Introduction
Many people think that there may not be any rhetoric in a movie. The movie is an object of entertainment. That is why many researchers do not take it for serious. The thing is, the main objective of the movie is to transmit a certain information. And we can only measure the success of the movie by measuring the success of transmitting. We do not always comprehend it, but in most cases we are touched and influenced by the rhetoric means and technique used in the movie.
Our task is to research the key characteristics of rhetorical principles applied in the art of cinema. In order to accomplish our goal, we analyze the rhetorical components of a war movie named Apocalypse Now. The movie shows us how music, actor`s play and camera angles, shift in scenes can influence the thoughts and beliefs of the viewers. The general characteristics of war film require the eloquently delivering of the idea through the depiction of the war events.
General Overview
Rhetoric always requires argumentation and argumentation always requires a subject, which cannot be done without the speaker and the audience. Each media use its own approach or technique for delivering the information and conveying the certain idea. In films, the director, actor or screenwriter plays the role of the speaker, while the viewers play the role of an audience. The real problem of the rhetoric through the film lie in the liability of the information. In our world people will believe that information written in the newspaper is more reliable than the information that we hear in some comedy movie (Zryd 61-63). But films tend to provide us with more satirical rhetoric which sometimes may be hidden behind the plot, the actors and other details of the movie.
Anyway, movies has one great advantage, they can contain plenty of arguments in favour of the subject, and these arguments may be delivered with the help of various means. Let us refer to the primary meaning of rhetoric, the speaker delivers the message only with the help of his words and body language, but in the movies, the director can use many more enhanced techniques. The argument may be supported with the help of dialogues-when two persons exchange their experience, have an argumentation about the issue and support the main idea of the narrative by showing that there may be two different opinions that may simultaneously be right; monologues-when one person shows its own attitude toward the problem, express its opinion and persuades the viewers in its believes; author`s speech-when the author introduces the exposition of the narrative, introduces new ideas and problems or even support them; music-it helps the director to set the tone of the film, to direct the imagination of the viewers to the right trace and make sure that all viewers suffers from the same emotional scenario; change of scenery and camera effects, it would allow the director to modify the background of the picture, make sure that people pay their attention to the rhetorical components rather than the entertainment components.
The availability of such amount of components is simultaneously a disadvantage, having such a variety of tools, the director may overplay with them and fail to achieve his point. In fact, the viewers may be distracted or mislead by one of the components and do not get the idea or argument right, that is why all the directors should control all of the components in order not to distort the original message, and only then they can create a powerful and sophisticated example of rhetoric.
In a certain way, the task of a director is much easier, unlike the speaker, the director does not have to make sure all of the viewers think of the same image, he can just show the image itself, the speaker has to make sure that the imagination of his audience works in the same way and it will lead them to the same image (Zryd 61-63). The structure of presenting information to the audience is completely the same to the director and the speaker.
It starts with the exposition of the problem and claiming a thesis statement, after that, the director uses argumentation and supporting of the idea with all the possible means, we strongly believe that director, screenwriter and actors are the most responsible for the rhetorical part of the movie. The director provides the detailed vision of the issue and make sure the film is done according to the primary idea, the screenwriter operates such rhetorical tools as plot, speeches and dialogues, he is the one who modifies the events and make the appropriate to the certain issue.
War Movie Rhetoric Characteristics
In order to prove the point, we come up with the bright example of the rhetoric movie. Apocalypse Now is a witty rhetorical movie that tells us the story of life of captain Benjamin Willard. Ben serves in the United States army and take part in the war conflict in Vietnam. His war task is to find Kernel Kurtz, who lost his mind, in the jungle. But seeing all the horrors of war make captain too vulnerable. He starts to think about his real role in this pointless war. The director of the movie, Francis Copola, is simultaneously the scriptwriter. So it contributes to the unity of the rhetorical characteristics when we have only one speaker that can influence so many components.
The background of the picture is quite impressive. The events take place in the jungle of Vietnam. The Vietnamese people use the guerilla approach while Americans act with heavy weapons, napalm burning and bombs. Both of the armies were lethal and they took thousands, if not millions of lives. We can observe and notice that Vietnamese people also play the role of the background. They reveal another important issue of a man and nature. On the other hand, we can see the dualistic nature of the issue. The jingles and the nature are very dangerous for American soldiers as they conceal the Vietnamese guerrillas.
In addition, the jungle brings a lot of suffering. It is a jungle, that made Kernel become insane and they are driving captain mad step by step. The movie argues the statement that a man controls nature. It may be so in general, but in case of jungle it is vice versa. People lose their lives, minds and other vital parts of their existence there. The director starts the movie by showing us the truth about the horrors of war. The exposition exposes us the fire of war, screaming people, smoke and destruction which are accompanied by an epic song. With the help of such sincere and cruel scene,
In spite of the lack of narration, the most emotional rhetorical scene of the movie is the flight of the helicopters. They are flying to some village to completely devastate it. The background song is the “Ride of the Valkyries”. The director compares American helicopters with the noble Scandinavian female warriors. The Valkyries are very powerful as they possess some mythical strength.
Conclusion
Apocalypse Now proves that a single movie can be a powerful rhetorical object. Besides of the ordinary issues that a war movie may reveal, the film also confronts the environmental issues. Many catchphrases from the film are worldwide famous. The most famous is:”I love the smell of napalm in the morning”. It fully demonstrates the attitude of humanity toward the environment and the war. The movie also tells us how corrupt is the modern society. It reveals all the horrors of war and show how it can influence a human life.
The audience, voice and images plays an essential role in the rhetoric of the narrative as the director aim for a specific response from the specific audience. It means that the main purpose of the rhetorical narrative is to tell the whole world about the social issues. In spite of using such an unusual type of narrative as a movie, the author succeeds in exploiting symbolism as the rhetorical tool.
Works Cited
Coppola, Francis F, John Milius, Kim Aubry, Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Frederic Forrest, Albert Hall, Sam Bottoms, Laurence Fishburne, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford, Aurore Clément, Christian Marquand, Carmine Coppola, Vittorio Storaro, Michael Herr, and Joseph Conrad. Apocalypse Now Redux. Hollywood, Calif: Paramount, 2001.
Zryd, Michael. "Rhetoric And Representation In Nonfiction Film Carl R. Plantinga". Film Quarterly 53.4 (2000): 61-63. Web.
