Happy By Roko Belic Essay

One Important standard of living is being able to be happy. Happiness can be found in many different types of forms. It can be found by the purchasing of specific objects that can improve our living styles, it can be found with someone else that we communicate with, or it can be achieved by doing actions that we choose to do. The latter is the more imperative of the designs of happiness. Happiness is a thing that everyone is striving for. Rich, poor, young, or old, everyone wants to be happy. That may be easy for someone to get but hard for someone else. A lot of documentaries attempt to create an impression of and explain a subject that most people are interested in. One of the documentaries I watched that talk about and explain happiness is 'Happy’ by the filmmaker Roko Belic, a documentary that argues that everyone can become happier.

In this documentary, Roko Belic an American film producer and director tries to explain happiness by traveling the world from Louisiana, United States to Okinawa, Japan to learn more about happiness of different ages, classes and ethnicities of people. He explains that in his documentary by interviewing several normal people about their

happiness status and how are they managing to keep or improving it and also asks them about their conditions financially and emotionally. The documentary benefits from the huge variety of experiences it has. He tried to convince the audience of this documentary by using techniques such as details and structure. Also interviewing several professors of psychology helped him reach out more and explain his point.
Belic tries to persuade the audience by showing that you don’t have to be rich to be happy. In fact their financial status is the least category that leads to happiness, according to one of the many psychology professors he interviewed in this video. One of the psychology professors called Sonja Lyubomirsky believes that fifty percent of our happiness comes from our genes. This information leads the audience to believe that not everyone can achieve happiness in life unless they focus on getting it by the actions they choose to do.
In this documentary rhetorical devices should be present and logos were barely used. A documentary should include logos which are the facts, reasons, and supporting evidence for the documentary’s arguments. The lack of logos gave some bad arguments that didn’t have enough details to support it which lead the audience to lose the attention of what the documentary is really about. Examples of logos that should have been used in the documentary is facts and reasons about the conditions of the families present in the film. However, there was some scenes where logos were used like when the psychology professors stated that Dopamine, which is a chemical in the brain also called neurotransmitter is necessary for feelings of pleasure and happiness, and also stating that “Denmark is consistently the happiest country on earth with its social equality, high standard of living, free education through college, and free healthcare for life” (Happy, 2011.) All these benefits for Danish people prove that they are the number one country in the world with happy citizens.
On the other hand, pathos which is an argument based on feelings, was used a lot in this documentary which makes it more appealing to the viewer’s feelings and emotions. The people in “Happy” gave some of the best responses and reactions when asked about their families, type of work, and happiness. For example, including the Indian rickshaw driver in this documentary gave it a big support to its argument that everyone can become happier. Manoj Singh the Indian rickshaw driver talked about how awful his way of making a living was and how tired he used to get at the end of the day from winter to summer. A quote that Manoj said caught my attention, “When I see my son waiting for my return and calls out to me ‘BABA’ I am full of joy, I feel that I am not poor, but I am the richest person” (Happy, 2011.) This quote got to the audience's emotions including me which is the whole point if using pathos in this documentary’s argument. Another great example would be the Japanese man known as Karoushi, who literally died from overwork. This incident made scientific research that argue that one’s health is directly related to his or her happiness.
Ethos has also been presented in this documentary in a good amount that made the argument more understandable.

Having several different characters with very different backgrounds provided a good example of ethos. When people from Okinawa, Japan got interviewed, they gave a meaner and understandable information about the subject of happiness to the documentary supporting its ethos rhetorical device by stating that good relations with families and having a good amount of sleep gave the people of Okinawa happiness and longevity. The same thing is with the Indian rickshaw driver, the African family in Namibia, and the woman from Denmark who joined a co-housing community. Their relationships with other people gave them enough support to live happily without any stress that may reduce their

happiness.
Nonetheless, including all these rhetorical devices in the documentary made it more objective than subjective. Roko Belic provided scientific facts and proofs that backed up his argument with solid data. As I mention before the documentary contains a lot of examples that made it more objective than subjective, such as the information and facts provided by the many psychology professors stating that Dopamine is necessary for feelings of pleasure and happiness. Also stating the facts and proofs behind Denmark being the happiest country on earth. Okinawa having hundred year old more than any other place in the world because of the lack of nightlife on the island which makes the people go to sleep early and stay healthy. Also the new field of science positive psychology, which studies happiness who just flourished and got people’s attention and interest more than the eighties and the nineties. “It became the most popular class at Harvard, with thousands of kids showing up every week” (Happy, 2011.) All these examples backed up and supported Belic’s argument being objective.
However, the documentary wasn’t that much of a subjective film with opinions, or interpretations that are generally used to describe the argument. It did have some scenes explaining the argument in a more subjective way. Ed Diener, a professor in psychology at the University of Illinois stated “Happiness can actually help you get your other goals, have better relationships, make more money, and do better at the job” (Happy, 2011.) He provided an opinion that supported the argument of also being subjective.
The variety of different stories told, explained the effectiveness of the devices used in the documentary. The documentary refused the use of the narrator explaining the events, it preferred to allow the people interviewed to tell their own stories. This type of style present in the documentary gave it a boost of confidence on getting to their goal which is to get the viewer’s attention and make them feel that they are a part of this documentary.
‘Happy’ was organized and shown in a very different way than the other documentaries I saw before, filming the environment of these people’s homes had an impact on the viewer being compared to the people he or she is watching, It showed that happiness doesn’t come with neat and fancy houses to sleep and relax in, it showed that the individuals in this documentary film were accepting to their life conditions and happy about it which is the whole point of this documentary
Overall, the structure of ‘Happy’ documentary was very good, the rhetorical devices in the documentary were used perfectly by giving facts, reasons, and supporting evidence for the documentary’s arguments, supporting the argument based on the feelings of the visual material or the people who explained their stories with different reasons of happiness like the gathering of families, age, work place, or even Louisiana bayou!. It also helped having several different characters which appeals to the audience’s sense of ethical behavior. This rhetorical documentary piece was strong enough to convince the viewer of that everyone can become happier.