1 of the 13 Problems We Have
The documentary 13th can be very persuasive towards most that watch it. The film had various things to point out to prove its point that the 13th amendment needs to be revised or else history will continue to repeat itself. It does this by using rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to show the bad things that happened because it wasn’t revised.
The documentary is an hour and a half long film about the 13th amendment and the flaw it has. The film jumped through some of the crucial moments of slavery and discrimination in the U.S. starting with the Jim Crow laws, Civil Rights, War on Drugs, Super Predators, and police brutality being some main points. It also mentioned how people were starting to label black people as criminals because that was the only way they could lock them up. They also discussed how some Equal Rights activist started speaking out against the racism and discrimination and how the public started to label them as criminals as well. The prisons that were discussed in the film were not used for rehabilitation rather to keep “criminals” locked up. The film also has various scenes slightly remade so that it has a bigger impact on the viewer.
The way the it used ethos within it was that it had a large variety of speakers/clips so that they could have some credible sources speaking, ranging from the presidents of the time to people that were there during this hard time. A definition of ethos could be, a rhetorical device used to show credibility. During the film, the movement of Black Lives Matter was brought up and representatives of it spoke about the history of it. Barack Obama appeared during the film and talked about the prison population and the statistics behind the dramatic increase. Bill Clinton was on stand and they had a clip of him stating that the federal crime bill was a mistake. They also had Angela Davis be a speaker during the film because of her history with the topic of equal/civil rights. She also talked about how she was put on trial and how she won the trial. The film not only had some credible sources, but some emotional parts as well.
The pathos used in the documentary was very good in several ways. A definition of the word pathos could be, a rhetorical device used to appeal to an audiences’ emotions. The film used many pictures and stories that many people know about and they modified them so that they would have more of an impact on whoever was watching. At one point, they used the Emmet Till open casket to show what some black people went and that no matter how innocence they were, they still could have had your life taken, brutally. It also showed different images of lynching’s done during the time of civil rights disputes. Something other things the film did were that they would play a song about the topic that was just finished being discussed as a transition to the next topic. The film also highlighted every time the word “criminal” was used in clips of various things such as police brutality or insignificant arrests. It could appeal to emotions very easily with the subject of discrimination and racism, but it also had some statistics to back itself up.
Logos was used multiple times throughout to show dramatic things that happened/happening. A definition of the word logos could be, a rhetorical device used when showing statistics or facts using numbers. At multiple points during the film, they would cut to the prison population during a specific year to show that the population of the prisons never decreased and in some years it was almost doubling the current population showing that more and more people were getting arrested for minor things like stealing candy or parking in a handicap spot without a sticker. They also used statistics like, “the U.S. is about 5% of the world’s total population while being about 25% of the world’s prison population which shows that the U.S. puts a lot more people in prison that most countries”(Duverney). Another statistic being “that of all the people being put into prison for petite crimes or no crime at all, 97% of them take a plea bargain”(Duverney). This means that some of the people that take a plea bargain are admitting to something they did not do. It also compared that “1 in 17 white men would be put in prison versus 1 in 3 black men”(Duverney). The film had some credible stats, but with all the strengths it has there are a few weaknesses within it.
Some people might think that documentary isn’t persuasive because of reasons like lack of speakers for the other side or that itself being bias. The film does have bias in it all throughout the film because they are trying to persuade you to their side. For a certain section of the film, they try to get a speaker from a corporation called ALEC, who is on the other side, opposite of the film’s point. The problem with that is that they only used one person from the corporation itself to speak without using more. The speaker of ALEC also wasn’t a very good speaker, he stumbled on some words and he also didn’t have a very trusting and believable voice.
The documentary 13th was pretty persuasive even with a few minor faults. The film effectively used the rhetorical devices ethos, pathos, and logos to help persuade the films cause. Ethos was used to promote credibility with certain speakers they had speak during the film. Pathos was used to appeal to the emotions with some of the scenes and music played throughout the film. Logos was used to display statistics about the film’s topic and stance.
Reflection
Looking back at my rhetorical analysis, I realized that some of the details I used could’ve been stronger for my argument. For example, when I discussed Emmet Till, I didn’t use that much detail in describing what had happened to him. I just jumped straight to the point without explaining anything that had happened to him. I feel as though I could’ve looked back at the film and used some sensory details to support my point on how black people were getting treated while still using Emmet Till as a main front. Another thing I saw was that I was getting better at using and placing commas where needed. My comma placement was better compared to my memoir and I feel as though I was getting more and more used to using them and placing them where they were suppose to be. My conclusion for my rhetorical analysis was a little short for my taste, but I feel as though I was running out of stuff to talk about while trying not to bring up any new information. If I was able to go back and see what I was thinking, I would try to see if there was a way to make my conclusion longer and keep it relevant while still not bringing up any new information about the film.