Blog 9: JON BON WEEZY

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Lil Wayne concert. For the record, it was my first rap concert, so I really had no idea of what to expect. It turned out to be an experience unlike any other in my life.

            Being that I went to the Bon Jovi concert earlier this semester, I couldn’t help but compare the two vastly diverse shows. On the one hand, you have Jon Bon Jovi playing his fan favorites, surrounded by middle-aged women, and donning black leather pants and an open v-neck. On the other hand, you have Lil Wayne masterfully spitting out his passion in the form of rapping, on a stage in front of a crowd that consisted solely of adolescents, and wearing a wife beater and backwards baseball hat. What I found most intriguing about this comparison was that they both represented different rhetorical situations. They each acquired ethos – Bon Jovi through his success as a rockstar and Lil Wayne through his current popularity and performances with other well-known artists like Eminem. They each appealed to pathos – Bon Jovi by challenging us to be the generation of positive change and Weezy by thanking us for supporting him through the most difficult part of his life. Overall I walked out of both concerts feeling immense respect for both artists, which is due to their own rhetorical situations.

             

Blog 8: LEARNING FROM OTHERS' MISTAKES

            During the fall and spring, Dancing with the Stars, one of my favorite television shows, comes on. I love it for several reasons: the dancers’ choreography is incredible, the costumes, music, and light effects create this realm of glamour, and for a minute-and-a-half, you are completely engrossed in the story the dancing duo is telling. I could go on and on about the greatness of this show; nevertheless, I am going to talk about one of the few flaws of it – something that, as a viewer, really irks me.

            Brooke Burke is the co-host of Dancing with the Stars, alongside Tom Bergeron. Her job entails going to the “Celebriquarium” (the room where the celebrities sit to watch the other celebrities’ turns on the dance floor) to ask questions to the contestant that just came back from performing. So basically, she is there to instigate a reflection on the contestant and the contestant’s partner’s performance. I understand that it is her job to question the celebrities, but she has a way of almost insulting them. If the contestant didn’t do so well in his/her dance, Burke will badger them about their negative feedback from the judges, asking them about what they thought about the judges’ comments and such when they’ve barely had time to process them, and the last thing the contestant wants to do is talk more about a faulty performance. On the flipside, if the contestant did well and received high praise from the judges, she’ll ask the professional dancing partner if he/she thinks his/her celebrity partner “has what it takes to make it to the finals.” What kind of partner would say he/she DIDN’T think his/her partner has what it takes to go all the way?? As if that isn’t annoying enough to watch, Burke also tends to pry into the celebrities’ lives. Yes, she is required to converse with the celeb and be a bit buddy-buddy with him/her, but there is a limit to how far she should go. She tends to dig into the celebrity’s personal life, which I find extremely unprofessional and totally irrelevant to the show. Along with all those irritating interviewing qualities, Burke also has the habit of talking about herself and when she was on the show. Brooke Burke was the season 7 champion; we are on season 12 now. I just find it to be obnoxious for her to constantly compare her season to the present one and how she remembers going through it all. Your season is over, Brooke – get over it.

            Watching Brooke Burke interview contestants made me realize that when I go to interview random students for our multi-media project, I will NOT do what she does. In a way I am grateful for her awkward interviews because I can learn from her mistakes as a result. It is uncomfortable for the both interviewees and yours truly to sit and watch her conduct interviews, so I will do my best not to ask question the “Brooke Burke way.”

Blog 7: LIGHTS, CAMERA, TOO MUCH ACTION?

            The step above a regular commercial, or as we know them in a more formal sense, movie trailers. They capture our attention and show us a tiny spoiler of the movie they are promoting. But are they really intriguing us enough to get us to go see that film, or are they really just giving away the entire premise of the movie, thus being more counterproductive than anything else?

            Sure, they have a reason for their existence; they are giving television watchers and movie theatergoers everywhere a preview for what’s in store for their two-hour cinematic piece. Every detail is added into the trailer for a specific purpose. The music, lighting, word font, use of a narrator, narrator’s voice, etc. all serve their own function in order to reach out to the audience the film makers are intending to attract. Light, happy music is normally associated with a romantic comedy. Blues and grays with a darker styled lighting are usually meant for dramas and tragedies. Jagged, uneven font is typically paired with a horror or thriller of some sort. You get the point. Seemingly minor details like the aforementioned provide a certain appeal to a general audience. However, all of those details can go completely to waste if the movie trailer ultimately sums up the entire plot of the movie. I’m sure we’ve all seen plenty of trailers like that before, where the trailer was of high quality but just went too in-depth, causing viewers to disregard the movie, for they feel they have already seen it.

            I’m not suggesting we put an end to movie trailers. I am proposing that we perhaps make shorter, less descriptive trailers in order to fully lure moviegoers into the theaters. 

Blog 6: THE SHOW FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE OSCARS

            Every year around the end of February to the beginning of March, I look forward to one specific televised event – the Oscars. Seeing stars glowing on the red carpet, keeping my fingers crossed that the Oscar is going to go to the person or film that I was rooting for, and being wildly entertained by a highly amusing host are my favorite parts of the show. Unfortunately this year that third expectation of mine disappeared.

            I think Anne Hathaway is a brilliant actress, and I find James Franco to be incredibly talented; HOWEVER, together hosting the Oscars was simply not among the Academy’s better ideas. Normally the host/hostess of the Academy Awards is a comedian. Although both Hathaway and Franco have acted in comedies before, they are by no stretch of the imagination comedians. When they told jokes, it felt more like they were portraying characters hosting the Oscars instead of famous people getting their audience excited for the show. I found their skits to be annoying more than anything else, and I did not laugh at a single quote from either of their mouths. My intention is not to be a harsh critic, believe me. There are professionals out there more fit for that job, but I will say that I was extremely disappointed by the hosting. I understand the appeal to a younger generation, but if that’s the strategy, then at least use younger comedians. Why not Russell Brand or Seth Rogan?

            The task of the host/hostess is to lighten the mood a bit since it is a very intense show. To me it felt as if Hathaway and Franco created more awkwardness. Overall, I give their performance two thumbs down. 

Blog 5: HAVE A HEART

The sad eyes looking up at you. The melancholy music playing in the background. The sight of abuse marks lingering on the screen. When I saw this ad for the ASPCA, I realized instantaneously that it was the perfect example of pathos.

Not only does it tug at your heartstrings, but it begs you to consider their message. It takes a very callous person to somehow go by completely unaffected after viewing this commercial. In fact, whenever the commercial does come on, I have a very difficult time holding back tears, for even though it’s merely an advertisement, it still impacts me emotionally. I can’t even watch it anymore; I have to flip the channel as soon I hear those somber, deep beginning chords of the song “Angel” by Sarah McLachlan. Although I turn it off at its first sign of somberness, I still find this commercial to be effective since it certainly leaves an impression on the viewer. Seeing those innocent dogs and cats in such vulnerable positions truly does make you want to grab your checkbook and car keys and drive to the local ASPCA to make an adoption. Through its use of images, slow motion, and song choices, this commercial makes a compelling argument, calling on anyone and everyone with a heart to help these poor victims of abuse. It is definitely an ad that stands out.

Blog 4: A 'PIG'TURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

            When the clock struck 3:20 on Monday afternoon, a feeling of relief came over me. I was finished for the day, and that meant that the moment I arrived back in my dorm room, I could prop open my laptop, search for the latest episode of Desperate Housewives, and relax as the show I missed the night before played on my MacBook. My website of choice is Hulu, and despite the fact that Hulu is a safe, well-known website, it still has its faults. One such fault is the airing of commercials. It is difficult to complain about these commercials, especially since they really only show one or two per break sequence. Nevertheless, they are still almost always annoying to watch, except on Monday.

            As the commercial popped on during Desperate Housewives, I began to make connections to class, particularly because our rhetorical analysis speeches and essays are looming. It wasn’t until our class discussion on Tuesday, however, that the real bonds were formed.

            When watching a TV show on Hulu, it becomes apparent that all of the commercials come from one particular sponsor. On Monday, the sponsor was Geico, and while I sat there watching the little pig cry “weeeeeee” all the way home, I realized this commercial was geared toward a specific audience. The context of this commercial deals with mainly young to middle-aged adult drivers, and Geico is attempting to sell you the idea that they can save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. Moving on to the text of the commercial, you have logos in that they aren’t solely coming out and telling you that you can save more money for a better product, but, rather, they are referencing idioms, maxims, nursery rhymes, etc. It is not what is expected because when deciding on which car insurance company to go with, people are not usually thinking about “This little piggy…” or “Too-tall Jones.”

            The unconventional allusions to classic sayings also introduces ethos by crediting them for both their credence and popularity. Geico is clever for making such uniquely entertaining commercials, for they certainly impact the audience. We are left recalling the humor they brought into those thirty seconds, and because they are so impactful, we are more likely to remember Geico when in search of car insurance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F_G2zp-opg 

Blog 3: VAs for JBJ at the BJC

            Wednesday night. The Bryce Jordan Center is packed. The artificial smoke and colorful glimmering lights are creating adding to the ambiance. People of all ages are here. The anticipation is building. The lights go out, the music roars, and Bon Jovi appears onstage. Yes, I was one of the fortunate Penn Staters to get to see Bon Jovi, and it was an amazing experience.

            As I sat there soaking it all in, a strange but relevant thought occurred to me: I wonder if his performance is an example of rhetoric. One could easily make the argument that it is being that he is effectively using his talent – a more artistic style of language – to make a point, or several, while connecting to his audience and leaving an impact on them. For me, the most striking tie between the concert and our class discussions was Bon Jovi’s use of visual aids and our recent talk about them.

            At the concert, there were several screens displaying the musicians, messages, videos, etc. They were certainly attention catching and easy on the eyes, but they made me wonder whether or not they were entirely necessary. Would Bon Jovi’s concert still have been that same incredible show without them? I personally feel that although we go to these concerts to hear a live performance, there also needs to be some visual stimulation. It makes sense that at a live show like that the giant screens move around and flash various images because it does not distract, but rather, enhances the overall performance. In such a scenario, it is clear that the rules of proper usage of visual aids vary from the ones we need to follow for our own presentations. Think about it – a concert would be extremely dull if there were few visual aids, and they were restricted to fifteen seconds total. The way I see it, though rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are applicable in our everyday lives, their meaning differs depending on the context.