A Rhetorical Analysis Of The Film Globalization Is Good

633 Words2 Pages

When attempting to persuade an audience into a certain belief system, there are many things we should attempt to accomplish. We should make ourselves relatable, credible, and open to critiques. The film Globalization is Good, released in 2003 by Charlotte Metcalf and Films for the Humanities and Sciences, does none of these. The film is ineffective as a persuasive piece because it lacks appeals to ethos, appeals to pathos, and does not leave room for critiques, making itself rigid as an argument. The film takes inelastic approach to arguing in favor of globalization, while lacking the very support needed to create an effective argument. Watching this film ignites feelings of frustration, due to the lack of support. The films first blunder …show more content…

The filmmakers failed to make the speaker easy to identify with, by using poorly chosen camera angles and lacking other appeals to emotions. As for the camera angles, the film fails to provide a realistic view of Norberg. Many times, throughout the film, the camera turns up towards Norberg, almost creating an exalted image of him. This makes it difficult for the audience to identify with Norberg, weakening the films ability to connect subject, speaker, and audience. Furthermore, the film lacks other appeals to pathos, relying heavily on poorly founded appeals to ethos and logos. Rather than trying to make the information more relevant to the audience on a personal level, that could be understood more easily, the film, instead, relies on a rigid argument to persuade its audience. The lack of appeals to emotion weaken this argument even more. Overall, the film Globalization is Good, directed by Charlotte Metcalf, presents a weak argument, and lacks multiple parts of a working argument. The films argument, that the anti-globalization movement is dangerously wrong, is weak due to a lack of appeals to pathos and logos, and a rigidity in its argument, not allowing room for criticism. The film could have been a better persuasive piece, had it used the right tools. Instead, it presents a weak argument, and a tedious-to-watch

Open Document