Use this post to continue our in-class work with Roger Ebert’s “I’m a Proud Brainiac.” Your notes should employ the DAMAGES+ rubric as a tool to parse his argument, with special attention to his thesis; if you can state that position clearly in only one sentence, you will be able to tie all rhetorical strategies and insights together much, much more easily.
You might like to use this quotation to spark discussion:
So let’s focus on those who seriously believe “Transformers” is one of the year’s best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, “after all, it’s opinion,” Gene told him: “There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say ‘The Valachi Papers’ is a better film than ‘The Godfather,’ you are wrong.” Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it’s time for the wise to blow the whistle. Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me. You have to pick your fights.
(That quotation includes the generative one given to you here.) Was Siskel right that “personal opinion shades off into an error of fact” at certain points, and if so, what does that mean for critical discourse? Consider the rest of Ebert’s argument, viz. that contrary opinions are often attacked as “elitist” and nit-picky; that expertise does distinguish one opinion from another; that the job of a critic is “to describe [his] reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others”; that “[t]hose “who think Transformers is a great or even good film are… not sufficiently evolved”; and so on.
Note: Whenever possible, I will correct faulty reasoning or understanding in your comments. Take advantage of that opportunity as much as you’d like.
I agree with most of the points that Ebert brings up. While I diagree that being educated and intelligent has become a negative thing (except maybe for some illiterate red necks– I don’t know), I do believe that when someone, educated or not, disagrees with your point of view, we tend to attack them in any way we can– including setting them up as an outsider. We tend to believe ourselves experts on subjects far too easily– just today, our Spanish teacher had to tell us that she was NOT making a mistake in her spelling, but that she was just writing in a new tense that we would be learning tomorrow. The people pointing this out to her were polite, but would they have been on the internet? The fact that we are anonymous often cuts down our self-restraint. If Ebert had delivered this in speech form, with an audience of students or interested bystanders, would someone have stood up at the end and called him an old fart? Probably not. Respect for those who disagree with you can be difficult to attain; on the internet, it can be nigh-on impossible to find.
The strategy you’ve mentioned in passing (“we tend to attack them in any way we can”) is sometimes an ad hominem attack, or an attack against the person. Instead of mounting a critical counterargument, a person on the defensive might insult his opponent’s intelligence, appearance, or upbringing — things unrelated to the argument’s cogency or validity. In Ebert’s case, being educated is conflated with being elitist, and then those qualities are vilified.
One other point for you to consider, as you are a voracious reader: When you hypothesize about the impact of this argument as a speech, you’re touching on the primacy of writing. Writing freezes our thoughts, as Neil Postman says, and allows us to refine them. Think of how many speeches you study; every one of them has been transcribed.
I agree that having a (debatable, but usually) anonymous online identity does play a role in the honesty of comments that people make. I thought it was really interesting that Ebert believed that opinions could be wrong. Initially, I believed that to be a false argument, but if you think about it, he has a valid point. Opinions, under the right circumstances, can, in fact, be debated. I think it’s human nature to believe that our own opinions are correct, so we automatically try to debate the opinions of others, sometimes without even thinking about it. In addition, it seems that Ebert’s thesis is simply represented by the quote, “There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact.” This is Ebert’s opinion, but it shades the tone of this entire blog, as it covers his other arguments.
I partially agree with you Annie, that the quote does represent Ebert’s thesis to some extent. However, there is another thesis I have been weighing and can be strongly proven as well: to reveal how society has the tendency to criticize and condemn intelligence, in order for one’s opinion to be considered correct. Ebert’s approach conveys this by including the quote at the beginning of the argument. This quote displays the ignorance amongst some members in society, and this ignorance leads to rejection. Also, the syntactical style Ebert employs, quoting the phrase “so called”, reveals how society may tend not to trust knowledgable people so they can be proven right. So what I am confused about is whether or not it is possible for Ebert to have two thesis’, as both can be strongly proven.
Good observation here. An argument can have multiple claims, a multifaceted position, or the presentation of two sides of an issue; in the end, our efforts to write a thesis statement amount to the articulation of all of these (if they are present). It’s an exercise in succinct transcription, really.
When I was writing down what I thought Ebert’s thesis was I said that it was more condemning the smart then that opinions could be wrong. I therefore agree with both Annie and Ariana, but I completely understand what Ariana is saying.
I think it was Henry who brought up that society looks down on intelligence in class. I completely agree. I sometimes “dumb myself down” when somebody asks me a question. I’ll tell the asker that I don’t know the answer or that I don’t know what the instructions were because I don’t want to seem like a “know-it-all”. I totally agree with what Ebert says in this regard.
Personally, I disliked Ebert’s approach to the audience. I felt that his insulting, mocking attitude (found in “blowed up real good, the fanboy picture, etc.) was not the right way to convey a point. For me, it made it very difficult to listen to his argument, because I simply didn’t want to listen to someone who tried to sound overtly superior. I don’t think Americans as a people like to be talked down to, and I feel Ebert is talking down to his audience. That being said, I did take the time to consider his argument. I believe he is right that you can have a false opinion based off of false facts, and that age and evolution of the mind over time can change a person’s view, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a 12 year old who loved Transformers is wrong in thinking it was a good movie, it simply means he enjoyed the movie and thought it was good. That should not effect what people think of his intelligence or evolution. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, so if Ebert’s opinion is opinion’s can be wrong, I’m not going to say that opinion is wrong, I’m just going to disagree.
Once again, I was very amused by Ebert’s approach whole writing this review. Unlike Giustina I believe that Roger Ebert had a very creative and successful approach to passively mocking the pro-transformers readers. The methods he uses are very creative and subtle, which overall allows him to be creative and witty. When Giustina states later that he is “talking down to his audience,” I completely agree, but I disagree that it is not successful or not the best tactic to use. I believe that the fact that he does this does in fact let him seem superior but I believe that this is what he wished to convey as he is attempting to show the wrongs in the pro-transformers readers’ minds. In the article he discusses who can be trusted in teaching, by talking as a superior I believe it allows him to seem more expert-like and to be easier to learn from. Lastly, when Giustina states that the twelve year old enjoys the movie and believes that it was a good movie, I would like to point out a very important difference. A movie that is “enjoyable” does not necessarily mean that the movie is “good.” For example, Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail is a very amusing and enjoyable movie to many but it is not a “good” movie. I believe that a “good” movie involves aspects that are not just enjoyable but that involve the creation and details of the film that are missed when the movie is “enjoyed.” Giustina, I have a question for you: What do you describe a “good” movie as?
Kevin, to be totally honest, I don’t watch many movies, and haven’t see most of the classics, nor have I seen Transformers. But off of this limited knowledge I’d say a “good movie” is one well written, well acted, one with a seriously considered and well-carried out plot line. I’d also say if it fit the directors image, to him and others it may be considered a good movie. I do like your explanation between enjoyable and good though, and that makes me think harder about my argument, but I’m not sure I agree.
How fitting: http://www.screened.com/news/science-finally-proves-it-more-explosions-mean-more-dollars-for-michael-bay-movies/3092/
Haha, those charts are awesome, and were discussed ad nauseam on reddit (not sure if that’s where you came in contact with it), but someone commented the following video: http://www.theonion.com/video/nation-somehow-failed-to-predict-attack-by-michael,20888/ . It’s very funny and also fitting when talking about Bay’s filmography and style. But I’ve been thinking about the phrase ‘ad hominem’ since we learned about it in class, and I can’t tell if all this bashing of Bay is an example of it. I’m curious because it is very effective in making Bay look stupid and such, but it does have ties to the actual backing of what Michael Bay does as a filmmaker. Is it?
Funny that you knew ad nauseam and not ad hominem, I’d imagine the former is less often used – unless you looked up all “ad-” words after class… O.o…
I do think much of the Bay bashings are attacks on him as a person and not his film; first, because Transformers had great sales, making it a target of the internet creatures (creachs) who loathe anything popular; and second, because Bay is a moviemaker, specifically a rich one – some derive feelings of superiority by criticizing (and then mocking, and then attacking) a person society has deemed successful. I dont know how valid a mockery of a director’s overuse of explosions is though; I think it is part of his style, and more legitimate complaints would have to do with the meaning and structure of the film. Aren’t elements DAM more important than S?