By: Mike Pistone
By: Mike Pistone
Perhaps the most common exposure people have to rhetoric is in the movies and TV shows they watch. This is the area in which most people will be able to relate to Aristotle and his ideas. As a result I choose to apply Rhetoric to the movie A Time To Kill.
A Time To Kill is a legal drama that was released in the summer of 1996. It stars Sandra Bullock, Matthew McConaughey, and Samuel L. Jackson.
The story revolves around the legal troubles of
Carl Lee (played by Jackson), a Mississippi factory worker, when his ten-year-old
daughter is brutally assaulted by two drunken racists.
The trial of Carl Lee Hailey sparks conflicting emotions from
Mississippians of all backgrounds-- white and black, poor and
rich, Klan members, civil rights activists.
As Jake (McConaughey) tries to defend Carl Lee, his life and the safety of his family becomes jeopardized. He also questions his ability to face off against the seasoned prosecutor, played by Kevin Spacey, in such a difficult case.
The real drama, and the pristine example of Rhetoric, comes in Jake's summation to the Jury. In this summation, Jake uses all three means of rhetorical persuasion: logical (logos), ethical (ethos), and emotional (pathos). If you have not seen the movie, or need to refresh your memory, the complete text of Jake's summation can be found here.
Jake starts right off with the logical aspect of rhetoric. He asks the
jury if anybody in the right mind would have knowingly put a convicted
felon on the stand to testify for the defense. He then goes on to
give the details of Dr. Bass's conviction. This is an example of an
enthymeme of contrasting opposites (#14). Jake saying that Dr. Bass is a creditable person. Jake is also saying that the Doctor's testimony helped the defense.
He then hopes that they will come to the conclusion that this creditable
witness helped the defense.
The ethical portion of Jake's summation starts right off the bat. He
attempts to create a "Virtuous Character" in himself when he downplayed
his experience and age. If he had tried to present himself as a much
older, more experienced lawyer, the jury would have probably seen right
through it and he would have lost his creditability. Instead he gained their trust
by immediatley saying "I'm here to apologize. I am young, and I am inexperienced. But
you can not hold Carl Lee Hailey responsible for my short comings." This self disclosure
also served a dual-purpose by creating a sense of goodwill with the jury and made them more receptive to what he had to say.
When you really look at it, Jake's entire summation is means of emotional proof. What he is saying is that sure, Carl Lee did commit murder, that is not really being disputed. What is being disputed is the question of Indignation vs. Pity. Was it really fair that those two men got away with such a terrible crime? Who in the jury would have NOT done the same thing if it was their daughter? Jake manages to pull the jury into the story of what happened to where they get so involved and can see such a clear descriptive picture in their minds of what happened. At this point they begin to feel exactly the same way that Carl Lee felt and they realize that those two men got exactly what they deserved.
To learn more about how Jake's self-disclosure helped his relationship with the Jury I recommend that you look at a Social Penetration site done by classmates of mine.
