Part A
Our group chose to discuss rhetoric and sophistry amongst characters in Thank You for Smoking (Rietman 2006) and to what extent does the film present an ethical argument. Upon analysing Naylor’s, Finistirre’s and Holloway’s speech, it was prudent to first establish the context for the audience’s ease of understanding. As the producer, I discussed the marketing and production aspects of the film, providing the quantitative figures. More importantly, I establish Reitman’s motivations and style in his script which allow us to derive the conclusion that the individual characters are sophists, but the film is rhetorical.
First-time producer David Sacks, and the executive producers all originate from a corporate background, with the likes of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel also involved. This is an interesting point, as one could argue the superficiality of the anti-smoking production backed by executive fund-raising. However, Sacks was the only producer willing to finance Reitman’s script, which consciously attempted to maintain the satiric nature of the novel; other studios require Reitman to rewrite his script to include more anti-smoking references and an uplifting ending, with Naylor repenting his past. It is due to Sacks’ appreciation of the ethical stance the script presents, which support the notion that the individual characters are sophists, but the film is rhetorical. …show more content…
I will be David Sacks during the presentation and introduce myself as a highly affluent individual having cofounded PayPal and Yammer. Humour will be my main rhetorical strategy, for example “given that I am stinking rich and all my mates Elon and Peter were interested, we decided to take a stab at Hollywood and since we are so rich practically fund the entire film”. This emphasises the ironic corporate nature of the producers, allowing discussion into the ethical
Our group chose to discuss rhetoric and sophistry amongst characters in Thank You for Smoking (Rietman 2006) and to what extent does the film present an ethical argument. Upon analysing Naylor’s, Finistirre’s and Holloway’s speech, it was prudent to first establish the context for the audience’s ease of understanding. As the producer, I discussed the marketing and production aspects of the film, providing the quantitative figures. More importantly, I establish Reitman’s motivations and style in his script which allow us to derive the conclusion that the individual characters are sophists, but the film is rhetorical.
First-time producer David Sacks, and the executive producers all originate from a corporate background, with the likes of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel also involved. This is an interesting point, as one could argue the superficiality of the anti-smoking production backed by executive fund-raising. However, Sacks was the only producer willing to finance Reitman’s script, which consciously attempted to maintain the satiric nature of the novel; other studios require Reitman to rewrite his script to include more anti-smoking references and an uplifting ending, with Naylor repenting his past. It is due to Sacks’ appreciation of the ethical stance the script presents, which support the notion that the individual characters are sophists, but the film is rhetorical. …show more content…
I will be David Sacks during the presentation and introduce myself as a highly affluent individual having cofounded PayPal and Yammer. Humour will be my main rhetorical strategy, for example “given that I am stinking rich and all my mates Elon and Peter were interested, we decided to take a stab at Hollywood and since we are so rich practically fund the entire film”. This emphasises the ironic corporate nature of the producers, allowing discussion into the ethical