Movie Critics: A Rhetorical Analysis
When it comes to movie review websites, we’re spoilt for choice. Many of these review websites (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) aggregate the works of various critics from around the globe. In doing so, they hope to give the would-be movie goer a better sense of what they can expect from said movie. Another important component of these sites is their audience/user reviews. In the past, I have largely discounted the opinions expressed in user reviews, but I’m not entirely sure why. This thought occurred to me while browsing the Metacritic page for the new TV show Atlanta. To explore this question I will examine an article for the Salt Lake Tribune by Scott Pierce and Metacritic user reviews. More specifically, I will examine the authors through the lens of Burke’s pentad.
We trust a doctor because she has had many years of schooling to get to that point. For similar reasons we might trust a movie critic, but there is no degree a critic can brandish that says “Best critic in the class.” This is a component of Burke’s agent element. Pierce, who has been working for SLT since 2010, has had time to hone his craft.
While the user reviews may have been written by a renowned novelist (unlikely), the users’ true identities are hidden behind pseudonyms like btbrotherton and ChildishFroakie. These names and the anonymous nature of the internet give us no assurances of the seriousness or credibility of the reviews. By contrast, publishing his review in an established paper gives Pierce more ethos, or credibility. This is the agency element of Burke’s pentad.
However, there are different ways to examine these reviews because, while Pierce is credible, the users may be more relatable in an everyman sort of way. So, while a movie-goer might value the experience of Pierce, she might have more in common with ReubenIsAGod. The best critic will, in fact, be the critic whose personal biases parallel that of the reader and can convey that in a well written review. Usually, I still find professional critic reviews to be the most useful (persuasive), but it's ultimately up to the reader to decide whose review is most helpful. Either way, you should really check out Atlanta on FX…it’s pretty great.
http://www.metacritic.com/tv/atlanta
http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/tv/4321032-155/tuesday-on-tv-donald-glovers-atlanta
Also, be sure to check out my classmates block for more rhetorical insights
Amy: realrhetoricalrantings.blogspot.com
Elli: thisismyblog24601.blogspot.com
I loved how you applied the pentad here. In particular, I was intrigued by the end when you talked about what is the "best" critic. You touched on it a bit, and I find it fascinating, that people will be more likely to respect or find helpful a review they read by someone with similar "personal biases." That makes me wonder how often we allow ourselves to be persuaded just because we already agree with the argument at hand. How often does someone seriously take a look at an argument they do not agree with and really consider themselves to be wrong? I think the world would be far better off if we all did that more.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Amy had to say there and I loved Ammons application of the Pentax to movie ratings! What an original idea and it certainly does make you think. I totally admit to being more likely to 'trust' the view of someone that holds my similar interests and it helps if that person writes well and seems to suit my personality. I never openly realized before that that was happening.
ReplyDelete