This is from our week 3 discussion board. It's about Charlie Chaplin's final speech in The Great Dictator. Here's a link to a video and transcript of the speech. I have not seen the entire film, so my rhetorical analysis is based solely on this speech.
This is a very interesting monologue from Chaplin in which it appears he represents a man who is fed up with society and is airing his grievances regarding those he considers the oppressors who are enslaving people. His purpose is to deliver a message of hope intended to unify people en masse as a force of opposition to affect change, according to his vision.
To consider the ethos of this character is quite thought-provoking. Taking into account the limited attention span and short memory that affects most people today, I think his ethos would connect with many people. He comes off as caring and good-hearted. A man of the people, who empathizes with their struggle. Personally, there isn't enough information to definitively settle on the outlook of his ethos. These oversimplified 'good vs. evil' or 'us vs. them' rallying points leave room to play on people's emotions with the intent to manipulate them. From this video, it's impossible to know if the heart of the speaker's message is genuine or disingenuous. Although it could be easy for one to fall into the trap of assuming he must be fighting for good, this is frequently the sentiment of those who want to convince others to fight on their behalf, believing they are doing good, while they have unfortunately been led to do something counterproductive if not catastrophic. An obvious example of this is Hitler, the man Chaplin is parodying. A more modern example of this is the "social justice" so many university students are being taught they should fight for. In fact, Chaplin's character could just as likely be the result of someone who has been educated in a similar fashion. Maybe he is not trying to manipulate others, but he genuinely believes his ideals are best.
This speech puts a strong emphasis on pathos. This is out of necessity to make up for the questionable ethos of the speaker and weak logos. Playing on people's emotions is one of the easiest ways to influence them. He appeals to the audience and the good they see in themselves, he connects them to a victim mentality by walking them through the trauma that has been inflicted upon them by their alleged oppressors, and then he gives them the vision of a dream future he believes everyone should fight for. Taking people on this emotional rollercoaster makes it easier for them to overlook any potential issues conveyed through this message because by the end his audience is viewing themselves as the heroic victors in this underdog story where they're now living in paradise.
This character uses logos that's inherently flawed in some respects, but the idealistic principles it is based on make it easy for people to buy into. He begins to deify science and ignite a rallying cry around the concept of an unrealistic utopian future. He paints a picture of doing away with hate, greed, and intolerance, but without presenting any reasonable plan to achieve this goal. He references the new-testament in Luke chapter 17, in a message trying to mobilize people to go to war. He uses the verse out of context and completely disregards the personal character of Jesus as a man of peace. Honestly, his fractured logos detracts from his ethos.
The kairos of this message is highlighted in the reliance on pathos and the journey he takes his audience on. You're dependent on influencing through emotion when you bring no facts or evidence to the table. It's cleverly designed to convince the people of something they already want to believe. Everyone wants to see themselves as a good person. Most people also like envisioning themselves as the hero of their own story. So he rounds out the story arc by digging into the wounds of negative emotions they have already incurred before he paints a picture of them overthrowing their oppressors and generating the freedom to create their own reality. That's inspiring enough to make many people take action, if they haven't really thought through what they were being told, or where it might lead.
Comments