This review of “The Giver” cannot be described as “good” or “bad”,
but rather “relatable” and “understandable”. The reviewer, Paul Asay, uses the
main claim of the story as a main claim in his review. The main appeal would be
ethos, and the main claim would be the claim of policy. Throughout the summary
of the movie, Asay repeatedly mentions how he agrees with the founders of the
Community that “When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.
Every single time” (1). Due to this mindset, the Community decided to erase
anything having to do with emotions or arts from within the people. Asay says, “It
is in our nature, a nature that’s overwhelmed with sin”, regarding the society’s
morality choices. He refers to the movie as ambitious and a good family movie
to watch due to the inspiring storyline and the images of emotion and happiness
shown throughout the movie. These images of emotions and happiness are what tap
into the claim of value or the pathos appeal. Throughout the review, the
reviewer does not use the claim of fact or the logos appeal, but focuses more
on the other two claims and appeals.
Reviews and movies such as this one should make us realize
that everything we have is very essential to us; even the simplest thing, such
as a color. Asay also brings this up in his review while explaining the content
of the movie. He starts comparing the movie to real life situations; one
example being the comparison of escaping from life’s pain and unpleasantness in
one way or another. He says that, just like in the movie, humans create or
invent modern distractions in order to easily slip into a “sort of half-life”.
No comments:
Post a Comment