Persuasive 3: High Treason

Summary

This is a movie review on the film Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, a sequel of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. The writer, Dana Stevens, says, “Everything you need to know about the difference between [the two films]…is right there in the titles”. She talks about the original movie being a “flop” on the big screen, only getting recognition from a small group of people after it came out on DVD. Dana talks about the plot of the first movie stating the possible themes: “tribute to friendship, spontaneity, racial tolerance, and the problem-solving properties of weed”. Dana attributes the first movies popularity from the “cult following on DVD” (one can only guess what she meant by cult) to these themes of high, brotherly love. The tone in the sequel is “far more serious”, touching on “racial profiling and the war on terror”. The writer is unimpressed with the themes of this movie since those themes have been heavily and frequently touched on, “render[ing the films point] completely banal”.

Dana runs through the plot of the sequel, talking mostly about the parts that she didn’t like or the ones that were very close to being funny. Apparently, the sequel is a direct continuation of the first film, starting with “the first of the many scatological gags”. Even with heavier themes, this film’s humor “is too shallow to constitute real satire”. Dana feels that the sequel totally ruined “the spirit of the stoner comedy” that was built up in the first movie.

 

Analysis

There is only one time when she appeals to the ethics of the reader. She refers to the part in the movie where George Bush gets high with Harold and Kumar. It is ridiculous to her that they happened to find themselves in that spot, but also that they show the president “getting blazed”. It doesn’t make sense that the guy who is “responsible for Guantanamo” would be able to enjoy the pleasures in becoming “a high-fiving bro…betraying the spirit of stoner comedy”. Is it ethically sound that the ultimate antagonist would get to have the same fun that the protagonists have?

It is strange that Dana uses logic to show most of her opinions on this very irrational and illogical movie. Often times, she gives her own opinions as facts in her logical arguments, making them seem a little weak. The best example of this is when she calls Neil Patrick Hariss’s future “a puzzling downer”, when some people might not have been feeling that way while watching the movie. She also talks about the poor impression that James Adomian gives of George Bush, making a subjunctive statement for her argument that's not factual at all. Her point is that, logically, if you weren’t a stoner (or you didn’t enjoy that type of humor) and you still had plans for seeing the movie, you aren’t missing anything. She says that all of the events that drive the movie's plot are predictable from the title, again encouraging people no to see it. Even though she warns that this movie could ruin the good parts of the first film, her warning is not strong enough to sway some readers from their want for more frat-boy humour.

http://www.slate.com/id/2189889/

Persuasive 2: Prince Valiant

Summary

The main argument in the article by Christopher Hitchens is that prince Harry should not have gone to fight in Afghanistan. He starts out his article by calling Harry’s removal from the front-line “hasty”, almost mocking the fact that “everybody seem[ed] to assume that it was the only right thing to do”.  He then points out the illogical points about Harry joining in the combat inside Afghanistan.

It is silly to him that Harry was taken out because of the threat of increased danger for him and his comrades. He says that everyone fighting in the area where Harry was already is a “bullet magnet”. He thinks it was silly for people to imagine that Harry’s activation would “be of any operational use” to jihadist who doesn’t really care about British royalty. The writer starts to tattletale on the chief of British defense staff for being the one to freak out and secretly remove Harry from the war. He says that it could have been a little “encouraging for the Islamist gangsters” since the act could have been mistaken as a retreat. He refers to a time when Condoleezza Rice went to Afghanistan and “was not announced in advance” then questions “our obsession with security”.

He wants to know why the British government agreed to letting Harry go in and fight when there was no point to it. It doesn’t show the valiant character of Britain, and it just gives a bad example of leadership when he didn’t “stay in the same trenches as his fellows”.  He then makes his point with Shakespearean quotes.

 

Analysis

 Hitchens uses mostly logical appeals in his article. He starts to make them when he invited the reader to “examine the nonlogic that supposedly underlies this decision”. He questions the logic that was used, if any, in okaying this sort of move. By making fun of the British governments actions, he makes his own opinions seem validated and more right-minded than those of the chief of the British defense staff. A hasty generalization fallacy in this section is evident when Hitchens decides to make fun of the chiefs name; its unrelated evidence that shows he’s trying to get personal, and he almost tries to make the reader draw a conclusion about the guy before we even fully understand everything he’s done..

He makes fun of the words “bullet magnets” that were used to describe the potential dituation of the unit Harry was a part of. The fact that only a few of the soldiers in the active military could be in danger of attracting bullets is all just “piffle”. He thoroughly explains his statement, and though he doesn’t back it up with cold hard facts, he still proves his point. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, the enemy is just going to shoot at whoever they see, whether or not they are able to recognize Harry’s red hair and freckles.

He feels that it was to no ones advantage that Harry left for the front-lines. Hitchens does do a good job of showing both sides of things. He doesn’t fail to mention that Harry was “disappointed” when he had to leave. There is a faulty analogy in this article. Hitchens tries to correlate two things, and though he mentions that he’s aware that the connection is only by name, he proceeds to correlate them. The faulty analogy and the information he gathered on the subject made this article a very interesting read, and the reader is persuaded to see the situation as the writer does.

http://www.slate.com/id/2186186/pagenum/2/

Persuasive 1: Will Miley Cyrus Become the Next Britney

Summary

 The writer doesn’t think that Hannah Montana or Miley Cyrus are impressive. She “get[s] that this show is wildly popular with teens [and]…that her 3-D movie made $29 million in its opening weekend. That doesn’t mean its good”. The writer isn’t bad-mouthing Miley Cyrus, she even says that “she’s cute and personable and she has a pretty good singing voice”. What the writer does not like is how engrossed everyone, and their mom (literally), is in “Hannah Montana”.

 The writer doesn’t even think that all of the hype is worth it. She is disgusted with “all the public talk of virginity” and the way that characteristic has been used to encourage the public to like her more. She calls the act hypocritical too, saying that Miley “proclaimed her virginity” while dressing rather scantily. The writer starts to compare Brittany Spears image to Miley’s drawing a correlation between the two. The writer believes that “there is only one point to dressing sexy”, so it’s a little “insincere” to do that as a young girl who has “pledged [her] virginity to [her] father”.

 The writer again compares Miley’s star-studded youth to the lives of previous child stars that “children idolize[d]”, coming again to the conclusion that Miley’s road to fame could lead to a disastrous future. That, along with the hypocrisy promotion of lacking morals, are reasons she feels children shouldn’t idolize these young stars in the extreme way that they do.

 

Analysis

 The writer makes appeals to the audience’s ethics, logic, and emotion. The ethical appeals call into question the character of Miley Cyrus. The author does this by slyly making the readers mind connect the image of Miley with the notoriously vulgar images of Britney Spears, the guy who “dated Pamela Anderson”, and the like. She even goes as far as to say that Miley “ripped a page from Britney’s handbook” (diary?). This connection makes her look guilty by association (though she never has been known to associate with any of them).

 She uses logic to support her argument. She tries to show the hypocratic side of Miley with the whole “virginity shtick” and the 30 dollar fan-club membership that the parents pay for but get nothing from.. When she alludes to other movie stars gone bad, it makes the reader believe that path could logically be taken by another, potentially Miley. Her statement towards parents that encourage their kids to “blow off an important obligation” to see Hannah Montana is also an appeal to logic.

 Logically, a good parent wouldn’t let their kid eat “chicken nuggets” all the time. The problem with her logical appeals is that they are all slanted. She only provides stacked evidence, building a case up against Miley. The one time she says something good about her, she follows it up with a “But fascinating? Only insofar as she is the next most likely teen star to go Brittney Spear’s on us”. This is also an appeal to the emotions of the readers, most of whom are adult. They read about the parent’s behavior and see it as shocking that parents could be so inept. The problem with the emotional appeals is the writer’s assumption that these things concerning Miley and her pseudonym will lead to yet another "tween" sliding down a slope.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/PMG/teenidols?GT1=7701