Michael Moore, a well acclaimed director and producer, threw himself at the American public in search for a possible answer to why the United States has a higher violence with guns. Growing up in Flint, Michigan, Moore was slightly more attached to this documentary than perhaps other film producers. His emotional connection to this topic is from Flint, Michigan where a little girl was killed at an elementary school by a boy her ago who found a gun and used it as a weapon. Moore's emotional tie and perseverance is a great strategy to persuade the audience. Emotionally tying the tragic events to the use of gun control was displayed when Moore went to Charlton Heston's home to question him about his view on gun control in relation to recent shootings. Heston was passive and non committal in the questions asked and was protecting his right to bear arms at all times. Displaying this rhetorical strategy of pathos generates an argument of persuasion throughout the documentary.
Another strategy used by Michael Moore is the use of sarcasm. The film is quite funny and filled with laughable moments. Moore interviews real people to get their reactions and it connects with the audience at a perspective most relevant. Moore phrases his questions in a dramatic way so that when they interviewer answers truthfully, it seems unrealistic yet honest. He uses fallacies and stereotypes to ask questions referring to his aim at argument.
Moore was unsuccessful at arguing the right to bear arms in this documentary. He didn't convince people that it was wrong or that it needed to be changed. I do agree that he raised awareness to the 2nd amendment and got the audience thinking about the future. Going to a neighboring country, Canada, Moore was able to provide proof of our problem related to nearby governments. Raising this issue and being aware of this flaw in our American culture is much needed. I applaud Michael Moore in his success to do just that. His use of strategies relating to his expertise in filming allowed for the audience to engage in this documentary to turn around our nation's culture regarding gun control.
I don't know about you, Jackson, but when Moore confronted Heston and others with controversial, straight-forward questions, I became a bit uncomfortable. He didn't mess around and got right to the point, which I admire. You could definitely see Heston and the others squirm with discomfort and a bit of anger because they knew they looked like complete assholes. It's like they were so taken aback that even Heston couldn't make a strong, valid argument in the name of the NRA. Michael definitely showed them who was boss.
ReplyDeleteI thought that you made a good connection between the fact that Moore had more of an emotional attachment to this subject due to the fact that he grew up in Flint, Michigan. I think that Moore was able to get his points across by using sarcasm like you stated. This made the documentary more interesting due to it's humor; yet I could see where Chloe is coming from in the previous comment because some of what was stated could make the audience feel uncomfortable. Like you said, though, Moore was able to bring awareness about gun control to the audience, which was the goal in the first place.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Jackson. I believe that he was very successful in many parts of his film. He had obvious satire which made it so engaging. It was clear that he wanted to get to the bottom of the situation. Having the emotional ties with his hometown made the pathos emerge and made me really think about guns. I thought the personal interviews were great too. They talked to seemingly oblivious people, or people who truly believed the government was plotting against them, and it helped prove his point that something wasn’t right. I do not believe an objective of this film was to prove the right to bear arms was wrong. There was no textual evidence to prove that high gun ownership lead to high gun deaths. Of course, if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths (except for the people who wouldn’t give up their guns because they aren’t law abiding citizens, seemingly making criminals the only ones to still be bearing arms because that seems logical). I thought he did a great job on the film as well, I just don’t think he was that against the right to bear arms.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your response Jackson. The part I agreed with most was when you stated that he used pathos effectively in his movie. I would definitely agree with this. He chose an incident from his hometown for the movie, and this alone allowed for this rhetorical component to shine through. I also thought sarcasm was a large part of the movie as you said. He often times pretended to side with the person he was talking to, but he would then purposely take it overboard to prove where he actually stood on the issue. These were the two components I really agreed with in your response.
ReplyDeleteJackson I think you brought up some great points here. You pointed out that Moore used sarcasm throughout, which seemed to paint a light that some of the arguments of gun rights supporters are hilarious. In the end though I think you are right that Moore didn't really effectively convince the viewer’s one way or the other on gun restrictions. Even though he makes several great points, he can never pinpoint anyone who could truly answer his questions.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the strategies he used to try and convince audiences of his views. However, I also agree that he didn't exactly express his own views, and left the major thinking up to the audience after supplying sufficient proof. This is how it should be; people are provided with information and left to formulate their own opinions. He also did a really good job of putting doubt in pro-gun people's mind by interviewing Heston and receiving such sketchy answers. That strategy was one of his most powerful I think.
ReplyDeleteJackson, I definitely agree with you that Moore used many strong rhetoric based arguments to bring the audience in and really make them think about the issue that is gun control. There were definitely some points in time where I grew uncomfortable and speechless. I also agree with the fact he did not really show his viewpoint on this issue, and by doing this I believe it made it that much stronger of a persuasive argument. Because he provided the information and statistics and then leaving it to the audience to take a stance on gun control gave me a stronger sense of empowerment. I really enjoyed watching it and I see that you did too.
ReplyDeleteHey Jackson! I really enjoyed reading your blog, it made me think of things in a very new way. Although I clearly picked up on the sarcasm Moore used, I didn't really think of it as persuasive until now. Through the usage of it, however, Moore was able to better relate to viewers at a dialect widely used today, and as you put it, "it connects with the audience at a perspective most relevant." I also agreed that while Moore addressed a very evident issue, he didn't really take a stand. Moore highlighted the problems of gun control and how the looseness of the gun policies in the United States could be contributing to the gun related incidents, but he allowed viewers to form their own opinions. I commend Moore for tackling such a prominent issue in a fairly unbiased way, and sticking to the facts. Great blog!
ReplyDelete