Final Project: The Pathos of Horror Films

 Find the document here.

Revised Visual Appeal: Drinking in College

In this revision, I changed the final slide of my presentation. In my original version, I ended with the text, "Please Drink Responsibly" set against a faded image of a young man drinking. Both the message and the image failed to convey the urgency or the weight of the message I was trying to convey. As a result, the final slide was an anti-climatic let down at best. I have revised this final slide--the text now instead reads “think before you drink...it could save a life” juxtaposed against an image of a pulse. This final slide is more affective and impactful, and I believe it more successfully relates the urgent message I try to communicate through this presentation, namely that irresponsible consumption of alcohol puts lives at stake, and that consequently, alcohol must be considered seriously and consumed responsibly.

_________________________

The claim of Drinking in College is that college students, particularly those below the legal drinking age, should think before they drink. My presentation can be broken down into three distinct segments, each consisting of two or three images. Each segment portrays a different dimension of alcohol and is designed to elicit a different emotional response from the viewer. The sequential progression of segments is designed to move the viewer towards an attitude change, namely that consuming alcohol can have dangerous and potentially life-altering consequences.

Segment one consists of the first three images, and portrays alcohol as the media portrays it: a desirable elixir that is fun, exciting, and pleasurable. In the first image, three adolescent teenage boys with beer cans in hand grin at the camera. In the next image, a dozen or so college students raise their colorful cocktails to the camera. The third image shows three college-aged girls carelessly walking away from the camera, drinks in hand. Their faces are hidden from the camera, but the way they’re walking suggests that they are laughing and joking amongst themselves. These three images are designed to elicit joy in the audience. The subjects of these images are obviously having a good time with alcohol; for them alcohol produces ecstasy. I’m hoping that as college students my viewers will be able to relate to and empathize with the seemingly harmless joy and innocent fun portrayed here.

Segment two displays alcohol as a disgusting and repulsive familiarity. In the first image, a sorority girl is bent over a toilet, her head sunken into the toilet bowl. She’s clearly had too much to drink, and it isn’t clear whether or not she’s conscious. The subsequent image shows a fraternity boy throwing up at a party. Two of his friends around him have drinks in hand, so it’s clear that the boy throwing up has been drinking too. Alcohol in this segment is shown as a revolting substance. Neither subject in the two photos look to be enjoying themselves. This segment is designed to elicit disgust and revulsion from my viewers.

The last segment portrays alcohol as a dangerous, life-altering substance. The first image shows a teenage girl in a car wreck. Her face is bruised and she is bleeding—it’s not clear whether or not she’s alive. The next image is the result of an alcohol-related accident. The car is smashed and overturned, and once again it’s ambiguous whether or not the driver has survived the crash. In the final image, a casket is displayed in an American high school. Behind the casket, friends mourn the loss of a beloved friend. These images are aimed to evoke a sense of pity and fear. My viewers should feel pity at the sight of other's misfortunes, and fear at the prospect of such tragedies happening to them.

Ultimately, the three-segment progression of my images brings the viewer from joy to disgust to fear. It shows the multidimensional reality of alcohol and provokes an attitude change in viewers. Specifically, viewers are led to realize that alcohol is not merely an exciting elixir to be desired, but also a disgusting, revolting beverage, and a dangerous substance with life-altering consequences. Viewers are led emotionally and logically to an attitude change, namely to realize that consuming alcohol is at once an exciting and a dangerous activity.

I end with the statement “think before you drink...it could save a life” juxtaposed against an image of a pulse. This final slide is dramatic, and really drives the point home that college students must think responsibly about the consequences of their drinking. Viewers are led to realize that the irresponsible consumption of alcohol puts lives at stake, and that consequently, alcohol must be considered seriously and consumed responsibly.

Image 1:
http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2010/10/Teen_drinking.jpg

Image 2:
http://www.tricitypsychology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/teenagers-partying.jpg

Image 3:
http://blogs.monografias.com/sistema-limbico-neurociencias/files/2010/04/drinking_teenagers_1107904c.jpg

Image 4: http://www.addictionsearch.com/_media/addictionsearch/stock/430_238/grim_results_teen_alcohol_abuse.png

Image 5:
http://lizditz.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/barfing_girl300.jpg

Image 6: http://xetv.img.entriq.net/img/dp_thumbs/thumb_1269412094136_0p7045543624709465.jpg

Image 7: http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions/TFD/Images/DSC00009.JPG

Image 8:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/1544334.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD260611AE9645B8A7307514D4EBFC6AC1DEABFB1E545C47B7E30A760B0D811297

Image 9:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.umnet.com/pic/diy/screensaver/10%255Ce4b4879f-e1b9.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.umnet.com/mobile-wallpapers/0-0-124-000-252&usg=__46zmfDFF2wQM5DemQod5Qf2glP4=&h=400&w=720&sz=23&hl=en&start=0&sig2=vYVyq0rbZaXKehzZYLsL4g&zoom=1&tbnid=v7JdtYe-4pCGKM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=214&ei=tSSyTaHDK8bm0QGl0dzSBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dheart%2Bpulse%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D2347%26bih%3D1117%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=218&page=1&ndsp=72&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=138&ty=91

Images 1-8 accessed 04/03/2011.
Image 9 accessed 04/22/2011.

Blog Post 11: Bitzer gives me mixed feelings

I first studied Bitzer’s The Rhetorical Situation in the spring of my freshman year, in a communication course called “Speechmaking and Society.” In “Speechmaking and Society,” we would study the rhetorical theories of different scholars (Aristotle, Bitzer, Burke, etc.), and then look at famous speeches (MLK Jr, Lincoln, Washington, etc.) that illustrated the rhetorical concepts/theories.

The professor of “Speechmaking and Society” hated Bitzer. According to him, Bitzer was too simple and mechanistic. While few would deny that rhetoric is situational—that is, certain situations necessitate rhetoric—Bitzer, according to my professor takes the “rhetoric is situational” idea ten steps too far. I agree with my professor. Bitzer makes rhetoric and its practice completely mechanistic. As Bitzer puts it: “To say that a rhetorical response fits a situation is to say that it meets the requirements established by the situation” (10). Rhetoric is “called into existence by situation; the situation which the rhetor perceives to an invitation to create and present discourse” (8). Rhetoric becomes a product for which there is a fixed recipe—the situation (which is composed of exigence, audience, and constraint). Plug and chug into the formula, and Voilà, you have your ideal rhetoric.

Essentially, Bitzer has undermined the role of the rhetor. In classical rhetoric, the rhetor fulfilled the five-canon rhetoric. But if a situation “invites a fitting response, a response that fits the situation” (9), and it “prescribe[s] the response which fits” (11), invention, arrangement, and style are all predetermined and fulfilled by the imperfect situation, and memory and delivery go out the door. The rhetor is robbed of job, reduced to a puppet who merely performs a predetermined and prescribed rhetoric.

I have to say, though, I really like Bitzer, even though I don’t completely agree with his theory of the rhetorical situation. A lot of times as a rhetoric major, I feel like my education is all theory, and no practical application. We learn rhetorical analysis (how to critically analyze situations), we learn the history of rhetoric, and we learn rhetorical theory. But we don’t really learn how to apply rhetoric in a pragmatic and functional way. Bitzer reminds me that rhetoric is indeed useful. To him, rhetoric is the way humans deal with exigence. Rhetoric is the means by which humans respond to urgent imperfections, from the important (Kennedy assassination) to the seemingly inconsequential (what’s for lunch?). Hence, to Bitzer rhetoric necessarily exists to deal with all the imperfect things in this world (of which there is not shortage).  Bitzer makes me feel like my beloved major will be applicable and useful outside of school.

Interesting, isn’t it? Bitzer has at once made me feel that the rhetor is useless, and that rhetoric serves a necessary and pragmatic function.

Works Cited:

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-14.

Final Project Proposal: The pathos of action films

Final Project

Overview: In this final project, I will write an 8-10 page paper that analyzes the pathos of action films. Drawing from the contributions of our studied theorists (particularly, Damasio, Brennan, and Massumi) this analysis will explain how emotional and affective appeals make action sequences effective. Some specific questions I intend to address include:

• Why is emotion an important component of film, specifically action films?
• What types of emotional appeals make an action sequence successful?
• How does emotion shape the way viewers experience an action sequence?
• How do action films elicit emotion?
• As far as pathetic appeals, what differentiate a successful action sequence from an unsuccessful action sequence?

Ultimately, my claim is that action sequences are successful only insofar as they are able to elicit an emotional response. At this point, I haven’t yet determined which action films/sequences I will be looking at.

The final project will be linked to my webfolio, and will be presented to the class in a 5 minute presentation. In my presentation, I will show two or three action sequences from different films and lead a discussion as to why one sequence is more effective than the other.

Blog Post 9: Edbauer & CMS 342K

I found Edbauer’s discussion far clearer and far more pleasurable a read than many of the authors and theorists we’ve read thus far (ie. Aristotle, Brennan, Massumi). Many of the authors and theorists we’ve read seem to dwell solely on affect; affective theory gets pushed as the dominant theory of persuasion. Edbauer reminds us that “we must not neglect both halves of the body: qualification and intensity” (5).  I finally feel with Edbauer that I’m getting a bird’s eye view of how pathos and affect work in rhetoric.

Drawing from Massumi, Edbauer writes, “Massumi suggests that these different functions [between intensity and qualification] arise from their relation to expectation” (4). The pleasure of intensity occurs as “a jump cut, a jolt, a shock” at the “disruption of the indexing of qualification” (Edbauer). In short, the pleasure of qualification occurs in relation to our expectation of language, while the pleasure of intensity occurs in relation to our suspense of language. As with Bush, Bushims were so successful because they were “surprise attacks” (6); they defied expectations and jolted listeners into suspense. On the level of meaning Bushisms were meaningless, but on the level of intensity Bushisms were devastatingly powerful.

In a political communication course (CMS 342K) I took last spring, we studied the rhetoric of political elections. By looking at and studying the language of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama (among others), we tried to answer the essential question, How do politicians use language to get elected? I don’t remember everything we covered in the class, but I do see some potential overlaps between that class and this Edbauer article (though CMS 342K used different language to describe the concepts). Tell me if you concur.

CMS 342K argues that politicians should find a balance between using concrete language and abstract value-laden language. Concrete language lets listeners visualize who you are and what you’ll do if elected to office; it tells them what to expect. Abstract, value language tells listeners what types of things you stand for, but lets them determine for themselves what specifically you’ll do in office. In other words, abstract language lets listeners play an active role in interpreting and ascribing meaning. The trade-off between concrete and abstract? Concrete language is limited in scope, but it creates stronger identifications. Abstract value-laden language is immense in scope, but it creates weaker identifications. Do you think concrete language relates to meaning, while abstract value language relates to intensity? Or is this too much of a stretch?

Many of you have probably heard of the soundbite. A soundbite is a short, sticky/catchy phrase that sticks in the mind of listeners—like Obama’s “Yes We Can!” In and of itself without any context, “Yes We Can!” is an arbitrary phrase that doesn’t mean a whole lot. But because it is so arbitrary, it can be applied to an infinite number of situations experienced by listeners. In essence, anyone and everyone can unconsciously identify with it because it is so meaningless in and of itself. Is the reason why soundbites like “Yes We Can!” work because they are memorable and operate on the level of intensity rather than qualification?

Thoughts? Am I way off?

Works Cited:

Edbauer, Jenny. “Executive Overspill: Affective Bodies, Intensity, and Bush-in-Relation.” Postmodern Culture 15.1 (2004): 1-25. Web.

Blog Post 10: Ahmed

I think Sara Ahmed provides interesting insights in describing affective transfer as a global economy. Ahmed contends that emotions aren’t inherently tied to specific people or objects. We don’t feel an emotion because it is intrinsically possessed in a person, object, or idea. Rather, we feel an emotion because of the economically constructed link between word and meaning. Words get sticky as they are used; that is, they pick up meaning through association and division as they circulate through this global economy. To Ahmed, emotions “work as a form of capital: affect does not reside positively in the sign or commodity, but is produced only as an effect of its circulation” (121). So the emotions we feel in response to certain objects relate to the meaning they have picked up while in circulation, how their movements “convert into capital” (120), rather than absolute meaning possessed.

This link between a specific object and a specified emotion is tentative at best. What elicits happiness today may elicit sadness tomorrow, while an object to be feared now may be endearing decades from now. This makes a lot of sense when you think about it. In Professor John Daley’s CMS 315M Interpersonal Communication class, the first rule students are taught is that meaning is not in words, but in the people who use the words. Implied in this principle is that words have no inherent meaning, but gain meaning from the way people use the word.

What does this mean for us rhetors? Essentially, to control the associations is to control the emotional response. If a rhetor can control what meaning gets associated with words or objects for a certain group of people, he/she can control how that group feels towards that given word/object. To do this Ahmed suggests the slide of metonymy. By grouping certain words/objects together, a rhetor can essentially create an association between the words/objects. This is why the statement, “In a statement from the White House” essentially means “In a statement from the President.”

The slide of metonymy is incredibly potent in its ability to subconsciously manipulate the way we generate meaning. By grouping “Islamic” and “Terrorist,” for instance, people can be led to believe that all Muslims should be treated (and feared) as terrorists. Similarly if I started saying “those Communist Chinese,” I would subconsciously associate Chinese people with communism, and probably generate some opposition/loathing towards the Chinese in an American audience. By grouping “Chinese” with “Communist,” I would essentially stick the associations of “Communist” to “Chinese.”

Effective? Ahmed says so, but I personally don’t know.

Manipulative? Absolutely!

Works Cited:

Ahmed, Sara. “Affective Economies.” Social Text 79, 2.2 (2004): 117-139. Web

Blog Post 8: Disconnect between effect and content

I’m so glad to be done with Brennan! Brian Massumi, while by no means an easy read (his writing is filled with adjectives aimed at eliciting a particular affect), is a breeze compared to Brennan.

In Chapter 1, The Autonomy of Affect, Masumi talks about the two levels of image reception. According to him, image reception takes place on the level of qualification and at the level of intensity. The former refers to the more established notion of received/interpreted meaning. It is about “consciously positioning oneself in line of narrative continuity,” and produces “depth reactions” (25). The latter refers to received affect that produces “autonomic reactions most directly manifested in the skin” (25). Qualification and intensity aren’t necessarily related to one another; the two are independent.

To illustrate this point, Massumi discusses the story of the German snowman film. In a study conducted in Germany, children were shown three versions of the same film: an original wordless version, a factual version, and an emotional version. The results startled the researchers. The emotional and original versions of the film were rated “saddest” by meaning, but affectively these versions were rated most pleasant and most memorable. The factual version was rated “happiest” by meaning, but affectively this version was rated the least pleasant and was the more forgettable.

Arousal, which researchers initially believed was stimulating pleasantness, also had nothing to do with it. As Massumi puts it, “the children, it turns out, were physiologically split: factuality made their heart beat faster and deepened their breathing, but it also made their skin resistance fall.”

This study showed “the primacy of the affective in image reception.” It indicated to the researchers that while emotion and affect operated simultaneously, it was the affect that was most stimulating. Affect, which is absorbed “quicker than can be perceived” (29), produced sustained effect was more memorable than emotion. It also proved the disparity between content and effect. One would naturally assume a positive correlation—if not a causal relationship—between happiness and pleasantness/memorableness, and between sadness and unpleasantness/unmemorableness, but the study proved otherwise.

Could this be the reason why so many people get a thrill from watching horror movies? Horror movies are scary to watch; people feel fear, terror, and in some cases revulsion when watching them. In theory, the negative content and associated negative emotion of horror movies should deter people from watching horror movies. Yet, time and time again people line up and pay money to watch horror movies for the affective “thrill.” Is this disconnect between negative content and the positive effect the same disconnect Massumi talks about? Or am I way off base?

Works Cited:

Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002. Web.