Inside Job

After watching Inside Job, I was a little disappointed. I picked this documentary because   I thought it would be a mystery and it would focus more on the criminal activity that took placeI feel like it was meant to be a big crime story but the way it was conveyed was poor. Although I thought the documentary as a whole was poor, the rhetoric was good. The main goal was to expose the truth about the economic crash in 2008. To explain this they used statistics and authorities as the main source of evidence. Interview's with top executives were shown to express their side of what happened since in the real world pretty much every one was against them. Other authorities included were financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics. I also think it was a successful piece of rhetoric because it looked at the economy on a global scale. It was filmed in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China. I thought this was cool because when something happens in the United States or vice versus, it affects other countries as well. The audience was for adults who went through all of the experiences of the crash of 2008. People who lost jobs, people who lost their homes would want to watch this movie to get an answer as to why they lost everything. As for me, I was not directly affected and maybe that is why I thought it was boring. To catch peoples attention they used a famous actor named Matt Damon to tell the story, but I do not think it helped. Overall, it failed to entertain but the rhetoric was there. I wouldn't recommend this any one my age because of the reasons I stated above. I thought maxed out was a better documentary for my generation.

Education destroys Creativity

The TED Talks video on how education killed creativity was presented effectively. The speaker used humor to convey the message to the audience,while also appealing to ethos and pathos. Ethos appeals to emotion. Fear and inspiration were to feelings he tried to get the audience to think about. He stuck fear by speaking about the unpredictability of the future. He stated that kids beginning school this year will be retiring in 2065. His argument was that we do not even know what will be happening in 5 years so how are we supposed to educate them or prepare them for 60 years from now. He made the audience think about their childhood and appealed to the fact that adults tell you what you can do and what you cannot. I bet a lot of people in the audience wanted to be a musician, artist, or dancer and were told they could not because that would not help them later in life. His final argument was quite the opposite he used inspiration. He told the story of the women who choreographed cats and Phantom of the Opera. When she was in school she was told that she had a learning disorder and was about to be taken out of school until someone told her mother that she was a dancer. She was happy to be in a dance school because there were people like her that could not sit still and she excelled and became a multi-millionaire. So basically if kids were placed in classes that let them explore their creativity the world would be a more productive place. Another way he appeals to his audience is by appealing to his character. He uses his own life experiences to present examples. For example he talks bad about university professors but he states that he was one so that is how he knows what they do wrong. Also when appealing to the audiences emotions he talks about his own child and how he wants him to be educated in the public school system.