Blakesley's Defining Film Rhetoric Questions

1. This question comes from reading David Blakesley’s chapter, “Defining Film Rhetoric: The Case of Hitchcock’s Vertigo.” Blakesley makes the statement, “As a predominantly visual medium, film makes identification even more inviting than it might otherwise be” (pg. 129-130). He goes on to discuss how movies are able to make a quicker and more identifiable connection between characters and audience, compared to the character connection made in books. This struck me as surprising when he compared the two mediums and the difference in character and audience identification. It seems that books are able to create a memorable and more complete character that an audience can identify with as well. In your opinion which medium do you feel does the better job of creating a character that the audience can identify with, and why?

2. In Blakesley’s article he also discusses the aim of rhetoric in films as identification (pg. 117). He states that for the audience “identification functions as desire, as an assertion of identities...we pursue that identification as one way of expressing our consubstantiality.” As humans we enjoy the opportunity to pretend and desire to be someone else, and the use of film is powerful in drawing that desire of identification out of the audience. I can still remember how much I wanted to be a Power Ranger when I was younger, and in my mind I thought I could do all the stunts and fighting. Can you think of a character that you desired to be when you were younger, or a character that you identified with in films? What about that character allowed you to make that identity connection?

3. Another idea that Blakesley highlights is the use of visuals and their impact on what we believe. “Seeing is believing, but believing is seeing as well” (pg. 112). When I think of the visuals we encounter everyday and the movies that are made, I can’t help but think of all the effects that went in to making those visuals. Pictures and magazine covers are edited and airbrushed, movies have special effects, and most of the stunts we see in movies are animated. So many of the visuals we take in are not real, so how can we believe what we see? Based on what most of us know about the tools used to make these false visuals, what can we do as the receivers of messages in order to make real judgments about what we see? Do our beliefs in certain things distract us from seeing the truth in other things?

Safeway Persuasion and Consumption

Safeway

This assignment is actually the type of thing I think about every time I go into Safeway. If you go into the Safeway on 14^th and John the entrance to the store leads you through the floral department. I know that whenever I walk into the store I notice the appealing smell of the flowers and the sight of them also leads me to think about my family. When I think of my family I think about how nice it would be to buy my mom or Grandma some flowers. Having this at the front of the store so that no one can get past without seeing them at that entrance I think brings a nice beginning to the shoppers experience. For me as soon as I enter I immediately smile, and even stop and smell sometimes, at the beautiful flowers.

As I’m shopping at Safeway I also notice the price tags on the items in the store. The original price tags are red and have black writing on them, making them not as desirable to look at compared to the bright yellow tags they put on items for the Safeway Club Members price. I also think that the original price tags are hard to read sometimes, but the sale prices are big and bright so that customers can’t miss them. Everyone loves a sale, so when these bright tags stick out and the customer can see the savings compared to the other prices it’s easy for them to see the saving and be persuaded that it’s that much better of a savings.

The items that are located around the check stand are also interesting to consider. It usually consists of the small items that are easy to grab. There’s gum, candy, magazines, and movies. If you’re in to Hollywood gossip it’s hard not to grab a magazine while you’re standing in line and look at it while you’re waiting. The gum and candy is always a reminder of things that I want and the chocolate that would taste so good after eating the other food that I bought. The most interesting thing I think is the movies. I myself never even really look at them because I would never think or really want to buy a movie from Safeway. My roommate on the other hand always stops and looks at the movies. So even though they don’t appeal to me they appeal to my roommate, and that’s what they’re going for. Even if it only appeals to some it’s still an affective item to sell. I think this aspect also points to the fact that Safeway can be almost like a one stop shopping place. When you walk through the aisles or are about to check out, there’s always something else you see that you think you need to have.

Safeway also includes my favorite coffee shop Starbucks. When I enter I catch a glimpse of the Starbucks and then when I’m done checking out I walk past it on the way out of the store. Each time I pass it I am always tempted to go buy a coffee, but am usually able to restrain myself. Having the Starbucks coffee itself brings in a group of people that may only be there for the coffee but then end up shopping at Safeway. So it also appeals to certain customers and draws them in to spend more money at Safeway.

The last thing I noticed before I left was the add for donating to breast cancer research. It asked me on the screen when I used my card and the checker always asks me also, even if I already checked no on the screen.

These are the main advertisements I see when I go to Safeway, and each of them act in different ways to draw in customers and create a vision of what Safeway is and what it has to offer. I know that a lot of there messages work on me, but I am proud to say that I am able to also identify those messages and restrain myself from some of them.

Response to Gina Kim's first question

In response to Gina Kim’s 1^st question:

1. In the beginning of chapter 6, entitled, “The Psychology of Persuasion,” Woodward and Denton discuss three hypothetical constructs that serve as cognitive elements of persuasion: beliefs, attitudes, and values. A “belief” is defined as something we personally know to be true or false, “our convictions – even if others disagree” (page 133). However, the authors later mention that our ranking of beliefs change over time, giving the example of one’s view on abortion possibly changing after encountering a rape victim or becoming a parent. Do you think that knowledge gives us reason to believe? Or perhaps that personal experience or encounter cause one to believe? When talking about beliefs, I automatically think of words like, “religion,” “faith,” and “God.” Does more knowledge necessarily cause one to believe more or less in something? Or does it go beyond facts and figures, and perhaps “blind faith,” as some religious people may label it, to fully have belief in something?

I do think that knowledge in something is the reason that we can believe in that thing. In furthering our knowledge we deepen our beliefs in something, and because we know more we are able to base those convictions on more substance. I think a good example of this in my case is my political views. When I was younger I held the same beliefs as my parents because I was too young to have the knowledge to make my own views. As I have grown up I have gained knowledge in order to make the decision about who best represents my own beliefs. Over the years as I’ve come to the age of voting some of my views have changed, but it has been through my own curiosity that I did more research and gained further insight into what was being told to me. So that knowledge I gained through investigating has lead to the changing and strengthening of many of my beliefs.

I also have a friend who has experienced rape, and I think that her situation has definitely changed my beliefs about multiple things. It’s completely situational and different for every person, because people have beliefs for some reason; something motivates them to think a certain way. What we think of as being true could be different for two people, but a single encounter could change both of our beliefs.

In Gina’s second set of questions concerning beliefs in religion, faith, and God, I believe that this is a different type of belief. I believe both are true, that knowledge helps deepen our religious beliefs, along with a sense of “blind faith” that deepens our beliefs. I consider myself a religious person, and through my years of studying the Bible, attending Bible study, and church my beliefs in God have very much deepened and grown richer. This does take some of my own belief, I have my own beliefs of how God is present in my life everyday and how he has worked in my life, but I cannot exactly convince someone else about that belief just through my experience. So for me it is not “blind faith,” but to others it may seem like that.

Overall anything someone holds to be true can be a belief, but a stronger belief/conviction is formed when more knowledge is gained into that subject.

Week 3: Questions from Chapter 13

1. In chapter 13 of our text book it’s written on page 384:

"The greatest potential for awareness and memorability of ideas, according to John Rossiter and Larry Percy, lies in the use of dynamic pictures (video), static concrete pictures (print), and concrete words (audio or print)."

These kinds of ties can be drawn from cultural, emotional, past experiences, and a whole list of other things. A peace sign poster with only the sign can alone create a whole array of different meanings and representations for different people. Another example could be the “hope” poster of Obama in the paint like silhouette. As a receiver of different advertisement and public awareness campaign ideas, do you feel that the use of any of the three, dynamic pictures, static concrete pictures, or concrete words can be used by themselves to create as great an impact as the three of them combined? Or does the combination of elements add to the understanding of a wider audience?

2. On page 390 the authors discuss setting realistic goals for advertising and campaigning to be successful. They believe that in order for something to achieve its overall goal it should be “duplicated many times.” The idea that only once isn’t affective makes me think about television adds during the super bowl. The companies that pay millions of dollars for that airtime rely on the success of that one commercial to reach millions of people sometimes only once and for 30 seconds. In your opinion do you feel that companies are able to successfully send a message that sticks into consumers heads after only one viewing? Is there a particular ad you can remember and identify as sending a clear message to you while viewing the commercials during the Super Bowl?

3. Page 392 talks about the use of “a sympathetic figure or key icon to communicate your central idea” and how the use of the World Trade Centers now carries a very different meaning than it did before September 11^th. The War in Iraq is another example of a subject that has changed since it started in 2001. Approval ratings of the war have significantly dropped since it began, so the use of the war whether it’s to gain support or being used as a campaign tool has to be used very carefully. For those from different cultures do you think that it is smart for emphasis to be put on subjects that have certain meaning for U.S. citizens compared to the rest of the world? What kind of interpretation do you believe is made by those from other cultures and backgrounds about these sympathetic figures for America?

Responses to Kim's 3rd question

This is in response to Kim Thomas’ 3^rd question she posted concerning hot and cold media.

            “With the 2008 election being very media driven, do you see Obama and McCain as cool persuaders?  Were their messages cool, or requiring a lot of audience participation to create the whole meaning?”

            In response to the first question I believe that most of the media attention was actually hot media. I say that because in the beginning it may have seemed that by presenting what each candidate represented, it was using cool media for the audience to come to their own conclusions, but later on much more explaining had to be done by each candidate (hot media). This candidacy race was unlike any other, in more ways than one, and as far as the candidates having to present their views I think a lot more convincing had to be done this time. People were asking more questions, they had higher expectations after the Bush administration, and people wanted answers. More than I can remember from past election races, the candidates had to go through a lot more and share more in order to capture voters.

            I can see also from the view that cool media was used because based on the information Obama and McCain presented us with people had to come to their own conclusions on who they felt to be the better candidate. As a whole though, I think each campaign did lots of work in order to make sure voters knew who they were voting for.

            Another example of hot media can be seen in the debates. They always do a lot of story telling to help answer their questions, which I think helps the audience relate and better understand what each party is trying to accomplish. By telling these stories and answering the questions the candidates seem to be using the hot media. They want to make it as simple as they can for voters to understand their position and choose their side.

            The ads that are run against each candidate however use the cool media very skillfully. They present a picture to the audience and then they end they add by asking the viewer a question. By asking the viewer to answer a question they are making them think about which side they would choose, and ultimately leave out details for the voters to come to their own decisions. Though these ads are usually annoying after seeing them a couple times, it presents enough information to persuade the audience while still allowing them to decide on their own.

            I think its safe to say that both hot and cold media played a part in this past election. Each candidate wants to successfully display their views to voters while also letting the voters come to their own conclusions on some situations. That is what made the election between Obama and McCain so exciting; no one really knew what people would decide.

Questions from Charles Larsen Chapter 12

1.     In Chapter 12 Charles Larsen points out an interesting fact when he states that “the power of the printed word has diminished to some degree” (pg. 288), in highlighting the drop of readership among newspapers. In class we discussed the various reasons that this may be the case when we read the letter to the editor from a high school student who encouraged the reading of newspapers. As a class we were able to discuss why the Internet had become so much more convenient and user friendly for those looking for fast, local, and current news. N reading this chapter, however, I believe Larsen has pointed out another major hindrance to the newspaper when he discusses the rates of illiteracy among people. The 30% of illiteracy among Americans is from 1993, but it does still exist today. In your opinion does the problem of illiteracy still affect the survival of newspapers today? Have people become too lazy to read and keep up with the growth of the printed word?

2.     In discussing the agenda setting being done by the media, Larsen wants to encourage consumers of media to be critical and open to all avenues of the media. Those may seem contradictory but by open he wants consumers to be able to look at a wide variety of media so that a fuller, more complete picture can be seen. “With several sources telling you what to think about, you can decide both what to think and what to think about” (pg. 307). Every form of media has an agenda that it wants to set, whether its television, newspaper, radio, or Internet. The question I pose to this part of his article is if the Internet has helped in being more open to new avenues of news, or if it has added more distractions to what we are trying to find out? The Internet as an electronic word has brought in tons more advertisements and many more avenues for people to share their view on a certain topic. So do all of these new advertisements, blogs, and articles added by the Internet distract us from what may be the correct news or does it help us as consumers?

3.     The final question I would like to ask refers back to Larsen’s emphasis on the manipulation and persuasion of our media. The media doesn’t tell us what to think but it does influence what we think about. By ignoring certain information and being influenced by sponsors on what to report, the messages we receive can be severely distorted. In my communication class from last quarter we discussed the bias that each major media source is influenced by and it was disturbing to hear how much is hidden and censored from us as consumers. If the media is catering to the audience to get more viewers, instead of catering to the issues and informing us, then how can we be sure what facts are true? In thinking back on the various news stations you’ve watched, or newspapers you’ve read, can you see the bias of our media being portrayed in the stories? Do you think that by reading, or watching, several different broadcasts on the same issue can help us get past these biases as consumers?

Response to Elizabeth Roush's Question 2

This post is in response to Elizabeth Roush’s question #2

I also found this section of the chapter interesting; it definitely caught my eye and made me think about whether I agreed or not with what Warnick and Inch were saying. When first reading the statement “intentions are unobservable responses”(pg. 30) I disagreed, but with further thought I agree with Elizabeth that the authors make a valid point. There definitely are times when a person can be persuasive enough, or a good enough speaker in general to portray a certain image while also hiding the true intention. It doesn’t even have to be personally hidden, I think it happens sometimes just due to them talking in the moment. Or perhaps even a good picture of the intention can be made, but when you look at the text you can actually see the intentionality that more clearly.

By looking at the use of language in the speech or text we can further examine the author’s intentions. So while there intentions may be unobservable in person, on paper they are easier to distinguish when looking at argument structure and language use. I agree that the case can be made that the intentions can actually be more affective or better understood through the reading of the text rather than during the actual speech. When a speaker is reading a speech aloud accentuation can be put on different statements in relation to others that may have been seen as more important during the reading. In looking at both Obama and President Regan’s speeches on the screen and also having the hard copy, I feel that as a class we were better able to analyze each situation and the intentions behind the speeches. In Obama’s address during the democratic national convention you could definitely tell that in his speech he was trying to unite both parties to join in change. In looking at the text we were specifically able to look at his word usage and how he was able to be so accurately descriptive in those he spoke of in his speech. During the speech this may or may not have been noticed but in reading the speech it shows a deep personalization that he wants to create with each of these people and how they can be an example for the American people. The intention becomes stronger and more focused. With Regan I believe the same is apparent. In watching his speech made after the Challenger tragedy he comes off as very sympathetic but strong. When we discussed the text of his speech in class we were able to pull out many other points that helped to create this whole picture of the past, present, and what was to come for America in the future. His word choice and speech structure was very strategically planned and that is hard to see in just one view of the speech, but when you take the time to examine the text you can experience really all that it encompasses and what Regan was really wanting to convey to the American people.

            I think both of these speeches and texts are good examples of how a speech/claim can show some type of intentionality, but with further examination of the text really show that so much more can be pulled, and the intentions of the author can truly be seen. It’s easy to misinterpret or be fooled, but when you read the text for what it is and know the background it is easier to base your interpretations. I have experienced personal encounters where my interpretation of the speaker was mistaken for what their true intentions were, and I felt fooled until I went back and actually replayed what was said and thought about how and why they said things. Looking at the language behind arguments definitely impacts how they are interpreted, and in thinking about this question it has made me much more aware of how much of an impact language has. This chapter and section alone have opened my mind to encourage me to be more critical in the analysis of language used by others and myself. 

Question Response to Promo Girl

Question Response 2: This is in response to Promo Girls question, “The Challenger.”

 

I wonder if we as humans change the rhetoric in response to situations, specifically tragedies, in Order for out conscious beings to comprehend and swallow in the face of tragedies what has occurred? I also wonder if we do the same thing in light of other situations?

 

As discussed by Jeff Philpott’s class discussion on Tuesday, there seems to a very clear connection between rhetoric used and the situation at hand. We as humans all the time change our rhetoric based on the situation. It’s just like in the challengers case, and in any other type of tragedy, let’s say 9/11 for this example, the rhetoric before and after the event had changed drastically. Before 9/11 we didn’t refer to Iraqis or Middle Eastern people in the same way we do now, the news did not report the same way it did before the war began, and why? Because the situation had changed, they had now committed a terrorist attack on us and we had now waged war. When the situation changes the discourse is sure to change as well.

            This can be said for many other situations as well. The whole idea of the “rhetorical situation” is that rhetorical discourse is called into being by the situation. The situation is what helps us apply the appropriate response. Exigency helps us to find the problem that needs to be addressed, the audience is whom we can influence through our discourse, and constraints are the limitations we face n our discourse. All of these occur and all of them are dependent on the situation so that the proper response can be made. I think a current example of this could be the issue of global warming. The problem is that it is definitely affecting our planet, the audience is those who are willing to make the sacrifices needed, and the constraints could be others that deny and argue against the idea of global warming. If the situation were to change, so would the constraints and audience addressed.

            So definitely the answer would be yes to the question of whether other situations create this same kind of change in discourse.  Rhetoric is directly correlated with situation.

Response to Of Writers and Purgers Q 3

This entry is in response to Roman Christiaens third question based on the Lackoff and Johnson reading.

The first question raised by Roman is in how Lakhoff and Johnson point out the important aspect of the metaphor in language and the limitations that can be encountered when the metaphor in language fails. I also believe this is a very interesting point that both authors present. The use of metaphor in speech is not something that is typically thought of unless it is specifically used in the “poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish.” Unless it is obvious that metaphors are being used they can be very hard to recognize in common language even though metaphors seem to be existent in all language for Lakoff and Johnson. I don’t think it is a main concern for the authors that metaphors can make a point that they didn’t want to be made. The authors point out the fact that metaphors can at times hide other important meanings, not necessarily totally oppose what was trying to be said. Hiding points and having opposing purposes are two different things, a person coming up with a metaphor would make sure that it fit the situation, but the mistake could be made that the metaphor made could hide important other aspects. I believe this is what makes metaphors so hard to understand at times. How can you really know that the meaning you get from the metaphor is the meaning the creator wanted? The answer is you can’t, people see things differently and metaphors can take on various meanings.

So does this point out a caveat in the use of language overall? I agree with Roman on this point that this does create a limitation in language. People can always be confused on the meanings of language; this is why we study communication. The authors of these chapters focus on the idea of why context is important in these instances for misunderstanding. A concept can be structured by the metaphor but the true meaning has the ability to extend it in many different directions. So we may think we know the meaning but in fact it can be much deeper than the ideas that we come up with. Roman gives a great real life example of this too in philosophy. A whole room full of people can examine the language of Philosophy and you can have a whole room full of different translations of the metaphors. This does create a problem for people trying to understand the overall meaning of the writings. Philosophers are very poetic and are some of the fore fathers of rhetoric, so finding meaning in these can be hidden and difficult to pinpoint, which creates a problem.

Is this a correct assumption made by Roman? Roman does make a valid point about how metaphors can complicate the use of languages and I do agree with him on his view of this article. Yes metaphors may be used in everyday life, but when we take the time to look at them and examine them they can also create varying views on there meaning. We will continue to use metaphors as part of our conceptual systems and human thought processes because they are such a big part of our understandings and realities that we make, understanding them is when we can reach problems.

Week One Participation Summary

I didn't know if we needed to do this or not, but if you wanted a quick summary of our readings here it is.

Our readings from chapters one through three in the Introduction to Rhetorical Theory introduce the art of Rhetoric to us through uses of explanations and examples of how rhetoric is used in everyday life. In chapter one the main theme is to discuss what rhetoric is and the processes we go through in rhetorical situations (the six actions). The chapter discusses continuities and discontinuities in communication and how when we have discontinuities in our communication “we strive to manage our symbols for specific goals”(pg. 6). We use rhetoric to induce certain results in our communication. Rhetoric takes place at certain and specific times in our communication and because of this is considered an art due to the knowledge needed in using it effectively.

Chapter two discusses how in each instance that rhetoric is used it is leading to a desired end result. Narrative, dialectic, and rhetoric were all explained in the social practice of rhetoric, which focuses on the joint transaction of thinking that occurs between communicators in rhetoric. Rhetoric was also described as a method in this chapter because it is something that is strategically planned in order to help us find out what is needed for certain communication situations. It stresses the fact that knowing your audience is an essential and important part in communicating effectively.

Chapter three gives the readers an idea of the opportunities in which rhetoric may occur. Rhetoric is very powerful in helping to shape the things around us, so we should take full use of that opportunity and apply it so that we can use our environments to our advantage. Rhetorical comm. has the ability to change and fit the needs of what is going on, but it is very important that if we begin to change communication we do it so that it appropriately fits the new situation. This chapter also discusses the exigence, audience, and constraint elements of rhetoric, but I am interested to learn more about these in our class discussion tomorrow.

The final piece we read for this week was the article by Bitzer. This article focuses on the situational element of rhetoric. Rhetoric, like described in chapter one, is very situational, but Bitzer makes an interesting point about rhetoric not always having to take place in discourse. It is the “situation which calls the discourse into existence”, his essay focuses on bringing rhetorical situation into a new light to be examined closer. I don’t exactly understand all of the elements of this article as well so I look forward to discussing it further in class.