Thursday, November 18, 2010

Delivery: Rhetoric Across Media and Languages

For the ancient rhetors spoken word was much more powerful and persuasive than written word (406). However, as Crowley and Hawhee state at the end of the chapter, modern rhetors have many possibilities from where to choose when composing an argument. The rules, correctness and appropriateness of the usage will vary depending on the language we choose to deliver our argument. As we have seen throughout the development of the class and our text books, in modern times, we can find rhetoric in movies, memorials, and even cities. And in this chapter of delivery I see that fact especially highlighted.

In our time, we can choose to give a speech, write a blog, record a video and post it on youtube, or write a post on facebook. We have the choice to say, “Should I talk about this face-to-face? Or is it better to send a letter or an email?” When we make this decision, we are assessing the best form of delivery we should use. In this order of ideas we can see that kairos also has its role in relation to delivery. The decision we make when choosing one form of delivery or the other takes into account the message we want to convey, the place, as well as the audience. This decision is based on kairos, the “right time, opportunity or occasion” (433).

A good example of these possibilities that the theory of delivery opens up for us is Michael Moore. Michael Moore chose the language of moving images to argue his position about the legality of carrying guns in the U.S. He chose to make documentaries, while he could have chosen to write a book or an article in a magazine to make his point. Thus, the theory of delivery can be applied to other media different from the written or spoken word.

We can then apply the rules of delivery to the language of cinema. In movies, though, the language is much more complex and requires the work of many people. But the person that makes the decisions, in an independent film at least, is the director. The director, then, should make every effort to apply correct and appropriate use of the language because that will build his ethos as a cinematographer. I found this fact very interesting. Indeed, choosing the most adequate delivery, the proper and correct use of the rules of each language says a lot about the character and reputation of the rhetor, about his knowledge of the subject and his ethics.

Additionally, the language of cinema has its own punctuation. Just as in spoken language we use the silence to mark a pause, and the volume or tone of the voice to emphasize or underscore an issue, the language of cinema has its own signs. When a director wants to emphasize a detail, event or emotion in a character he can use close up or extreme close up; or when he wants to underscore something he can adjust the focus to make it see blurry. A pause in a movie is given by a transition device called fade-to-black, it works like when we close our eyes and see everything black. The editing process determines the rhythm of a movie as well as the logical relation. As in spoken and written speech, in cinematic language the delivery is closely related to the style and arrangement. The choices the director makes about how to convey what he wants to say illustrates his own style, his unique touch.

In contrast, since for ancient rhetors spoken language was their most important mean of persuasion, they were especially concerned with oral speeches. When giving a speech, for instance, they remind us that we need to be aware of the tone of voice we use, the volume and the rhythm, the facial gestures and the movement of the body (408), especially the hands which should accompany and reinforce what we say. Our gaze is important as well in spoken speech. Are we looking at our audience in the eyes? I remember in my class on oral expression in college, they gave us a tip which was not to look people in the eyes because it could be distracting for the rhetor. Instead, we should look at the center of the forehead. That way, people will feel like you are looking at them in the eyes when you are not, and you prevent to be distracted. This requires practice, I’ve tried it and the very fact that I need to focus on not looking in their eyes distracts me… but I think it must work because it makes sense.

The passage on punctuation and grammar was invaluable for me. It was a very good summary of many rules and a great review. It clarified for me, for example, the use of dashes, which we don’t have in Spanish. And I found relieving to read that every paragraph does not have to have a topic sentence and that if I decide to, and it is appropriate, I can use fragments!

No comments: