Intro: Sam and I decided to partner up and do our rhetorical analysis together. This should be interesting with him being an Econ major while I am an English major. I will see things different from him, and obviously vice versa. I believe this will allow a little more insight to what we will be looking at. We will be using the rhetorical strategies and theories that we learned in class from: Lanham, Zelizer, Shipka, Bourdieu, and common rhetorical devices and terms.
Project: We are interested in making some form of video content for this project. Whether it be a podcast with a recording of us, or perhaps a set of rhetorical interview questions we set up and ask people their thoughts on our product. That leads me to our Product/Artifact.
Artifact/Product: We want to look at the new movie ‘Uncut Gems” as out artifact. This movie revolves around money, and the rhetoric behind it is very enticing. More specifically, we observe the main character Howard, portrayed by Adam Sandler. We thought this movie would be a prime example for a rhetorical analysis.
Background Knowledge: The movie is directed by two brothers named Joshua and Benjamin Safdie, who are from New York. These two individuals are Jewish, which has a large influence on the tone of the movie. Furthermore, in the year 2012, the movie takes real individuals (celebrities for that matter) and throws them into the path of a gambling addict (Adam Sandler). The celebrities being Kevin Garnett and The Weeknd. They serve as rhetorical tools for the main story line.
Summary: “A charismatic jeweler makes a high-stakes bet that could lead to the windfall of a lifetime. In a precarious high-wire act, he must balance business, family and adversaries on all sides in pursuit of the ultimate win.” (IMDB).
Further Information:
1. Lanham:
The stuff in this movie is definitely the jewels and gems Howard is selling. That transcends into the fluff, that people are not paying attention to what they are purchasing. For instance, KG is so addicted to the gem that he starts paying attention only to it, rather than his career – which is basketball, and they are in the playoffs, which in turn makes him play bad basketball. The attention to the stuff in this movie is quite evident. Everyone wants to get their hands on some form of jewelry. Howard’s rhetoric only influences the attention and desire more to these gems. You could also address that Howard’s lack of information given adds to his persuasive rhetoric.
2. Zelizer:
If we identify the rhetoric of the characters, not much is left to interpretation. It is all straightforward and we can identify what the characters are trying to do. Howard is trying to persuade everyone that what he is doing is worthwhile. He is pathologically believing that what he is saying is true, and that others have no choice but to believe it. So from his perspective, he is trying to be productive, while as viewers all we can do is foreshadow and interpret what is most likely going to happen, because like I said earlier, its all pretty straightforward. The interpretative side of things would come from analyzing the movie in its entirety. Perhaps: What effects does gambling have on the home life? Does the urban setting of New York have this issue with gambling? Is this movie anecdotal, and the directors noticed a correlation between Jewish people and gambling? Through that interpretation of the movie, is where the production comes to us as the viewers. We learn about a different way of life and culture, and how they interact and handle money.
3. Rhetorical Analysis and Occasions:
“an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence others through language” (or any other kind of symbolic action). In this movie, this is seen through the rhetoric of Howie once again. He is constantly lying and deceiving people in the name of persuasion for covering his mistakes. The tone and word choice to certain individuals shows his range of rhetoric. Whether it is to a customer in his shop – persuading him to buy the most expensive jewelry, or if it is a loan shark that he owes money – convincing them not to hurt him or his family.
Forensic Rhetoric:
Well, we start the movie and the rhetoric lets us know that Howard is $100,000 in debt, but he has acquired a gem worth “millions”. This gem is allegedly his get-out-of-jail free card. Furthermore, he always tells every one of the past and how he has always owned up to what he said, or paid back whomever he owed.
Deliberative Rhetoric:
Howard ends up employing people into his issues, all with the promise that he will pay them back. He promises them his good word, and that everything will work out in the future. At the root of it, he uses money as his collateral.
Epideictic Rhetoric:
This movie presents an underlying rhetoric of family values. They show Passover in the midst of all this turmoil and show at the core of things there is still the ethics of family. Howard is a terrible family member but tries through forgiveness to mend his instable home. The community values of the rhetoric are completely masked in this movie due to how sever the issues revolving around money actually are.
Rhetorical Canons:
The style of this rhetoric is very straight forward. It is in the form of dialogue between characters. Issues are presented, and the main character tries using his manipulative and persuasive skills to get him out of the situations.
Rhetorical Appeals:
The appeal to ethos is not apparent in Howard, for no one really trusts him, due to his instable actions of manipulation. If anything, this movie displays the perfect counter example of what ethos should be. The pathos may be a stereotypical appeal from the directors, because the movie centers around the Jewish community, and through this movie, in this setting the absolute most valued thing is money. Once again, this movie serves as a great counter example to logos, because everything the main character thinks is rational, is completely irrational. His logic is that gambling will solve everything, and if you don’t win one time, you’re bound to win big eventually.
Irony:
The absolute irony of this movie is the ending. After two hours of sitting through Howard getting beaten down and down, he finally does win big. He has enough money to pay off the loan sharks and then some. But, once they arrive, they simply murder him.
4. Shipka:
The genre of the movie is described as “full of mystery and crime”. I would say that it is a thriller in regard to the management and relation to money.
5. Bourdieu:
Social Capital:
In the movie Howard has a lot of social capital – he has a lot of connections. He has ties to NBA players and up and coming rappers. He has influence over an NBA player and what he should do with his money. Although he has a lot of connections, we soon realize that not all of these connections are ‘good’ and it can come back to harm you.
Cultural Capital:
There are two forms of cultural capital being displayed in this movie. There is the home life that entails: religious and family values. And then there is the cultural capital of gambling. These are two very different types of culture, very far apart from one another on the spectrum.
Economic Capital:
The main character has a business in which he sells goods and services to customers. We are led to believe that Howard was once very wealthy. We can believe this through his material objects, eg. his cars, house, wardrobe, and jewelry.
6. Further Rhetorical Questions and Understanding:
What is the situation described by the author of original piece?
The situation is that the main character owes a lot of money to his loan shark brother and needs to find a way to repay him. He does this by finding a lucrative ring diamond and trying to sell it to Kevin Garnett for good luck at his game. Then, after making a bet on Kevin Garnett to play well, he again is assaulted. This forces him into yet another situation where he must strive to recoup the money he has lost.
Who is the writer/author/speaker?
The writers are Ronald Bronstein, Josh Safdie, and Benny Safdie
What is the primary goal of the analyzed piece of text, article, or public speech based on the author’s intentions?
The primary goal of this piece is to show the power that money has over people. In the movie Arno, who is loan shark trying to get his money back from his brother in law Howard . Arno is willing to go to the extremes of hurting Howard over the money that is owed. I think the other point this movie is trying to demonstrate is just how easy it is to get addicted to gambling and find oneself in a place that is near impossible to get out of.
Who is the author’s target audience (age, nationality, gender, preferences, location, interests, and other factors)?
The target audience of this movie is a younger generation between 18-40 as the film is rated R.
- People with a gambling hobby would be interested in the film as that is the entire plot
- People who live in big cities especially metropolitan NY can relate to the film as this is where the film is shot
- People who like basketball would be interested in the film as Kevin Garnett is featured
How does the content of the main message sound?
The theme of this movie is the power of addiction, specifically gambling. The main character Howard makes two new bets even after being in debt with loan sharks, getting beaten and thrown in a trunk, and being divorced from his wife. In the end his addiction ultimately leads to his death which is just another emphasis on how addiction ruins so many lives
Does the main article’s or speech idea successfully complete the author’s intentions and primary objectives?
Yes, the movie demonstrates the power of addiction as well as provides an overall entertaining story for audiences to enjoy.
How do the rhetorical strategies/ways to interact with the readers help to achieve the main purpose of the writing?
The author deploys Zelizer’s theory of the different transaction types and the social ties. In this movie the compensation transaction is deployed as Howard needs to pay back the money that was loaned to him. Often the compensation transaction is very impersonal compared to other economic transactions. Since Howard’s brother in-law Arno is willing to hurt him to get back the money that is rightfully his: it shows how powerful this form of transaction is.
Sam k's blog 