Assessment Two

1.                  Identify the nature of proof in Frank's monologue, siting evidence he used in Charlie's defense.

Frank’s ethos was based off of the fact that he was a retired military service member. When he addresses the court it is as though he feels like they have no authority and shouldn’t even be talking to Charlie. Frank’s character is manifested through every word he says in his obvious contempt of the court system in which he is taking part of. He builds up Charlie, and in the process tears down the rest of the school along with George. This makes him a person that others wish they could emulate. My favorite part was when the “douche bag” that was mediating the hearing said “Excuse me” and Frank told him “I don’t think I will”. Having the ability and courage that Frank showed was pretty amazing and he let the people know what kind of man he is and further establishes his ethos.

He briefly touches on his pathos and for a second talks about the man he used to be, as if he is less of a man now that he is old and blind. This induces some pity for the man he used to be. At the same time, I don’t think that changed the way that he is viewed. He is a man of integrity and shows it by standing up for Charlie when no one else seemed to care what would happen to him.

Frank does a good job in playing on the logos of what the schools principles are and what standards the school used to hold. He goes on to explain that they are no longer upholding those principles anymore but encouraging dishonest and spineless practices. As Frank explains that they are going to ruin Charlie’s life for nothing and they are producing a bunch of sheep that and a place that he calls “a rat ship…a vessel for sea going snitches”.

2.                  Of the four styles of dramatic or vicarious proof, which did Frank exploit to turn attitudes around about Charlie? How did this style function in terms of reason?

The strongest style of proof that was brought up was Frank’s personal narrative in which he gives background and an example of himself choosing right from wrong and did not make the right choices because they were “too damn hard.” His comparative reasoning helps us to understand that not everyone is perfect but can still be great men. He also uses testimony on behalf of Charlie saying that “he has come to the crossroads and has chosen the right path”. He also testifies that Charlie has integrity and character when he states “he won’t sell anybody out to buy his future” and that is the stuff that leaders should be made of.

3.                  What cultural myths or images were employed to increase the appeal of Frank's argument? How did this influence his attempted shift of opinion?

The presence of conspiracy was very prevalent in this clip from the movie. The whole argument is based off of the fact that the Baird school is corrupt and that the institution has degraded past its usefulness. He then asked them to consider what the worth of his soul was and how it would affect Charlie for the rest of his life. I think that it made the difference in shifting the opinion of the board to actually consider the ramifications of what expelling Charlie would have. I also saw the value of challenge brought up when he asked them to consider that they held the future of Charlie in their hands. This coincided with what he told them about the value of his soul, and that it was at stake. Then to solidify the emotional connection, he informed them that their decision could destroy Charlie’s soul.

4.                  Which of Reich's parables apply or applies to Frank's reasoning?

There is potential for all of Reich’s cultural parables in this example. The one that was used to strike first was the rot at the top. The whole argument starts with the idea that the institute has a fallen moral compass and that the people leading are not fit to do so. He chastises the institution for having a set of standards that are no longer being followed because they are not enforced or seemingly encouraged. You could see the disdain for the person mediating the court proceedings and wanted to teach him a lesson of how to be an actual leader. He then made reference to the types of leaders their corrupt system was sending out into the real world.

5.                  What was Frank's reasoning in terms of logical appeal?

In this video I saw reasoning from a dilemma. The person who is presiding over the hearing expresses the idea of what he thinks the school is and maintains the thought that if you are not going to tell us what happened then you are not part of us. He tries to almost guilt trip Charlie into giving away his integrity for something that he doesn’t believe in. He then gives Charlie a choice that he can either tell him what he wants to hear or be expelled from the school. He forces the dichotomous situation on Charlie as if those are his only two options. He is only trying to get what he wants through means of manipulation in one of the most unethical scenes I have ever witnessed and shows how weak he is in the process.  

6.                  How did Frank's paralinguistic’s impact his expression and the meaning of his words? Please give specific examples – three will do.

1.)    The way that he sits back for the first half of the trial as if he doesn’t think what they are accusing Charlie of carries any weight. Then nonchalantly accuses the whole proceedings to be “bull shit”.

2.)    Another is when he stands and becomes aggressive because he feels like they are not listening to what he is saying. He commands attention from the audience and board members to hear what he is saying by raising his voice and using some profanity to execute a point.

3.)    I think that the inflection in his voice gives away to some aggressive nature that Frank has had, probably from his military service. He lets them know he is a commanding presence in the room and that he WILL be heard. He keeps talking about Charlies “soul” and that they have charge over it in this instance but “it will not be bought”.