Welcome to Philosophy of Documentaries: the blog! The course is a Fall 2009 Allen Hall class at the University of Illinois that explores deeper questions concerning documentary films: how they're made, how they affect the viewer, and their relation to 'reality'. This blog is authored by the members of that class.
Documentaries and the Aristotelian Model of Argument - Brendan Colón
I think one of the most compelling topics we touched on last week had to be the nuances of documentary styles and their comparisons to other works of the genre. I also found that the different interpretations of what a filmmaker believes to suit a documentary become much more tangible when placed before the Aristotelian model of argument where a statement or message is defended by logos (appeal to logic), pathos (appeal to emotion), and ethos (credibility of the speaker). The model states that equal attention to these three outlets of appeal will create a more applicable and universal argument. Interestingly enough this model highlights the key difference between Michael Moore and the part of his film crew that did Trouble the Water. I've found that Moore appeals strongly to logos but, to me, his "card stacking" of facts and numbers without regard to opposition is deleterious to his ethos. It is a bit ironic, but I think a lot of his pathos comes from the aggressive nature of his appeal to logos. In direct comparison to Moore, I believe the directors of Trouble the Water appeal evenly to all outlets of this model. Pathos and logos are established by the same question, why? Why are American citizens being deserted in such a manner and why are the safety measures failing? The question cites logos but the journey to the answer is what cites pathos. Ethos is established by what the film portrays as real life. There is no visible narrator and because of this ethos, credibility, is established by a visual proof of occurrence. So to me, I would classify Trouble the Water as a better “statement”. This model even confirms my general dislike for the news documentary where ethos and logos is only established by the news source name and pathos is exulted beyond my taste as a way to keep viewers.
Bringing in the Aristotle is a really interesting approach to looking at how documentaries persuade, Brendan. One way of putting what 'Trouble the Water' seems to be doing is to say it relies on 'pathos' and 'logos' -- there isn't so much reliance on 'ethos'. However, it could also be said that 'Fahrenheit 9/11' relies on both of these elements, too, though with more 'ethos' going on, what with different purportedly expert talking heads. It turns out, then, that it's a little difficult to talk about these things in the abstract, as it were. I think we also need to be a little careful about suggesting that Aristotle might have found an argument that had each element to be ideal: I'm pretty sure he would say that reason ('logos') and reason alone is the only ideal arbiter. What this might mean is that, if we were to adhere to Aristotle, we would search for the documentary that *least* tried to persuade us with anything but the best rational argument.
Bringing in the Aristotle is a really interesting approach to looking at how documentaries persuade, Brendan. One way of putting what 'Trouble the Water' seems to be doing is to say it relies on 'pathos' and 'logos' -- there isn't so much reliance on 'ethos'. However, it could also be said that 'Fahrenheit 9/11' relies on both of these elements, too, though with more 'ethos' going on, what with different purportedly expert talking heads. It turns out, then, that it's a little difficult to talk about these things in the abstract, as it were. I think we also need to be a little careful about suggesting that Aristotle might have found an argument that had each element to be ideal: I'm pretty sure he would say that reason ('logos') and reason alone is the only ideal arbiter. What this might mean is that, if we were to adhere to Aristotle, we would search for the documentary that *least* tried to persuade us with anything but the best rational argument.
ReplyDelete