This is reallllly impressive and even more pleasing.
I think it was very clever to use the two characters, the two presidents, as your median to communicate your analysis. By Barack Obama explaining to George Bush the strategies of the interview, you (the author) were explainng to us (the audience) your dissection of the piece. I think this is really smart in the way that we feel like we are eves-dropping and thus getting the inside scoop or maybe even the "truth" behind the piece. Putting it in a conversational dialogue also allows the audience to possess both of the speakers insight. ie: In some ways our responses are W's responses, and at other times we are in Obama's shoes, acknowledging the effects of what we learned.
I also liked how you were able to insert your own extensions of arguement into the piece by having your characters state it. For example you added additional means of persuasion onto the basic definitions of pathos, logos, enthymemes etc, more in depth than anything we covered, and how they are specifically related to the original speech. In one way your are not responsible for what they say at all, and in other way you are the "God" who put those words in their mouths. That is a really cool aspect of the piece.
I think one of the best things you did with this project is the humor. When we were assigned this project I really wanted to try and put some into my peice because I knew it would be an immediate appeal to the readers - but the context I put mine into limited that - with your piece its perfect. It was really awesome that you even put inside jokes into it like the "Fool me once" reference. This keeps the characters personalities consistant and realistic, and thus the dialogue more believable because we would be more inclined to think that what you had them say, would be something they would say anyway.
In class I recall you admitting you were concerned that you 'were making Obama's arguement for him' (or something to that affect) and I dont think thats anything you should be self-conscious about after viewing this, because it is exactly what you are doing. The scenario is fictional, therefore everthing said within (could be argued) is fictional as well. Brilliant.
There are a few things that may make it better though. I would have really liked subtitles, for both videos. This may be an idiosynchratic thing though as I watch nearly all my movies/shows with them, but I think it may have been handy as some of the comupertized pronunciations were a bit distracting. I also had to pause it alot to either A) laugh or B) take notes. When I picked it up again I had to recalculate where I was within the dialogue. Some might argue that subtitles are distracting, but I think because of the limited action, it would have been fine.
"In some ways our responses are W's responses, and at other times we are in Obama's shoes, acknowledging the effects of what we learned. In one way your are not responsible for what they say at all, and in other way you are the "God" who put those words in their mouths. That is a really cool aspect of the piece."
Here, here! I want to know how to use xtranormal! That is the ultimate in creating memes. Your explanation of how an enthymeme plants thoughts, I thought, was by far better than Aristotles. You also addressed a question I have had floating in my mind, "Why not simply use simple language? Straight-shooter..."
I thought the video was hilarious, a great take on speaking about the rhetorical analysis of the video. I don't feel that you made Obamas argument for him. I think it's just credit to how Obama pulled it off and your explanation of the enthymemes used. You pointed out how Obama was able to address the forms of praise and virtuous which was great since he killed three birds with one stone there, sort of like a form of accumulatio, bringing together various points for a climax.
You made Obamas accepting of gay marriage a true feeling on Obamas part while using rhetoric to get it across so it wasn't just a political move.
Also the use of family values was something I missed in Obamas video. So the way you went about revealing how Obama did it while appealing to gay rights was great.
That is so cool that you made the movie!!! Love how you show Bush as being the typical idiot that he was..thinking that Enthymeme was a kind of new-age dance. Nice!!!
JP and I have talked about the last video before, I think it is great that Obama has a strong voice on gay marriage, but I do not think that just because somebody talks to a few couples, does not make you an expert on what they are going through. It reminds me of how some people think they are not racist because they had a minority student that went to school with them.
As a student getting my minor in NAS, I can only imagine and read what the tribes went through. I will never know 100% what it feels like to be Indian.
Matt - I usually take notes while I am reading, and I meant to while I was viewing this, but I got too distracted because I was laughing so hard. This was wonderful - it was, I can say, exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I sent this back to you to consider. In fact, I decided to just stop writing this and offer you this instead:
Matt,
ReplyDeleteThis is reallllly impressive
and even more pleasing.
I think it was very clever to use the two characters, the two presidents, as your median to communicate your analysis. By Barack Obama explaining to George Bush the strategies of the interview, you (the author) were explainng to us (the audience) your dissection of the piece. I think this is really smart in the way that we feel like we are eves-dropping and thus getting the inside scoop or maybe even the "truth" behind the piece.
Putting it in a conversational dialogue also allows the audience to possess both of the speakers insight. ie: In some ways our responses are W's responses, and at other times we are in Obama's shoes, acknowledging the effects of what we learned.
I also liked how you were able to insert your own extensions of arguement into the piece by having your characters state it. For example you added additional means of persuasion onto the basic definitions of pathos, logos, enthymemes etc, more in depth than anything we covered, and how they are specifically related to the original speech.
In one way your are not responsible for what they say at all, and in other way you are the "God" who put those words in their mouths. That is a really cool aspect of the piece.
I think one of the best things you did with this project is the humor. When we were assigned this project I really wanted to try and put some into my peice because I knew it would be an immediate appeal to the readers - but the context I put mine into limited that - with your piece its perfect. It was really awesome that you even put inside jokes into it like the "Fool me once" reference. This keeps the characters personalities consistant and realistic, and thus the dialogue more believable because we would be more inclined to think that what you had them say, would be something they would say anyway.
In class I recall you admitting you were concerned that you 'were making Obama's arguement for him' (or something to that affect) and I dont think thats anything you should be self-conscious about after viewing this, because it is exactly what you are doing. The scenario is fictional, therefore everthing said within (could be argued) is fictional as well. Brilliant.
There are a few things that may make it better though.
I would have really liked subtitles, for both videos. This may be an idiosynchratic thing though as I watch nearly all my movies/shows with them, but I think it may have been handy as some of the comupertized pronunciations were a bit distracting. I also had to pause it alot to either A) laugh or B) take notes. When I picked it up again I had to recalculate where I was within the dialogue.
Some might argue that subtitles are distracting, but I think because of the limited action, it would have been fine.
Bravo!
"In some ways our responses are W's responses, and at other times we are in Obama's shoes, acknowledging the effects of what we learned.
ReplyDeleteIn one way your are not responsible for what they say at all, and in other way you are the "God" who put those words in their mouths. That is a really cool aspect of the piece."
Here, here! I want to know how to use xtranormal! That is the ultimate in creating memes. Your explanation of how an enthymeme plants thoughts, I thought, was by far better than Aristotles. You also addressed a question I have had floating in my mind, "Why not simply use simple language? Straight-shooter..."
I thought the video was hilarious, a great take on speaking about the rhetorical analysis of the video. I don't feel that you made Obamas argument for him. I think it's just credit to how Obama pulled it off and your explanation of the enthymemes used. You pointed out how Obama was able to address the forms of praise and virtuous which was great since he killed three birds with one stone there, sort of like a form of accumulatio, bringing together various points for a climax.
ReplyDeleteYou made Obamas accepting of gay marriage a true feeling on Obamas part while using rhetoric to get it across so it wasn't just a political move.
Also the use of family values was something I missed in Obamas video. So the way you went about revealing how Obama did it while appealing to gay rights was great.
That is so cool that you made the movie!!! Love how you show Bush as being the typical idiot that he was..thinking that Enthymeme was a kind of new-age dance. Nice!!!
ReplyDeleteJP and I have talked about the last video before, I think it is great that Obama has a strong voice on gay marriage, but I do not think that just because somebody talks to a few couples, does not make you an expert on what they are going through. It reminds me of how some people think they are not racist because they had a minority student that went to school with them.
As a student getting my minor in NAS, I can only imagine and read what the tribes went through. I will never know 100% what it feels like to be Indian.
Matt - I usually take notes while I am reading, and I meant to while I was viewing this, but I got too distracted because I was laughing so hard. This was wonderful - it was, I can say, exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I sent this back to you to consider. In fact, I decided to just stop writing this and offer you this instead:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13974570/an-astronaut-responds-to-matt