Using They Say I Say

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/19/great-gatsby-review-philip-French

The author of this review, Phillip French, first describes what the movie is about and then talks about what he did and did not like about the film.. Which really shocked me because the reason I decided to analyze this particular movie was because I absolutely loved it. I also loved the older version and the book which I read in my English class in high school. What Phillip French was saying in his review really took me by surprise and made me look at the movie in a whole new way. He states "This is a film that tramples on Fitzgerald's exquisite prose, turning the oblique into the crude, the suggestively symbolic into the declaratively monumental, the abstract into the flatly real." French did not like  the way that the character Nick was shown off as one bit but he did say that Gatsby and Daisy were more successful. French allows the audience to input what they have to say when he states "But there is one scene that works well, and that's the crucial confrontation between Tom Buchanan and Gatsby in front of Nick, Daisy and Jordan in a suite at the Plaza hotel one hot afternoon. There is tension and depth here. Would that Luhrmann had included the funeral and the meeting between Nick and Gatsby's elderly, working-class father from the book's final chapter." This allows us to enter into the discussion and add our opinions as well.

They Say I Say: Evaluating and Using Sources

1. Who is the author of each text? How do the authors present themselves? James Franco and Anthony Lane are the authors. James Franco presents himself by focusing on himself and how much he knows about Wes Anderson. Anthony Lane presents himself as knowing what he is talking about.

2. What is the purpose of each text? What appears to be motivating the authors to write? The purpose of each text is to review the movie "Moonrise Kingdom". It almost seems that what is motivation James Franco is to show everyone how much he knows and what all he has done, just to make himself look good. Where as Anthony Lane is promoting the movie and summarizes the plot.

3. Do the texts demonstrate ethos, or are they full of errors (either mechanical or argumentative)? No matter the answer, give some examples: James Franco does not demonstrate ethos. One thing he says is "one thing about Nana is that she is incapable od saying anyone's name correctly" completely out of context. In Anthony Lane's he says "that lodge inexplicably in the heart" and actually talks about the potential of the movie.

4. Do you agree with the authors partially or in full, or do you disagree with them? I agree with Anthony Lane because he gives a good argument and shows the movie's potential. Where as James Franco doesn't really give an argument at all much less even an opinion.

5. Where do the authors seem to offer direct, or first-person, argumentation? Anthony Lane shows it by saying "we may look back on Anderson's works as we do on the boxes of Joseph Cornell- formal troves of frippery, studded with nostalgic private jokes, that lodge inexplicably in the heart." Franco just relates everything to himself.

6. What don't the authors talk about? Are there flaws or holes in their arguments? Do you agree with the evidence the authors present and the way they present it? How can you "enter the conversation"? James Franco doesn't really talk about his view of the movie. He just brags about himself and relates everything back to him. I agree with the evidence Anthony Lane provided which I stated in the last question. I think he was trying to say that there's more than meets the eye when it comes to this movie.

Initial Responses

I had never heard of the movie Moonrise Kingdom until we watched it in class. My initial response to the movie was that it was very strange. A lot was going on in the beginning and I was kind of confused at to how is all was going to come together. It was a very weird plot but it was also very interesting. It was like nothing I have ever seen before which made me excited to watch the next half and to see how it was all going to play out.

Problem Paragraph

This paragraph talks about the sentimental appeal used in the commercial called "failure 3". I feel like I do not describe what I am trying to say well enough. Feel free to give me any suggestions on how to make this paragraph better. Thanks!


Another thing that relates to scare tactics is sentimental appeal. America is known for its patriotism after all it is the land of unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, what better way to connect with the citizens of the country than by talking about our involvement in wars. It is obviously a very controversial topic that needs to be handled very delicately. Nobody wants to be going to war, to send off their loved ones without knowing if they’ll return, or to live in the fear of not knowing if we are safe in our own homes. By showing those videos of people running for their lives and gun shots being fired that would make anyone worried about being engaged in a war. Adding this sentimental appeal is exactly what Mondale wanted to accomplish, it makes the audience feel a connection to it by not wanting to end up like those other countries. Mondale does this to soften up the audience before using his next rhetorical trick of the straw man to hook them.