For the rhetorical analysis I choose a speech from the movie Good Will Hunting.  The performance is actually an argument rather than a speech but because of the one-sidedness of the discussion I will consider the work a speech.  Ethos is an important part of each characters actions throughout the scene.  I choose to examine this particular portion because it demonstrates a variety of rhetorical strategies, including ethos, that we have spoken about in class and it happens to be from a favorite movie of mine.  The scene focused on happens at a bar near Harvard were the main character, Will, debates with a patron, Clark, about the validity of his statements and whether or not he is truly educated on the subject matter.  Because if the length of the clip and the amount of analysis concerning to it, I only used this one scene.  The link to the video clip can be seen as part of the blog. 

Being a bar, the scene begins with a character named Chuckie trying to pick up a women who is out drinking with her friend.  His initial contact is notable due to the complete lack of persuasive rhetoric in any way.  He certainly tries to use his experience, although it is obvious to the spectators of both the pick-up attempt and the movie itself that he is not succeeding.  He attempts to establish his credibility, which Aristotle would refer to as ethos, by making a poor attempt to convince her that he is a student at Harvard.  His obliviousness to standard knowledge blows his cover and creates an awkward, almost cringe worthy situation, between him and the girl he is trying to woo.  Because of the fact that he has no idea what he is talking about and perhaps the way he is dressed, his argument is not convincing.  This gets the attention of another local patron who appears to be a regular at the bar named Clark. 

Clark can be classified as the type of person who tries to impress who his brain power.  This too can be considered a use of ethos.  A first he seems to completely destroy Chuckie’s integrity by questioning the class that he took at the school, and attempts to embarrass him by relating his education to that of an elementary aged child.  This is not a rhetorical stagy that we discussed in class although I feel that insulting someone has the opportunity of improving ones position in an argument.  By thinking outside the box it may be a use of “anti-ethos” which would be destroying the trustworthiness of the other person.  He continues by rattling off a quote from a book about the state of the economy before the civil war.  At first I believed this was a use of logos, stating facts to support an argument, but upon further consideration its intention was more of an appeal to the emotion, pathos.  The delivery of the quote was rather snide and condescending.  This creates a situation where Clark appears to more intelligent and as a result a better fit for the women at the bar.   

Will soon steps in and completely discredits Clark.  His rant is arranged to inform Clark, and all of the other potential suitors around, that he not who he claims to be.  He starts by explaining what Clark is probably learning in his classes right now and what he will be learning about in the future.  His cool and confident demeanor helps him deliver a resounding retort.  Due to the expression on Clark’s face you have to assume that Will’s statements are correct.  Clark does have a sarcastic come back when he quotes yet another line from the book Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 by Daniel Vickers.  Will’s superior memory is utilized to end the quote before Clark has a chance to and again discredit his ethos by accusing him of plagiarizing.  To finish the outburst Will continues his confident delivery by claiming that his Harvard education was a waste of money and challenges him to a fight.  This effectively ends the argument and the crowd disperses. 

 Other than the obvious use of ethos by each character throughout the scene there were other examples of rhetorical strategies.  If you may have noticed the style, delivery, and arrangement of the dialog were all mentioned.  These are 3 of the 5 cannons of rhetoric brought together through the work of Cicero.  Each one of these were used in an attempt to win over the emotional appeal of the bystanders, pathos, and ultimately win over the girl.  It is clear that Will is the winner of the argument and his use of rhetoric should not be lost on the audience.

The movie itself is a drama which means that it is meant to call to the emotions of the viewers.  This fact makes a rhetorical analysis a bit easier.  The dialog is scripted so the characters can act in a way which exaggerates their reaction to the words being said which can be picked up without observation.  Even so this scene does an effective job at showing specific strategies to arguing.  Now that’s just wicked smart.

The link for the video clip can be found here.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/specialengagements/moviespeechgoodwillhunting.html