TOW #19- Why Children's Theater Matters (Written)

Why Children's theater matters is a transcript of a speech given by Lyn Gardner. The audience is stated to be those in attendance that the Unicorn Theater in London. Her speech followed that acceptance of an award for outstanding contribution to children's arts. Gardner develops an effective argument for more recognition needed to the performances done for children. She has excellent arrangement as she begins by establishing ethos through her analogy, explaining why this issue needs change, developing the issue in a greater context, and finally point-blankly stating how she believes theater should be viewed.

While clearly being viewed as one with upstanding credibility, given she was being recognized for it, Gardner still begins by giving reason for her opinion to be valued. She casually reflects into some of her past work, but in the field of children's novels. She equates the questioning of why children's books are seen as less to why theater is seen as less. This analogy is effective as it is not too far from the actual ideas Gardner plans to propose and easy to connect to. Even if you do not like theater, nearly every child of the parents in her audience is in love with a book, making it simple to establish a connection between her ideas and the audience.

Following suit, Gardner explains why there should be change. She defends art as a whole, but keeps her focus on why it is beneficial for children. She does not diminish the other forms of theater, but explains how even Shakespeare teaches us to cherish art for young people. She continues to explain why art should be fostered in schools, providing examples of when misconceptions arose of math and science being of far more importance. The entire body of her speech works to spark a new thought, or a different perspective, for her audience, and is effective in her overall goal of arguing that children's theater matters.

Gardner ends her speech with a simple two sentence paragraph that articulates what she has implicitly argued the entire speech. She takes the broad ideas she has developed and comes back to her original, pointed thought. By the end of her speech, Gardner develops a provocative argument that works to leave the audience questioning and pondering how children's theater is viewed.

TOW #18 - Gillette Razor (Visual)

In immediacy this advertisement strikes me as old-fashioned, heart warming, and to the point. These qualities help in making it effective in its goal to sell the product.

The baby in the photo is wearing a bonnet. He is surrounded by simple tile and in a vignette style framing. The font is straightforward and the colors are a little faded. This aged feeling brings the brand being sold a sense of wisdom. It is not a new brand, it is what has always been around. the brand is established as trustworthy and accountable, striving to connect the audience to  the family brand, something that will not let you down.

The tone of the image is warming and inviting to a viewer. The prime focus of the piece is the laughing child, doing something a baby should not do, shave its face. Just like in commercials with the babies who speak in deep voices intellectually, this brings a similar humor. Not only that, razors are sharp and can cause damage. This ad proposes the idea that if a baby is able to use the razor without hazard, than a grown adult can as well. Perhaps they can even find skin as soft as a baby's.

Finally, the image is not too crowded and has a very clear message: this is a good razor. The brand name and company is prominent and emphasized, with a few catchy slogans around it that may stick in the viewer's mind. The word safety is included in the name of the product, articulating the very idea of the image as a whole. Overall, the advertisement is very effective and utilizes rhetorical strategies in order to create a clear vision of a product.

Intro IRB #3 - The Unkindest Cut

For the third marking period I will be reading The Unkindest Cut by Joe Queenan. As the cover describes it, Queenan;s work is about "how a hatchet-man critic made his own $7,000 movie and put it all on his credit card". The book was recommended to me by fellow APELC student, Max Benowitz, and I look forward to reading it.

TOW #17 - "Still Alice" (Written)

Typically, reviews of films will give context of a film while providing a clear position on the effectiveness and likability of the movie itself. The review of "Still Alice" written by Peter Debruge fails to establish a clear claim, hardly discussing anything but the plot. While he has implicitly suggested he enjoyed the film, because of his syntax and points chosen to discuss, the reader is left still curious to the question of whether or not to see the movie, which is usually the reason they turned to the article in the first place.

Debruge opens his article by explaining that Still Alice is not like other movies dealing with Alzheimer's, as it is organized through the victim's point of view and not that of family members/friends. While Debruge does explain how this allows the audience to connect better with someone suffering from the disease, he does so so casually that it is almost missed. His diction is weak and undirected, leading to the reader feeling only semi-satisfied.

That being said, Debruge does make it clear that the lead of the movie, Julianne Moore, is impeccable. Her performance is praised, but in a somewhat confusing manner. Debruge utilizes words like "underplaying" which carries a negative connotation, as a way to support his claim that she was powerful and accomplished. Once again, the reader is left with a sense of confusion, unsure whether or not what took place in the film was bad, good, or neither.

Debruge also takes a lot of time to discuss the lives of the directors, without ever mentioning that the names given were the directors at all! While their lives are indeed fascinating, clearly paralleling the essence of the movie, the amount of time and detail attending to their story is inappropriate for the context of the review. DEbruge really missed the mark when it came to providing evidence to support his claim, which is unsurprising as his claim hardly exists.