Research Paper Task 4

Running Head: RHETORICAL STRATEGIES FOR ETHOS ESTABLISHMENT 1
Rhetorical Strategies Employed by Film Critics for Ethos Establishment
Darian Cabrera
University of Central Florida

RHETORICAL STRATEGIES FOR ETHOS ESTABLISHMENT 2
Introduction
The way members of discourse communities and communities of practice interact and
communicate with one another varies based on the lexis that is unique to their communities as
well as lexis they draw on from others. Lexis has a great influence in the film reviewing industry
where engagement of film discourse takes place between film critics and consumer audiences,
which entails discussion on aspects of the current films released, focusing on their quality, all
while using specific lexis pertaining to each genre of film in order to express their current and
past expectations. Critics and consumers who write reviews must understand the specific lexis in
the community and therefore an understanding of each film in order for their review to establish
ethos with their audience and be perceived as valuable to the community. There has been
extensive research in how members of discourse communities and communities of practice
communicate, specifically through the concept of the rhetorical situation, and how ethos is
affected through each situation (Ede and Lunsford, 1984; Grant-Davie, 1997; Cherry, 1998).
Furthermore, research has been conducted on how a community’s structure affects their goals,
which in turn is impacted by their use of lexis (Johns, 1997), and how particular language use
affects a reader’s perception of the rhetor’s credibility (Shaw, 2009; Hsu, 2006). Research into
academic evaluation of reviews (Hyland and Diani, 2009) that discusses concepts relating to
reviewers in this genre of reviewing can be extended into the genre of film reviewers.
Ann John’s research focuses on the structure of discourse communities and communities
of practice, looking at the similarities and differences in how members interact in both. She
defines discourse communities as those that “focus on genres of texts and lexis that contribute to
their goals, allow members to communicate, and to regulate membership” (1997). Communities
of practice act similarly, using genres and lexis, but emphasize certain “practices and values that
the members share.” John’s goal was for student writers to understand the skills necessary to
become members of academic discourse communities by looking at non-academic ones they are
involved in. Grant-Davie’s (1997) research on the rhetorical situation provides context to John’s
focus on how communities organize to achieve their goals as the rhetorical situation allows for
analysis of a community’s goals, values, and language by applying it to their literate activities.
Furthermore, Grant-Davie’s rhetorical situation adds context to the usage of lexis in communities
by looking at the rhetors, audience, exigencies, and constraints present within them. Each aspect
of the rhetorical situation shapes the lexis used in a community: rhetors choose what language to
use in their writing, the audience influences the rhetor(s) choice in language, the exigencies of
the rhetor(s) and/or audience influences language, and there are constraints present that affect
language use. His research expanded on Ede and Lunsford’s research on the importance of the
audience’s influence on a rhetor. As Grant-Davie points out in his article, a rhetor’s ethos is
dynamic across each rhetorical situation, requiring them to establish it with each new audience
they encounter (pp. 496). Roger Cherry’s (1998) research on persona and ethos gives context to
this idea by explaining the persona as a role that a rhetor assumes that will best fit the audience
he or she is addressing in order to establish credibility with them (pp. 268-269). Previous texts
written by an author have already established ethos with the relevant audience, but as new texts
are composed, a writer may change their persona to one that works better with a new audience in
order to establish credibility within those new texts. This reinforces Ede and Lunsford’s findings
on an audience’s ability to influence a rhetor. Phillip Shaw’s (2009) research on lexis utilized in
book reviews goes back to Ede and Lunsford’s point on audience addressed/invoked; Shaw
revealed that whether a reviewer’s evaluation is positive or negative, it contains language that is
constrained by the audience they wrote for in order meet their exigencies. Furthermore, Shaw’s
research highlights the importance of two types of reviews: interested and disinterested genre
reviews. Those that use lexis that resemble emotional appeals fall under the interested genre and
are considered subjective, while those that remain relatively objective fall under the disinterested
genre. This follows with Greta Hsu’s (2006) work in which she argues that critics utilize lexis to
create their own outlines as a basis for assessing whether a piece of entertainment is quality work
or poorly done but can end up establishing a bias in what they deem quality work if they
constrain themselves to one particular method of judgement (pp. 470-471). Ken Hyland and
Giuliana Diani’s (2009) introduction explains what academic evaluation and review genres are,
and the expectations of how reviewers compose reviews within these genres (pp. 1-8). Some of
their points can be extended into the genre of film reviewers, especially the fact that, regardless
of the type of review, all writers that create reviews are expected to demonstrate a positive or
negative stance in their review and illustrate their viewpoints with reasoning to build their ethos
(pp. 1). Although film critics are not required to follow particular conventions that academic
reviewers utilize, the audiences they write for hold expectations that can shape their decisions in
choosing certain rhetorical strategies. While all of these researchers have looked at discourse
communities in some aspect that pertains to lexis usage or ethos building, none have directly
connected how members that compose texts use specific lexis to build their ethos, and Shaw’s
focus on review types is focused in the academic review genre. Furthermore, the genre of film
review is lacking in this field of research and has important implications for this area of writing
studies. From this the following questions pertain to the lack of knowledge in this area of
research: How do film critics use lexis to establish ethos with their audience? What are
similarities and differences in how film critics utilize lexis to establish their ethos?
The strategies I employed to discover the answers to my research questions included
textual analysis of four film reviews, two reviews from two different critics. Textual analysis
allowed me to identify the writing strategies a film critic utilizes to establish credibility as well as
what hurt their credibility. In addition, I conducted an interview with a colleague, Josh, who is
majoring in film as a way to gather a consumer’s perspective on film reviews, particularly one
who holds a greater interest in the film industry. To supplement the interview and gather a wider
array of consumers’ attitudes, I collected consumer comments written in response to the film
reviews I read that include feedback relevant to the manner in which a critic builds or damages
their ethos. From the analyzation of data, I have discovered that film critics are able to establish
their ethos through different rhetorical strategies they employ, including the use of figurative
language, stylistic writing resembling a narrative, and utilizing specific lexis from the films. At
the same time, they can damage their ethos through the inclusion of political references in their
writing as well as biases against an aspect of the film they are reviewing such as its genre,
director, screenwriter(s), cast members, and more.
I will explain my findings from the methods mentioned above by covering the textual
analysis I conducted, the interview with Josh, and the consumer comments. This will follow
alongside a comparison and contrast between the two critics I have analyzed to ultimately show
how they compose their reviews, and the consequences to their ethos that result from the
strategies they employ. Finally, I will conclude my research with a brief recap and possible areas
that could use further research.
Methods
Since I have a passion for watching films, and reading other peoples’ perspectives on
them, specifically within the Rotten Tomatoes community, I wondered how the critics within this
community establish their ethos to maintain an audience following that continue to read the
reviews they create. I have taken an interest in reading film reviews for the past four years,
visiting the Rotten Tomatoes website weekly, and sometimes more, in order to stay current on
new film releases that may be worth the watch. The primary method I utilized in my research
was textual analysis of the two critics film reviews I chose as this was the most effective way of
discovering the manner in which reviewers in this genre use lexis to build credibility with their
audience. I chose two top critics (the label, “top critic”, appears in orange with a star next to their
name) from the community, Anthony Lane and David Ehrlich, after sifting through some of their
reviews and finding major differences in how they write their reviews, but also some small
similarities that the majority of critics in this community may share. I decided to focus on top
critics as they have more experience within the Rotten Tomatoes community because they must
meet certain publication recognitions set by the Rotten Tomatoes website in order to earn this
title, and therefore, are the ideal candidates for research in ethos establishment. The comparison
and contrast of the two critics allowed for additional data that can serve as a basis for how critics
compose reviews but may choose different strategies in order to establish credibility with their
audience. The comparison and contrast included their use of the rhetorical strategy, figurative
language, writing style, and lexical usage. I selected two reviews from both of them for a total of
four reviews, one of each was a positive review and the other was negative. I chose reviews of
films that I have previously watched as this gave me a better understanding of what was being
discussed in the film reviews, making the analyzation process of their lexis easier. This provided
more balanced data between the two critics by ensuring I look at how each one writes both types
of reviews, and it allowed me to determine if they are consistent in their rhetorical strategies
when their viewpoint of a film is positive versus when it is negative.

The analytic I focused on when first analyzing the reviews was the components of the
rhetorical situation, but after starting my analysis, I found that this was scarcely seen in the
reviews and ended up discovering the rhetorical strategy of figurative language. This strategy
became the focus of my analysis as it was present extensively throughout Anthony Lane’s
reviews and a little in David Ehrlich’s. Lane’s use of figurative language put into perspective on
how he creates interest for his audience to read his reviews. From the use of figurative language,
I further discovered that his reviews resemble the stylistic structure of a narrative which further
reinforced the idea that he establishes interest with his audience through his eloquent language
use.
To gain additional insight on the matter, I conducted an interview with a colleague, Josh,
in which I had him read a review that I collected from each of the film critics in order to see what
strategies he found most effective, and if there were any other strategies I had overlooked. As he
is a film major, his interest in the industry provided me with more substantial feedback than what
I would have received from an average filmgoer. My plan was to conduct two additional
interviews with other colleagues I knew who were also studying film, however, due to time
constraints and accessibility, I was unable to. Nevertheless, to have a variety of perspectives
from consumers, I have included consumer comments that provide additional insight into the
strategies critics employ. The data I gathered from these methods supplemented my own textual
analysis as it gave me a diverse set of viewpoints from consumers who have an interest in
reading film reviews and discover additional ways a critic either builds or damages their
credibility that I may have overlooked.
In the interview with Josh I had him read one review from each of the critics, both being
the negative reviews that I selected from the critics. This allowed him to look at how they both
compose a negative review in order to have well-balanced feedback on both critics. I asked him
about how each critic structured their review, the language use found in each, and his overall
impression of how well they elaborated their viewpoints on the film they reviewed. Asking him
for the structure gave me additional insight into what similarities and differences existed between
each of the critics in how they organized the points they established in their reviews, and if one
had better readability over the other. For language use, as my research revolves around how lexis
builds ethos, this question gave me the ability to see if I had overlooked any particular ways in
which either of the critics utilized a specific strategy with language to build their ethos as well as
to reinforce the strategies I had found in my own analysis. Finally, asking him for his overall
thoughts on each reviewer gave me an outline as to how both of the critics built their ethos
throughout their review by knowing whether or not he perceived them to be credible writers in
the genre of film reviews.
To supplement the interview with a variety of consumer perspectives, I gathered
comments left by consumers on the pages of the reviews. These comments serve as feedback to
the reviewer on how the reader felt about their review and their own perspective of the film’s
overall quality. I will note that the publication site for Anthony Lane’s reviews does not have a
consumer comments page section so I will focus on the feedback that Josh gave for Lane, my
own analysis, and use the comments left on Ehrlich’s page as a way to form expectations that
consumers have for all reviewers in general, such as having accurate information in their
reviews, and elaborating their reasoning for the viewpoints they provide in their reviews. This
helped determine what aspects consumers focus on when reading a review, and their perception
of the critic, which can be based on the particular review they read as well as past reviews they
have read. From that I figured out what strategies work best in helping a critic establish their
ethos versus what damages it, and the influence their reviews had on the audience’s decision to
watch the films.
Results & Analysis
This section focuses on the primary data I have collected and analyzed from the Rotten
Tomatoes online community involving movie critics, and consumer critics and readers, and the
claims I have developed from my analysis; to supplement my own analysis, I have incorporated
the data gathered from the interview I conducted. The website is used as a display for all of the
movie and tv show reviews composed by the community’s members. The website’s name is
derived from the rating system used, which displays a tomato next to each film and tv show with
a corresponding numerical rating. Films and tv shows that score a sixty percent or higher have a
red tomato next to them to indicate that the content is “fresh”, which is indicative of a good film
or tv show, while those below sixty percent receive a green splat and are considered “rotten”,
indicating the film or show is poorly received; anything scoring above seventy-five percent is
considered “certified fresh” which requires the content maintain this rating after a set amount of
reviews, including at least five from top critics. Finally, there is a popcorn image that represents
the consumer audience score for a film or show, which changes appearance based on their rating.
The community separates critic reviews from the consumer reviews with the critics on top and
the consumers below. From there, they are further divided into two categories: critics who have
met particular criteria are labeled as “top critics” with an orange star and the title next to their
name while regular ones do not have any label; the same applies with consumers except the
criteria is different and the label reads “super reviewer”.

From the first set of data collected about the critic reviewer, Anthony Lane, it is apparent
that film critics build ethos by using the rhetorical strategy of figurative language, using
techniques including imagery, metaphors, similes, symbolism, and alliteration.
Beginning with the interview, I had Josh read two reviews, one from each of the two film
critics I am analyzing. Starting with the film critic, Anthony Lane, I had him read Lane’s review
of the film Suburbicon. The questions relevant to the first claim included asking him how he felt
about Lane’s use of language and sentence structuring. He responded by giving specific points of
the review that he felt Lane managed an excellent job in elaborating his viewpoint, one of which
was “I enjoyed the part with his remark about suburbs being the dark belly of the American
middle class.” His positive response to this point of the review points to Lane’s usage of
figurative language, in this case symbolism, which he uses throughout his review to emphasize
certain areas of his review. Furthermore, Josh had pointed out Lane’s detailed language that he
used to describe the setting of the film and particular scenes within it, specifically, “The part
where Lane describes the houses as pristine and shining lawns really gave me the ability to
picture the setting of the film without seeing it at all.” This not only reiterates Lane’s strong use
of figurative language (imagery here), but also his ability to use eloquent language that readers
can still understand, as my interviewee had pointed out that his review was easy to follow from
the beginning to the end.
The findings I collected from my own analysis furthered the data from the interview in
which I discovered Lane using figurative language that made his review an interesting read and
easy to follow. Below I will insert the excerpt of his review discussed above in the interview and
explain Lane’s rhetorical strategies:
As a seasoned moviegoer, you know what to expect. Whenever your gaze is led down
ranks of immaculate houses, from lawn to shining lawn, you brace yourself for a glimpse
of the dark underbelly of middle-class America. (figurative language-imagery; also-

symbolism/satire-the “underbelly” resembles the stereotype that suburbs are a
symbol of middle class American workers, and satire is seen when he makes the
remark that a beautiful suburb is, of course, expected to resemble the unpleasant
side of middle class workers). (Anybody wishing to see the belly itself, or clinging to
the now scandalous notion that some folks who dwelt in the belly led decent and
untraumatized lives, will have to rely on a secret stash of sitcoms.)- (A little satire here-
Lane pointing to the film’s opposite vision of a suburb). And here comes the darkness.
(Metaphor, which signals a connection to his previous remark about the “false”
sense of security a suburb holds). “Nicky, there are men in the house,” Gardner
whispers one night, adding, “They’re going to take what they want, and leave.” Wrong.
They’re going to chloroform the whole family, and, in Rose’s case, overdo the dosage.
The next thing you know, she is out of the picture, and Margaret, who must have gone to
see “Vertigo” the year before, steps smoothly into her shoes (Satire here).
Lane’s second sentence utilizes imagery in order to paint a picture for the reader to
understand the setting maintained throughout the film, which in this case, is a suburban
community. By doing this, Lane is adding context to the film’s title, Suburbicon, and to his
additional usage of symbolism within the same sentence. Lane is emphasizing the point that
many films flip the idea of a suburb, which is usually associated as a safe place to live and
juxtaposing the idea of safety with the film’s creation of a suburb that is an unpleasant place to
live. This foreshadows to the reader that the film’s content is going to involve an unpleasant
outcome. Lane then signals a transition with another metaphor, “And here comes the darkness”,
which makes it clear to the reader he is going to explain the film’s dark aspects and does so in a
way that is not mundane. Lane’s lexis not only builds his figurative language, but makes it more
effective because he chooses words that connect: “immaculate” and “shining” connect the houses
to the lawns and “ranks” let the reader know there are many of them, making the imagery clear
to the reader to visualize what is on screen; “dark”, “darkness”, and “underbelly” establish the
foreshadowing effect that the film’s plot has many dark aspects.
Transitioning to the second critic, David Ehrlich, Josh read his review of the Netflix
original film, Bright. The questions asked about Lane’s review were applied the same way for
Ehrlich but turned up strikingly different results. Keeping in mind that both reviews were
negative responses to the film reviewed, Josh had more difficulty accepting Ehrlich’s use of
language and sentence structure, finding much of it ineffective to explaining Ehrlich’s
viewpoints. The main issue Josh discovered was how Ehrlich established clear viewpoints but
did not elaborate on them in order to establish reasoning as to why he believed a certain aspect of
the film was lacking in quality: “His review just sounds like a rant about how bad the movie was
with little offering of positive points or at least suggestions on what to improve.” Another
consumer reading the review on the website left a similar remark: “Was your journalistic
integrity enhanced by politicizing the beginning of a rant that clearly doesn’t begin to match the
majority of those who have watched the movie?” (Jon, 2018). Josh found a lack of balance in the
review, with the majority of it being all negative assertions without any substantial feedback as
to why (besides the mentality of “because I say so”). Furthermore, within his points, Ehrlich
recurrently used profanity and other harsh language that came across as disrespectful and
insulting to the point where Josh was losing his interest in reading the review. Nonetheless,
similar to Lane, Ehrlich used clear language that was easy to understand, using specific words
that emphasized the points he was trying to make, and had a piece of figurative language. To
make this clearer, I will share an excerpt from Ehrlich’s review:
The film’s lazy refusal to explore its conceit any deeper than that is truly staggering, but
director David Ayer is only willing to make so much room for the heightened genre
elements, lest any of that nerd stuff infringe on his well-documented infatuation with (or
fetish for?) the LAPD.
Here Ehrlich is conveying that the director of Bright, David Ayer, should have added
more depth to the science fiction fantasy mashup that the film revolves around as he believes it is
lacking in depth for the audience. This offer of criticism would be an appropriate response;
however, Ehrlich’s use of certain lexis here detracts from his own credibility. The first word,
“lazy”, assumes that Ayer intentionally left out details, and while this may be true, he has no
additional details to reinforce this idea. Secondly, he incorrectly used the word “conceit” instead
of “concept” to indicate the movie’s lack of depth in its plot. He then proceeds to insult Ayer in
the rest of the paragraph by saying he is obsessed with the LAPD. The approach Ehrlich took in
this paragraph, and many others in his review, reflects the points that Josh had brought up in the
interview. Ehrlich insults the film’s production crew recurrently, and when sharing criticism, he
adds in little to no reasoning as to why a particular aspect needs to be critiqued.
Lane’s ability to use figurative language to emphasize his points as well as the structure
of his reviews demonstrates that film critics build ethos by structuring their film reviews to
sound like a narrative for their audience.
In the interview, Josh had remarked that the review’s structure allowed him to easily
follow each of Lane’s points. “At the beginning, it really felt like he was giving background
information on each aspect of the film.” He was able to easily identify where Lane was
discussing characters, plot, setting, and criticism.
In my own analysis, I was able to distinguish the different points Lane made due to his
explicit transitional lexis (examples: “And so to the second chunk of story;” “Meanwhile”) and
due to the structural pattern in his review. Lane essentially establishes background information
on one aspect of the film, and then explores it further, adding in his own criticism and/or praise
about each point, and reinforcing them with connections to the film as well as making
comparisons to films across other genres. This structure, along with the figurative language and
certain lexis that Lane uses, transforms his review into a narrative, resembling that of a short
story. The excerpt below resembles the narrative-esque format that Lane utilizes throughout his
review:
This consists of a sour little parable about man’s inhumanity to man. The year is 1959,
and the man in question is Gardner Lodge (Matt Damon), whose name sounds like a
motel (figurative language-rhetorical strategy). He has a wife called Rose, who has a
sister called Margaret, and both of them—one blond, the other brunette—are played by
Julianne Moore. Rose and Gardner live with their young son, Nicky (Noah Jupe), in
Suburbicon, a haven so upbeat and sun-blessed that, in spirit, at least, it surely abuts
Lumberton, North Carolina, the setting for “Blue Velvet” (1986). Even the waving
fireman, from the start of David Lynch’s film, is mirrored in Clooney’s prologue, a
cheery faux commercial for Suburbicon (description here resembles narrative).
In this portion of Lane’s review, he is establishing background information for the reader
to get a glimpse of the film’s main characters and setting. Rather than just simply stating the
names of the family and the place where they reside, Lane formulates the family’s description
into a little story, similar to how an author may reveal their main characters’. Lane keeps himself
out of his review by telling the reader about the film without adding his own emotions, even
when giving his criticism and praise, by remaining in a third person perspective for the majority
of the review. Even when Lane brings himself into the review— “Taking a wild guess, I get the
feeling that, in Clooney’s opinion, the United States, in the epoch of Eisenhower, had a problem
with racism. Jeez, who knew?”—he does so to add his own humor in the review (See end of
excerpt in Appendix A).
Contrastingly, Ehrlich does not structure his review into a narrative as there is no
direction in which he discusses his points nor are there clear transitions, and while he does write
in third person for most of his review, his voice is still prominently heard throughout. Josh
noticed that Ehrlich’s paragraphs alternate back and forth: “he goes from criticism to then
providing background information and back to criticism.” This was evident in my textual
analysis where Ehrlich offers a piece of criticism and then transitions to background information
about the film. However, I further discovered that in providing background information he still
adds critique within those areas as well. Here is an excerpt from his review that reveals this
pattern:
The last 2,000 years have played out more or less as we know them, but all sorts of
magical species have stuck around in the margins of our history books. Modern day Los
Angeles is almost identical to how it is in real life, except that elves are the one percent
and orcs are the systemically oppressed underclass. (Background information on
movie’s setting) The film’s lazy refusal to explore its conceit any deeper than that is
truly staggering, but director David Ayer is only willing to make so much room for the
heightened genre elements, lest any of that nerd stuff infringe on his well-documented
infatuation with (or fetish for?) the LAPD. (Criticism of director-Ehrlich’s voice
noticeable here) Needless to say, the only remotely believable conflict in “Bright” is
between the “grittiness” of a police drama and the fantasticality of a plot that revolves
around the search for a magic wand (Background information on plot w/criticism).
Ehrlich begins discussing the film’s setting then proceeds to criticize the lack of depth in
the film’s exploration of its genre mashup, and then back to background information on the plot,
but with criticism still apparent by his remark of “the only remotely believable conflict.” This
structure is seen recurrently throughout his review with the occasional deviation to connections
he makes to other film genres for comparison against Bright. Following this format, Ehrlich
offers no transitional lexis like that found in Lane’s review making it more difficult for the reader
to follow each of his points.
Lane’s structure maintains the reader’s interest throughout his review by making the
review resemble the feeling of reading a novel while Ehrlich’s resembles more of a list of ideas
that do not maintain the reader’s attention because the structure lacks organization when
compared to Lane’s, making the review’s readability more difficult.
One aspect I found throughout both of Lane and Ehrlich’s reviews are the connections
they made to the film they reviewed as well as to other films in order to reinforce their points.
Their extensive use of evidence indicates that film critics establish ethos by utilizing language
from each film they review, including referencing specific scenes, cast members, director, and
screenwriters, and comparing films across other genres, connecting everything back to their
points.
In the interview Josh pointed out many areas in which both the reviewers took language
from the films in order to clarify the point they were making. In Lane’s review he especially
found this piece of evidence insightful: “I like how he pointed out that you don’t really get to
know the Mayerses, and the film needed to address that aspect more”. Additionally, some of the
films cited by the reviewers to add context to their points about how both of the film lacked in
quality in their genre mashups was also noted in the interview.
In my own analysis I had discovered the evidence the reviewers utilized and the purposes
they served. Both Lane and Ehrlich cited previous films that had encompassed two genre ideas
into a mashup in order to point out the lack of quality in the genre mashup of both the films they
reviewed; Lane referenced the space film The Right Stuff while Ehrlich referenced R.I.P.D. and
District 9. In this instance, Lane referenced the film as an example of one that combined two
ideas into one really well, to emphasize that Suburbicon’s main issue was its genre mashup.
Ehrlich referenced R.I.P.D for the purpose of showing a film with a similar genre mashup that
Bright was aiming for, arguing that Bright was unoriginal. Looking at Lane, he felt that the
mashup of dark humor with race and drama did not work well in Suburbicon, and instead
detracted from the movie’s plot. Lane reinforces this by citing specific areas of the movie that
were lacking. As Josh had pointed out in the interview, Lane references to the film’s African
American family that moved into the neighborhood and is treated poorly by everyone living
there. Lane claims that the film does not dive into the family’s backstory, leaving the viewer
puzzled because they never learn enough about the family. To reinforce this point, he cites the
various scenes in the movie where the family appears for a short time in which they are treated
poorly, but nothing more occurs and nothing more is said about them:
So repelled is Clooney by the response of white suburbia to African-Americans, and so

keen is he to insure that we share his outrage at what they endured, that he quite (boost
neg.) forgets to be interested in them. We learn next to nothing about Mr. and Mrs.
Mayers (their first names are a mystery), nor do we listen to their conversations. The wife
is charged twenty dollars for a carton of milk by the manager of a supermarket, and she
hangs up her washing outside with a bevy of protesters banging drums and crowing, only
feet away, but, while (hedge pos.) her dignity in the face of such taunts is noble, that’s all
(boost neg.) we know of her. It’s purely (boost neg.) in relation to white contempt, in
other words, that she is granted dramatic presence. To say that she and her husband are a
backdrop would be going too far (hedge pos.), but the black plot and the white plot
scarcely (boost neg.) touch. Is that what Clooney intended (hedge pos.)?
Lane questions the director’s, George Clooney, decision to include the family in the film,
pondering what purpose they served other than to highlight a racial issue during the time period
the film is set in. He points out that the film does not reveal their full name or show scenes in
which they talk with others or amongst themselves, only offering occasional points in which they
are being discriminated against by the people within the suburb. Lane utilizes a great deal of the
language directly from the film itself, clarifying to the reader as to why the film lacks in this
area, but still offers criticism in a manner that is respectful towards the director by ending his
point with the question of whether or not the director did this intentionally. Lane’s critical points
relate to Phillip Shaw’s (2009) focus on lexis usage within academic book reviews that reveal
when a reviewer is using particular lexis to boost or negate an evaluative act; Shaw discovered
that although it is typical of reviewers to tread carefully in negative reviews, there were still a
large amount of words reviewers used to “boost” the “face-threatening” (critical) evaluations
they gave while there were a good number of “face-enhancing” (praise) evaluations that were
“hedged” by the reviewers (pp. 224). Lane uses four negative boosting pieces of lexis to add
criticism while using three to hedge possible positive points of this aspect of the film. Shaw
states from his findings that “I would like to argue that they are of course saying what they think
but choose to say these particular things in this way because a disinterested genre requires some
demonstration that the writer is not merely being polite but is being balanced and truthful as
well” (pp. 224). Lane elaborates on why the Mayers are lacking in contributing value to the
film’s overall aim, utilizing this evidence as his reasoning for constructive criticism on this
aspect of the film, but does not include inappropriate language that could be offensive to the
audience or the director. This coincides with Shaw’s points above that a “disinterested” reviewer
should not be overly gracious in their reviews but construct a balance in their reasoning that will
exhibit integrity with their audience (pp. 225).
Ehrlich offers the comparison of R.I.P.D. as well as the film District 9 in order to show
that Bright’s plot is unoriginal. However, he does not elaborate as to why Bright’s mashup
resembles those films, and instead assumes the reader has seen the two previous films or will
search themselves. Ehrlich does offer a suggestion at the end of the paragraph where he proposed
an idea from the director’s previous film, End of Watch, that he believed could have improved
Bright’s quality:
Needless to say, the only remotely believable conflict in “Bright” is between the
“grittiness” of a police drama and the fantasticality of a plot that revolves around the
search for a magic wand (Background information on plot), Ayer cramming those two
things together like “R.I.P.D.” never happened. Something like “District 9” stands out as
another clear point of comparison, but that movie’s riff on South Africa felt so lived-
in.(Comparisons to previous films w/similar premises but no explanation) Maybe
“Bright” would have fared better had Ayer repurposed the faux-documentary approach he
brought to “End of Watch,” (Critic referring back to director’s previous film/offering
constructive criticism that may have helped film) but hedging between the film’s
disparate modes results in unmitigated disaster (Elaboration on film’s genre mashup
issue).
While Lane elaborated the references he made, Ehrlich failed to do this recurrently in his
review, making it harder for the reader to comprehend his viewpoints on the film. While in this
section he does give a suggestion to the director and does so in a couple of other areas in the
review, the majority of his review contains negative points about an aspect of the film with no
additional reasoning behind why the film lacked in each area (characters, setting, plot). Both
critics utilize evidence from the films, but Lane takes a step further, structuring it as a way to add
reasoning to his viewpoints while Ehrlich taps into the film’s content without expanding upon it
to clarify his reasoning.
The three previous sections have covered how critics can build their ethos, comparing
how Anthony Lane utilizes those methods against David Ehrlich, who lacked in each area. The
last set of data I analyzed shows that critics can damage their ethos through the use of political
references. Both of these critics mention politics within their reviews which has the potential to
reveal a political bias they have. In Johns (1997) article on discourse communities and
communities of practice, she discusses how members involved within a community share similar
values as that is what draws them together; however, the specific interests they hold “do not
necessarily [include] political or social views” (pp. 323). Because consumers may have differing
political ideologies from critics, critics should avoid adding any political references, either
explicitly or implicitly, other than for the purpose of explaining an aspect of the film or else they
risk offending some of their readers.
Lane is not as explicit in his political reference as Ehrlich is, but nonetheless may still
appear to be irrelevant to the reader. His first reference was to the era of president Eisenhower;
however, this reference was meant to point out the time period in which Suburbicon was set in
and the reasoning for the issue of racism in the film. In the sentence that follows, Lane asserts
that the film’s unpleasantness with racism reflects the continuing issues with the current political
administration in power in the United States: “The film’s indignation is clearly fuelled by the
rancor that has persisted into the epoch of Trump.” While Lane’s political ideals are not as overt
here, a reader may derive an implication from Lane’s reference which could result in a
disagreement with the reader and damage Lane’s ethos.
In contrast to Lane, Ehrlich’s reference is an explicit political bias he holds which can
greatly damage his ethos with his audience: “There’s boring, there’s bad, and then there’s
“Bright,” a movie so profoundly awful that Republicans will probably try to pass it into law over
Christmas break.” Ehrlich opens his review with this remark which can immediately turn an
audience’s interest away from the review and find him incredible before he even begins his
actual review. This, then, may permanently damage his ethos with many readers in any future
review he writes. There were a number of consumer comments in response to Ehrlich’s remark
that demonstrate the damage he caused by his reference:
“You brought politics into the first few sentences of your review. You are not objective.
Your narcissism has caused you to believe your pompous opinions will do more than
bring an illicit response from some troll such as me or worse. Bright is not a great movie
in my opinion. I liken great to movies that stick for generations. But it is an entertaining
movie that builds an interesting new world that I wouldn’t mind seeing more of. Did you
see the centaur cop?!?! The dragon flying above the city skyline?!?! I want to know how
the rest of this world meshes! If a movie makes you want to see more of its world, I’d
count that as a win. But it’s just another pompous opinion. At least I left out politics”
(Gaijin, 2018).
“This was a great netflix movie that was heavily influenced by the Shadowrun property.
Unfortunately critics like the one are so jaded and full of self loathing that they can not
actually review anything without transplanting their political grievances, it is sad really”
(D’marco, 2018).
“This review is as bad as the show. Please keep hack political jokes out of your writing.
I’m liberal, but that joke makes no sense and you open with it. Republicans will try to
pass a Netflix movie? Honestly, it’s not even a pun. I see what you’re trying to do but it’s
hack and dumb. Also, learn how to use a semicolon.” (D, 2017).
Even those who did not perceive the film as fresh content still point out that Ehrlich
should withhold his political ideals from the review, and by the language in their responses, it is
clear that many readers find it inappropriate/irrelevant to his review as it evokes an emotional
response from them.
In addition to the two reviews I analyzed throughout the four sections above, I looked at
an additional one from each of the critics, of which both are positive responses to the film
reviewed. For Lane I looked at his review of Paddington 2, and for Ehrlich, Black Panther.
Lane’s review of Paddington 2 did not seem to deviate from the way he reviewed
Suburbicon. There is less figurative language in this review, however, it is a shorter review, and
there are still a few including, alliteration and imagery. Furthermore, he continues to connect
films from other genres into this review in order to add context and emphasize his points. The
review still reads like that of a short story, engaging the reader through his explicit and detailed
language of the scenes he describes. The only difference within the review is that there are more
positive remarks towards the director, cast members, setting, and other aspects of the film in
contrast to his critical points/suggestions he gave in his review of Suburbicon. Lane’s use of
figurative language helps build his reviews into a narrative structure, aligning himself as the
narrator. At the same time, he establishes ethos with the audience through his ability to connect
lexis from the film to reinforce his points as well as draw in films from other genres to show
similarities and differences that are relevant to the point he is trying to make. Roger Cherry’s
distinction of ethos and persona gives context to what Lane is accomplishing here; Cherry (1998)
stated that the “student must create a persona appropriate for the fictional rhetorical situation, but
at the same time must create an ethos that is appropriate for the real (evaluative) rhetorical
situation” (pp. 268). Lane establishes himself as the role of a narrator, wanting his audience to
focus on the viewpoints in the review, and reinforcing them with evidence from the film and
connections to other films. Lane’s rhetorical strategies “enable[s] [him] to portray [himself] in
written text a way that contributes to the optimum effectiveness of a given text” (Cherry, 1998,
pp. 269), and the lexis he utilizes from the film as well as connections to other films serves as his
evidence, which establishes his credibility.
For Ehrlich, the tone of his review changes completely in this review, with the
consideration that it is a positive response to the film’s quality. His review style does not change
much as he still follows the similar pattern in his review of Bright with the exception that instead
of many critical remarks, it is now filled with more positive responses; he provides background
information, positive feedback, and more background information. He still offers some critique
of the film studio itself, comparing its past creations to Black Panther. What does change is the
use of explicit transitions that indicate where he is shifting from one point to another as well as
figurative language including imagery and metaphors. In this review, a reader pointed out
Ehrlich’s factual error involving the age of the Marvel Universe in which Ehrlich wrote “Over
the course of three phases, 11 years, and 18 installments.” He remarked that the age is 10 years
and not 11, which is correct according to a quick google search:
“Ehrlich can’t even manage to count, yet we are supposed to take him seriously? May
’08 – Feb ’18 … that’s 10 years buddy” (Smith, 2018).
This error can cause Ehrlich to appear as lazy to his audience for not ensuring his
information is correct as he is writing towards an audience that knows Marvel Studios well.
I have covered four claims that I have discovered as a result of the textual analysis I
conducted on four film reviews as well as an interview. From all of this I have found that film
critics are able to establish their ethos through different rhetorical strategies they employ,
including the use of figurative language, stylistic writing resembling a narrative, and utilizing
specific lexis from the film they are reviewing. At the same time, they can damage their ethos
through the inclusion of political biases in their writing as well as biases against an aspect of the
film they are reviewing such as its genre, director, screenwriter(s), cast members, and more.
The comparison and contrasting of Anthony Lane and David Ehrlich serves as an outline
for how particular styles of writing can affect how a critic is perceived by their audience. Lane
manages to remain outside of his reviews by omitting any emotional tone in his reviews, and
rather provides reasoning to his viewpoints. Furthermore, he balances his critical points with
positive ones, creating a well-balanced review. On the other hand, Ehrlich provides many
assertions in his reviews which may hold substance, but there is a lack of elaboration in his
viewpoints. Additionally, he creates a clear emotional tone that reflects his voice throughout his
reviews which is evident by the inappropriate language he uses, including profanity and insults
he directs at the film. He does offer some suggestions in his reviews that he feels could improve
the film he reviewed as well as praise towards the aspects he argues were done exceptionally
well, however, these are scarcely found in his negative reviews. This points to the conclusion
that he is unable to maintain a level of professionalism in his writing in certain rhetorical
situations which may damage his credibility with his audience.
Discussion
Anthony Lane and David Ehrlich, despite being two top critics from within the same
community, their reviews illustrate the striking differences in their language usage as well as the
rhetorical strategies they employ, to establish ethos with their readers. Lane’s use of figurative
language, explicit transitions and lexis, and narrative-esque writing structure transforms his
reviews into a story that the reader can engage with, making it enjoyable to read and easier for
the audience to understand his viewpoints, and why those viewpoints are appropriate in response
to a film’s quality; while his reviews are purely his opinion, these strategies add a level of
objectivity to his review that some readers would accept his opinion and deem him a credible
writer in the film review genre due to the professionalism in his writing which is demonstrated
by his ability to take knowledge of the film and use it to make connections to other films to
convey his opinion, the integrity he shows by citing the outside knowledge he references, and the
respect he shows by giving appropriate constructive criticism. His ability to display Cherry’s
three components of ethos— “knowledge, integrity, and good will towards the audience”—leads
me to conclude his reviews align with Shaw’s “disinterested genre” of reviews (2009).
In contrast to Lane, David Ehrlich’s reviews are rather blunt. As seen in my analysis,
Ehrlich scarcely uses the same rhetorical strategies of Lane, with little figurative language
present as well as few clear transitions when going from one point to the next. Similar to Lane,
he makes his viewpoints clear through his word choice, but some of the lexis he uses is
inappropriate, especially the profanity found in his review of Bright. Even when giving
suggestions to improve the film, Ehrlich provides cynical responses that can be offensive to the
people involved in the production of Bright as well as his readers. Additionally, unlike Lane,
who seems to maintain his composition process regardless of whether his review is positive or
negative, Ehrlich’s tone shifts to a more pleasant one when composing a positive review. The
only difference in Lane’s positive reviews is that more of his points offer praise rather than
critical suggestions to improve the film, but he maintains his overall structure and continues to
provide strong reasoning as to why he holds his positive viewpoints. Ehrlich seems to become a
completely different reviewer in that he offers praise throughout his positive reviews, provides a
few appropriate suggestions to weak aspects, and there is little to no vulgar language. This leads
me to believe that Ehrlich chooses a “persona” that best suits his own views when writing a
review rather than conforming to one that an audience would deem appropriate (Cherry, 1998,
pp. 268-269). While Cherry pointed out that a rhetor typically assumes a role that would best
align with their audience in order to establish credibility, I would argue that Ehrlich ignores the
influence of his readers, and instead chooses a persona that best fits his ideals. Although Ehrlich
manages a more appropriate approach to his positive reviews, the errors that he makes still
detract from his credibility. In his review of Black Panther, Ehrlich made a factual mistake
pointed out by a consumer, and while skimming through some of his other reviews in the
community, I noticed a pattern of errors he overlooks that consumer readers have found. As
Grant-Davie stated, “a rhetor’s ethos will not be the same for all audiences. It will depend on
what they know and think of the rhetor’s past actions” (1997, pp. 496). Ehrlich’s cynical style in
his negative reviews, and the errors he makes in both, his positive and negative reviews, has
damaged his reputation as a reviewer which causes new and old audiences to recurrently
discover the flaws in his composition, making it difficult for him to establish credibility in each
new review he writes. Although Phillip Shaw defines his concept of “interested genres” as those
that “only give positive evaluation and are characterized by a particular vocabulary, often using
extreme, intensified, or polarized words” Ehrlich’s positive review of Black Panther aligns with
this concept, and while his review of Bright is negative rather than positive, he still uses extreme
lexis in an attempt to promote his viewpoints without giving substantive reasoning as to why his
audience should agree with him. Due to these reasons, it would be appropriate to align Ehrlich
under Shaw’s concept of “interested genre” in his film reviews.
Similarities between Lane and Ehrlich are that they utilize specific lexis from the films
they review, and they make political references. The former supports their credibility while the
latter inevitably damages it. From my analysis of both of them, the interview I conducted,
consumer responses, and the similarities and differences established, it is clear that film critics
are capable of establishing ethos through the rhetorical strategy of figurative language, using the
stylistic structure of a narrative, and referencing evidence from the films they review, but can
damage their ethos by making inappropriate remarks such as political references.
The film critics active within Rotten Tomatoes establishes a discourse community as they
focus on “specific lexis and genres that help them achieve their goals” of improving the film
industry and assisting consumers in their film viewing decisions (Johns, 1997), which is
accomplished by generating reviews that can promote conversations about differing viewpoints
amongst themselves and consumers to determine an overall perspective of a film’s quality.
Consumers within the community, while interactive with critic reviews, establish their own
community of practice as they hold differing values and interest within the community than
critics. Critics partake in film reviewing in a professional aspect as their occupation revolves
around writing. Contrastingly, consumers partake in the community because they value the
entertainment genre of cinema, the discussion of film criticism, or both. Regardless of the
differing motivations between critics and consumers, they all seek to enjoy quality films, and
therefore, employ their literacy skills to promote better film production within the film industry.
The texts present in the community—critic and consumer reviews—require all members to
comprehend the conventions and lexis utilized in the films, which changes across each genre, in
order to provide substantive feedback on the films. Just as Johns discusses the conventions of
academic discourse communities that are expected to be understood by members who are
engaged in those communities in order to be effective writers within them, critics and consumers
must understand the conventions present within the Rotten Tomatoes community in order to
effectively participate.
The implications that arise from my research can help to improve the film reviewing
genre within this community as well as other film review communities. Some film critics, though
they do not write in the literary genre, utilize literary rhetorical strategies, including figurative
language and narrative stylistic structure, in their writing, which helps maintain reader interest
and clarifies viewpoints, and builds ethos by creating visual aids for the audience to follow in
order to better understand the aspects of a film (plot, characters, setting, audio, etc.).
Furthermore, the ability of critics to cite films within and across genres to make connections to
the film they are reviewing helps reinforce their perspective on each aspect of a film, clarifying
why they believe a particular aspect was effective in contributing to the film’s overall quality or
not. Other critics deviate in their reviews by being too critical without providing substantial
reasoning as to why and offer remarks that are potentially offensive to the audience of the review
that leads to damaging their ethos within this genre of writing.
This research also demonstrates that conventions found in academic discourse
communities can be found in the film review genre, and while film reviewing is more aligned
with opinion-based writing, plays a role in shaping the manner in which some critics compose
their reviews. Anthony Lane demonstrates the academic conventions Johns (1997) discusses
including, transitions, explicit language, and remaining “rubber-gloved” to a degree in his
reviews (pp. 327-329). David Ehrlich’s approach is much more critical; however, he still
demonstrates these conventions in some areas of his reviews, especially with citing language
from within the films themselves, and making connections to other films in order to add context
to his points. Regardless of the fact that these critics do this to a different degree, this illustrates
that opinion-based writing still contains a level of objectivity which can aid critics in building
credibility with their audiences by exhibiting competence.

Film critics, within this community and others, can learn from the strategies presented in
my research to further their effectiveness in reviewing films, and potentially develop new
strategies, which can be combined with the ones they already use, to formulate a unique
reviewing structure while avoiding methods that are ineffective or damaging to their credibility.
Other genres of critics (novels, music, restaurant, etc.) can also employ these methods to improve
their own structure of reviewing that can make them stand out as a prominent reviewer.
Consumers that read critic reviews can utilize these findings to help them determine which
reviews to read thoroughly to get an appropriate viewpoint that will aid their decision on whether
or not to see a film while also being able to figure out those that are inappropriate and avoid
them. Consumers that enjoy writing their own reviews can also apply some of these strategies to
establish their ethos as consumer reviewers and improve their ability to provide more substantive
feedback to critics.
For every community a person is a member of, they need to ensure they utilize the
appropriate conventions of the respective community they are participating in and take advantage
of strategies that they find most effectively helps their texts reach and engage their audience.
Specifically applied to the Rotten Tomatoes community, film critics should revise their reviews
extensively to ensure there are no factual errors, viewpoints are clear to the audience, and learn
from each other to improve the quality of texts in the community overall. Those that use little to
no lexis from the films they review, should attempt to incorporate more of it into their reviews to
establish better connections with the film, and to demonstrate to the reader they were attentive to
details within the film. Consumers that decide to give feedback on reviews should use some of
the strategies critics do in order to reinforce their points as well as to establish their own ethos.
The ability to understand how consumer reviewers in the community, specifically those
parallel to top critics, labeled as “super reviewers”, utilize specific lexis to establish their ethos
would need further research that revolves around analysis of their own reviews. From there,
connections can be made between the similarities and differences among consumer reviewers’
rhetorical strategies, and a comparison and contrast to my research on critics’ lexical use to
consumers lexical use to establish ethos.

References
Cherry, R. (1998). Ethos versus persona. Written Communication, 15(3), 384-410. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015003009
D’marco, D. (2017, December 23). This was a great Netflix movie that was heavily influenced by the
Shadowrun property. Unfortunately, critics like [this] one are so jaded and full of self loathing
that they can not actually review anything without transplanting their political grievances, it is
sad really [Comment]. Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bright-review-netflix-
will-smith-max-landis-david-ayer-worst-movie-2017-1201909960/
D. (2017, December 22). This review is as bad as the show. Please keep hack political jokes out of your
writing. I’m liberal, but that joke makes no sense and you open with it. Republicans will try to
pass a Netflix movie? Honestly, it’s not even a pun. I see what you’re trying to do but it’s hack
and dumb. Also, learn how to use a semicolon [Comment]. Retrieved from
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bright-review-netflix-will-smith-max-landis-david-ayer-
worst-movie-2017-1201909960/
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in
composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, (2), 155-170. doi:
10.2307/358093
Ehrlich, D. (2018, February 6). Black Panther Review: Ryan Coogler delivers the best marvel movie so
far [Review of the film Black Panther, 2018]. IndieWire. Retrieved from
http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/black-panther-review-ryan-coogler-1201925524/
Ehrlich, D. (2017, December 20). Bright Review: Netflix’s first blockbuster is the worst movie of 2017
[Review of the film Bright, 2018]. IndieWire. Retrieved from

worst-movie-2017-1201909960/
Gaijin, J. (2018, January 7). You brought politics into the first few sentences of your review. You are
not objective. Your narcissism has caused you to believe your pompous opinions will do more
than bring an illicit response from some troll such as me or worse. Bright is not a great movie in
my opinion. I liken great to movies that stick for generations. But it is an entertaining movie that
builds an interesting new world that I wouldn’t mind seeing more of. Did you see the centaur
cop?!?! The dragon flying above the city skyline?!?! I want to know how the rest of this world
meshes! If a movie makes you want to see more of its world, I’d count that as a win. But it’s just
another pompous opinion. At least I left out politics [Comment]. Retrieved from
worst-movie-2017-1201909960/
Grant-Davie, K. (1997). Rhetorical situations and their constituents. In E. Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.).
Writing about Writing: A college reader (pp. 484-507). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
Hsu, G. (2006). Evaluative schema and the attention of critics in the US film industry. Industrial and
corporate change, 15(3), 467-496. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl009
Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Academic Evaluation: Review genres in university settings.
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu
Johns, A. (1997). Discourse communities and communities of practice. In E. Wardle & D. Downs
(Eds.). Writing about Writing: A college reader (pp. 319-338). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
Jon. (2018, January 10). Was your journalistic integrity enhanced by politicizing the beginning of a rant
that clearly doesn’t begin to match the majority of those who have watched the movie
[Comment]? Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bright-review-netflix-will-
smith-max-landis-david-ayer-worst-movie-2017-1201909960/
Lane, A. (2018, February 15). The Insult and Paddington 2 [Review of the film Paddington 2, 2018].
The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/the-insult-
and-paddington-2
Lane, A. (2017, November 6). Suburbicon and Last Flying Flag [Review of the film Suburbicon, 2018].
The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/suburbicon-
and-last-flag-flying
Rotten Tomatoes (1998, August 12). Certified fresh picks. Retrieved from:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/
Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and
1993. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.). Academic Evaluation: Review genres in university
settings [ProQuest Ebook Central] (pp. 217-233). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Retrieved
from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu
Smith, S. (2018, February 6). Ehrlich can’t even manage to count, yet we are supposed to take him
seriously? May ’08 – Feb ’18 … that’s 10 years buddy [Comment]. Retrieved from
http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/black-panther-review-ryan-coogler-1201925524/
Appendix A:
As a seasoned moviegoer, you know what to expect. Whenever your gaze is led down ranks of
immaculate houses, from lawn to shining lawn, you brace yourself for a glimpse of the dark
underbelly of middle-class America. (figurative language-imagery; also-symbolism/satire-the
“underbelly” resembles the stereotype that suburbs are a symbol of middle class American
workers, and satire is seen when he makes the remark that a beautiful suburb is, of course,
expected to resemble the unpleasant side of middle class workers). (Anybody wishing to see
the belly itself, or clinging to the now scandalous notion that some folks who dwelt in the belly
led decent and untraumatized lives, will have to rely on a secret stash of sitcoms.)- (A little
satire here-Lane pointing to the film’s opposite vision of a suburb). And here comes the
darkness. (Metaphor, which signals a connection to his previous remark about the “false”
sense of security a suburb holds). “Nicky, there are men in the house,” Gardner whispers one
night, adding, “They’re going to take what they want, and leave.” Wrong. They’re going to
chloroform the whole family, and, in Rose’s case, overdo the dosage. The next thing you know,
she is out of the picture, and Margaret, who must have gone to see “Vertigo” the year before,
steps smoothly into her shoes (Satire here).
Appendix B:
The film’s lazy refusal to explore its conceit any deeper than that is truly staggering, but director
David Ayer is only willing to make so much room for the heightened genre elements, lest any of
that nerd stuff infringe on his well-documented infatuation with (or fetish for?) the LAPD.
Appendix C:
This consists of a sour little parable about man’s inhumanity to man. The year is 1959, and the
man in question is Gardner Lodge (Matt Damon), whose name sounds like a motel (figurative
language-rhetorical strategy). He has a wife called Rose, who has a sister called Margaret, and
both of them—one blond, the other brunette—are played by Julianne Moore. Rose and Gardner
live with their young son, Nicky (Noah Jupe), in Suburbicon, a haven so upbeat and sun-blessed
that, in spirit, at least, it surely abuts Lumberton, North Carolina, the setting for “Blue Velvet”
(1986). Even the waving fireman, from the start of David Lynch’s film, is mirrored in Clooney’s
prologue, a cheery faux commercial for Suburbicon (description here resembles narrative).
Appendix D:
The last 2,000 years have played out more or less as we know them, but all sorts of magical
species have stuck around in the margins of our history books. Modern day Los Angeles is
almost identical to how it is in real life, except that elves are the one percent and orcs are the
systemically oppressed underclass. (Background information on movie’s setting) The film’s
lazy refusal to explore its conceit any deeper than that is truly staggering, but director David
Ayer is only willing to make so much room for the heightened genre elements, lest any of that
nerd stuff infringe on his well-documented infatuation with (or fetish for?) the LAPD. (Criticism
of director-Ehrlich’s voice noticeable here) Needless to say, the only remotely believable
conflict in “Bright” is between the “grittiness” of a police drama and the fantasticality of a plot
that revolves around the search for a magic wand (Background information on plot
w/criticism).
Appendix E:
So repelled is Clooney by the response of white suburbia to African-Americans, and so keen is

he to insure that we share his outrage at what they endured, that he quite (boost neg.) forgets to
be interested in them. We learn next to nothing about Mr. and Mrs. Mayers (their first names are
a mystery), nor do we listen to their conversations. The wife is charged twenty dollars for a
carton of milk by the manager of a supermarket, and she hangs up her washing outside with a
bevy of protesters banging drums and crowing, only feet away, but, while (hedge pos.) her
dignity in the face of such taunts is noble, that’s all (boost neg.) we know of her. It’s purely
(boost neg.) in relation to white contempt, in other words, that she is granted dramatic presence.
To say that she and her husband are a backdrop would be going too far (hedge pos.), but the
black plot and the white plot scarcely (boost neg.) touch. Is that what Clooney intended (hedge
pos.)?
Appendix F:
Needless to say, the only remotely believable conflict in “Bright” is between the “grittiness” of a
police drama and the fantasticality of a plot that revolves around the search for a magic wand
(Background information on plot), Ayer cramming those two things together like “R.I.P.D.”
never happened. Something like “District 9” stands out as another clear point of comparison, but
that movie’s riff on South Africa felt so lived-in.(Comparisons to previous films w/similar
premises but no explanation) Maybe “Bright” would have fared better had Ayer repurposed the
faux-documentary approach he brought to “End of Watch,” (Critic referring back to director’s
previous film/offering constructive criticism that may have helped film) but hedging
between the film’s disparate modes results in unmitigated disaster (Elaboration on film’s genre
mashup issue).

Research Paper Task 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Paper Task 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: RHETORICAL STRATEGIES FOR ETHOS ESTABLISHMENT 1

Rhetorical Strategies Employed by Film Critics for Ethos Establishment

University of Central Florida

extensive research in how members of discourse communities and communities of practice

The strategies I employed to discover the answers to my research questions included

director, screenwriter(s), cast members, and more.

that could use further research.

when their viewpoint of a film is positive versus when it is negative.

credibility that I may have overlooked.

the genre of film reviews.

To supplement the interview with a variety of consumer perspectives, I gathered

watch the films.

Results & Analysis

criteria is different and the label reads “super reviewer”.

techniques including imagery, metaphors, similes, symbolism, and alliteration.

the beginning to the end.

explain Lane’s rhetorical strategies:

of the dark underbelly of middle-class America. (figurative language-imagery; also-

language and sentence structure, finding much of it ineffective to explaining Ehrlich’s

make this clearer, I will share an excerpt from Ehrlich’s review:

adds in little to no reasoning as to why a particular aspect needs to be critiqued.

sound like a narrative for their audience.

discussing characters, plot, setting, and criticism.

excerpt in Appendix A).

to follow each of his points.

compared to Lane’s, making the review’s readability more difficult.

quality in their genre mashups was also noted in the interview.

So repelled is Clooney by the response of white suburbia to African-Americans, and so

exhibit integrity with their audience (pp. 225).

to clarify his reasoning.

risk offending some of their readers.

disagreement with the reader and damage Lane’s ethos.

that demonstrate the damage he caused by his reference:

response from them.

evidence, which establishes his credibility.

and not 11, which is correct according to a quick google search:

that he is unable to maintain a level of professionalism in his writing in certain rhetorical

situations which may damage his credibility with his audience.

under Shaw’s concept of “interested genre” in his film reviews.

damage their ethos by making inappropriate remarks such as political references.

amongst themselves and consumers to determine an overall perspective of a film’s quality.

that leads to damaging their ethos within this genre of writing.

This research also demonstrates that conventions found in academic discourse

including, transitions, explicit language, and remaining “rubber-gloved” to a degree in his

credibility with their audiences by exhibiting competence.

consumers lexical use to establish ethos.

sad really [Comment]. Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bright-review-netflix-

[Review of the film Bright, 2018]. IndieWire. Retrieved from

corporate change, 15(3), 467-496. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl009

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu

[Comment]? Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bright-review-netflix-will-

The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/the-insult-

The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/suburbicon-

So repelled is Clooney by the response of white suburbia to African-Americans, and so keen is

You might also like