A Rhetorical Analysis of San Francisco 2.0
Alexandra Pelosi is a San Francisco native, and an HBO documentary filmmaker who made the film San Francisco 2.0. San Francisco 2.0 presents the negative impact of the technology industry on the culture of San Francisco and its people through interviews of long-time residents, political figures, and those involved with the technology industry. The film targets young and older people impacted by or faced with eviction due to high living costs and those who value the arts. The film relies heavily on its use of pathos to support its assertions. However, its heavy use of pathos leaves the logical component of the documentary undeveloped as logical fallacies are prominent throughout the film and misrepresents …show more content…
First, Pelosi is a San Francisco native which makes her claims about how the city has changed valid as she is able to compare “San Francisco 2.0” to her own experience growing up in the city. This also makes her claims about San Francisco changing for the worse legitimate as she would understand how the tech invasion interferes with the city’s culture and dynamics. Second, Pelosi is a longtime filmmaker serving as an NBC field producer for 10 years and as an HBO documentary filmmaker producing over 10 documentaries including Journey with George (2000), which follows George W. Bush’s campaign trail and won an Emmy award. The fact one of her films has won an Emmy Award and Pelosi herself has 4 Emmy nominations including the Outstanding Directing and Writing for Nonfiction Programming awards gives merit to her ability and effectiveness as a filmmaker. Additionally, her long history with two major TV networks gives further testament to her ability as a filmmaker because large companies like NBC and HBO would not employ a filmmaker for as long as Pelosi if they weren’t skilled at their job. As a result, San Francisco 2.0 seems reliable because its produced by an accredited filmmaker. Its for these personal and professional factors that makes Pelosi a credible filmmaker and by extension San Francisco 2.0. Pelosi’s use of pathos plays a key role in persuading the …show more content…
The introduction to the film includes scenes of monsters destroying the city, buildings collapsing, people fleeing and shouting in terror are shown as Pelosi states the tech invasion has tarnished San Francisco’s spirit of anti-materialism and freedom. By equating the technology industry to these chaotic scenes Pelosi vilifies them and portrays their presence as destructive. As a result, the viewer is pushed to side with Pelosi and seriously consider what’s being claimed. Next, Salon.com’s cofounder states that San Francisco has the fastest growing inequality in the United states and that if it’s not addressed will drive out artists, writers and musicians he describes as “the people who made this city the attractive magnet that it is.” which will make it a “bland, monotonous, tech oriented city.”. The idea of San Francisco becoming a cultural desert induces fear especially among those who value the arts. This persuades people who value the arts and artists to side with Pelosi’s position as she asserts the arts as culturally significant. The state of San Francisco appears dire which creates a sense of urgency in the viewer and makes them more likely to agree with the film’s assertions. While Pelosi’s pathos is effective in garnering support for her argument she also cherry picks information and her claims
Alexandra Pelosi is a San Francisco native, and an HBO documentary filmmaker who made the film San Francisco 2.0. San Francisco 2.0 presents the negative impact of the technology industry on the culture of San Francisco and its people through interviews of long-time residents, political figures, and those involved with the technology industry. The film targets young and older people impacted by or faced with eviction due to high living costs and those who value the arts. The film relies heavily on its use of pathos to support its assertions. However, its heavy use of pathos leaves the logical component of the documentary undeveloped as logical fallacies are prominent throughout the film and misrepresents …show more content…
First, Pelosi is a San Francisco native which makes her claims about how the city has changed valid as she is able to compare “San Francisco 2.0” to her own experience growing up in the city. This also makes her claims about San Francisco changing for the worse legitimate as she would understand how the tech invasion interferes with the city’s culture and dynamics. Second, Pelosi is a longtime filmmaker serving as an NBC field producer for 10 years and as an HBO documentary filmmaker producing over 10 documentaries including Journey with George (2000), which follows George W. Bush’s campaign trail and won an Emmy award. The fact one of her films has won an Emmy Award and Pelosi herself has 4 Emmy nominations including the Outstanding Directing and Writing for Nonfiction Programming awards gives merit to her ability and effectiveness as a filmmaker. Additionally, her long history with two major TV networks gives further testament to her ability as a filmmaker because large companies like NBC and HBO would not employ a filmmaker for as long as Pelosi if they weren’t skilled at their job. As a result, San Francisco 2.0 seems reliable because its produced by an accredited filmmaker. Its for these personal and professional factors that makes Pelosi a credible filmmaker and by extension San Francisco 2.0. Pelosi’s use of pathos plays a key role in persuading the …show more content…
The introduction to the film includes scenes of monsters destroying the city, buildings collapsing, people fleeing and shouting in terror are shown as Pelosi states the tech invasion has tarnished San Francisco’s spirit of anti-materialism and freedom. By equating the technology industry to these chaotic scenes Pelosi vilifies them and portrays their presence as destructive. As a result, the viewer is pushed to side with Pelosi and seriously consider what’s being claimed. Next, Salon.com’s cofounder states that San Francisco has the fastest growing inequality in the United states and that if it’s not addressed will drive out artists, writers and musicians he describes as “the people who made this city the attractive magnet that it is.” which will make it a “bland, monotonous, tech oriented city.”. The idea of San Francisco becoming a cultural desert induces fear especially among those who value the arts. This persuades people who value the arts and artists to side with Pelosi’s position as she asserts the arts as culturally significant. The state of San Francisco appears dire which creates a sense of urgency in the viewer and makes them more likely to agree with the film’s assertions. While Pelosi’s pathos is effective in garnering support for her argument she also cherry picks information and her claims