, rhetoric and sarcasm are what make his films entertaining and interesting at the same time.
-Soumaya Obey