Project 2 Outline

As prep work for Project 2, I will be using this post to elaborate on my plan for my Rhetorical Analysis.

Diana. "planning." 10/11/15 via flickr. All Rights Reserved.

I liked how the excerpt from Writing Public Lives focused on the "shape" of the introduction and not just a single way of starting the paper. I think this helps me avoid getting caught up in an inventive intro that doesn't serve my purpose. Also, it was helpful to read how the thesis in this case is meant to show how the author tries to persuade the audience. The thesis must be both debatable and supportable, which are good focus points. In the body section, the book advised focusing on strategies instead of the different forms of rhetoric. I also enjoyed the conclusion section, which reaffirms the idea of a "global conclusion"; that is, going past a mere restatement of the thesis and providing a real-world extension of your argument.

INTRO:

• Maybe address my peers in a way that makes sense for the purpose
• Set up the context that film critics use a tool box of rhetoric all of their own

THESIS: 

• "Initial reading of "Natalie Portman, Great Actor" may paint author Tome Shone as a film purist against all technological progress in the industry. Shone's apropos humor and detailed acknowledgement of the counterargument, however, helps the audience come into line with his belief that physical transformation alone is not an indicator of acting talent."

BODY 1:

1. Set up who the audience is: film buffs/ other critics, accessible audience, difference of epicenter of film and televison vs. here, why humor may be off-putting at first to audience

• People don't like it when you make fun of the classics/ favorite movies
•  Seems too harsh on CGI/physical transformation
• Uses very dramatic examples/ dramatic jokes 

BODY 2:

1. Transition to humor as one of his best tactics: it lightens the mood, gently pokes fun at the habits humans have when it comes to visuals, makes some of the extreme augmentation seem ludacris and at odds with other values we hold as a society

• "by means of a spectacle no less visceral or intense: You give us exploding planets, we give you a ballooning Robert De Niro." 

Claim/ truth in the joke: CGI changed the game for all of film, people like the shock factor (violence/explosions and dramatic change in people), movies had to adapt to catch up.

• "The posters might as well read "Come see Natalie Portman earn her Oscar." But great acting?" 

Claim/ truth in the joke: Oscars like  —"immersive," "transformative," "revelatory", seems as though this can surpass actual talent, movie pushes the boundaries (something the awards like), "self-vandalizing"

•  "which should serve as a warning to all the Mickey Mouse Club refugees who will doubtless follow in Portman's footsteps"

Claim/ truth in the joke: She is was not a Mouseketeer, but it plays on the fact that young stars love to push boundaries after leaving Disney, these stars always talk about moving on to more "meaningful and mature work" but are they really doing anything better or different?

BODY 3:

1. Strength in the organization of the piece/ chronological advancement of film/ emphasis on major events that changed history/ specific and detailed examples that paint a picture of the argument

• i.e. early examples of film, to Star Wars/Raging Bull, Jurassic Park/ the comedies like Mask and Dumb and Dumber, dramatic actors

CONCLUSION:

• Author is successful because, not despite his humor. Timeline and specifics put the current argument into historical and developmental context.
• What are the standards we will decide for greatness in the future? As humanity becomes less of a part in art...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflection

Jenny's outline was very detailed and specific, which I appreciated. As a reader, it was easy to see which claims she was going to make and the examples she was going to use to prove it. It was very well constructed over all. I liked Addie's as well because it incorporated key questions and points from the text to lead her in the right direction. Her's was also very thorough and easy to follow as an outsider. I think my paper definitely has a different structure than theirs, but that's ok! The diversity will make reading and editing more interesting.