How persuasive is the documentary as a work of rhetoric?
Is it convincing and why?
What forms of persuasive language are employed to align the director’s audience on his side?
Who is the target audience/demographic for the documentary, and how does that influence the construction of the text?
What technique is most persuasive and why did it work to the director’s advantage over the other methods he employs?
Who did the documentary exclude or fail to persuade? Id this a deliberate strategy on the director’s part, or a consequence of pursuing one bias over another?
(1)*You are to undertake a written review of the film text in which you present an argument as to why the documentary’s central contention is one that you agree/disagree with. *you are to use the article distributed in class touching the documentary’s contention to support your persuasive review. OR
(2)*you are to undertake a written editorial/opinion piece, in which you present an argument as to why you agree/disagree with the author of the article distributed in class
-Reading and responding: “twelve angry men”
-Context-(whose reality’?): “ The player” (dir. Robert Altman)
Your argument is 100 % invalid. Who are you to say that another country that’s not your own should be destroyed by money hungry planet killers? If anything, they should drill a well in your own backyard so that you yourself can see the real dangers that it poses!
If you knew anything about this world, you would know that humans are responsible for ALL of the environmental damage that is not from natural causes. So why is it that you see this as okay? If you had watched the documentary titled Gasland, you would have seen how people were suffering from severe brain damage, cancer, sensory damage, and even death. Does this sound good to you? Sure as hell doesn’t sound good to 26 million Australians, I can assure you that.
In this world, there are 2 types...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document