Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade Defends Charlie

1. Identify the nature of proof in Frank's monologue, siting evidence he used in Charlie's defense.


I definitely felt like Al Pacino's character demonstrated a lot of ethos in the argument to defend Charlie. He showed this by talking about his past and how he had been through a lot so you knew he knew what he was talking about, and just the passion in his voice. Which leads me into pathos and the emotional way Frank delivered his speech. He talked about what he went through in the war and pertained it to the kids at the institution and in defending Charlie. Just a firm, passionate delivery in Charlie's defense. Then there's logos, which Frank was very good at portraying. He talked about logic and the way that other boys were really not using it and Charlie was the only one standing up for truth and what he felt was right. Once again Frank brought in a lot of his own choices in life and how they influenced his attitude and feelings on this subject. And I loved when Frank told the committee to think about what they are doing and not destroy Charlie's future, but protect it.


2. Of the four styles of dramatic or vicarious proof, which did Frank exploit to turn attitudes around about Charlie? How did this style function in terms of reason?


I think the answer to this question is very obvious, and that is the way Frank uses his experiences and testimony to pursue the committee. Frank is very confident and emotional about defending what Charlie is doing, and the way he talked about things he had gone through and relating it to this situation was very powerful. I particularly like when he talked about seeing people lose limbs in war and he related it to an "amputated spirit." It just gave the committee a great way to really picture how bad their choices and outcome for Charlie could wind-up being.


3. What cultural myths or images were employed to increase the appeal of Frank's argument? How did this influence his attempted shift of opinion?


I think Frank hit a lot on the value of challenge and what his choices in life had led to. He also talked about how Charlie was going through a lot of challenges and he really seemed to make the right choice, unlike Frank, and kept working as hard as he could to embrace the challenges and learn from them. Basically saying that he himself hadn't made the right decisions in hard times of his life, but Charlie had and had a lot of potential to keep going in the right direction.


4. Which of Reich's parables apply or applies to Frank's reasoning?


Once again an obvious answer. The triumph individual is the parable that applies the most to this clip. Just by the way Frank talks about how Charlie really stuck to his guns and didn't rat any of his friends out. And he was trying to show the committee that that takes a lot of balls and through these triumphant times he Charlie will become a great man.


5. What was Frank's reasoning in terms of logical appeal?


Some of the logic appeal was definitely the way Frank related his past, and all the hard decisions, to what Charlie was going through. Like I stated earlier, he just painted a great picture for the committee to think about through his experiences. I also think a lot of logic came from trying to persuade the committee to really think about what they could do to Charlie's future through their actions.


6. How did Frank's paralinguistics impact his expression and the meaning of his words? Please give specific examples – three will do.


The one that stands out the most for me, and I use very often, was the power in Frank's voice and the way he demanded attention from the committee. Like yelling, " You want to see out of order?" and talking about killing Charlie's soul.


Another one would be precision and the choice words Frank uses at certain times during his defense. Like amputated spirit, and think about his future.


The last one would be the variations of speed used in Frank's speech. He really seemed to deliver stuff, that he really wanted the committee to hear, in more of a firm slow manner. Where as other times he talked really quick just to kind of shut up the committee and get his point through as fast as possible.


Thanks for everything it has been a pleasure.

No comments:

Post a Comment