TOW #29: Documentary (Jesus Camp)

In 2006, filmmakers Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing released Jesus Camp, a documentary about a summer camp called "Kids on Fire" that encourages Evangelical Christian children to become social, political, and potentially physical warriors of faith. Run by pastor Becky Fischer, "Kids on Fire" trains kids as young as six years old to be part of the "army of God" through purification, education, dedication, and sociopolitical activism. Little information is available online about the filmmakers, but it is evident that Grady is Jewish, that both directors have produced several documentaries on a wide variety of subjects, and that the two have worked together on multiple projects.

Grady and Ewing claim that the documentary "doesn't come with any prepackaged point of view*," but the directors must have known that there would be strong backlash against both the film and the documented religious practices. Public reaction was so negative that Fischer shut down "Kids on Fire" just two months after Jesus Camp's release because of the criticism she received for "brainwashing" children. By using emotional content and including a "voice of reason", Grady and Ewing spoke from a neutral perspective but still managed to convey shock and horror to most audience members.

As a documentary about children and religion, Jesus Camp evokes a wide range of strong emotions. The filmmakers used this to their advantage by using their footage to further appeal to pathos. Although the documentary is about the camp as a whole, it focuses on the lives of three ten-year-old camp attendees to create a stronger personal connection. Once the audience begins to feel sympathy for these children, to filmmakers show them sobbing at camp because they're sinners and God cannot love sinners. These children are shown in intense prayer, sometimes speaking in tongues and falling to the ground. When prompted they exclaim that they would be proud to die for their religious beliefs, implying that "Kids on Fire" is creating dozens of willing martyrs. Showing such heartwrenching scenes allows Grady and Ewing to convey the intensity of the "Jesus Camp" while seemingly staying neutral.

Between segments, Jesus Camp cuts to footage of  Mike Papantonio, a radio host discussing why "Kids on Fire" is dangerous and immoral. Papantonio ostensibly presents a counterargument to the one demonstrated by Becky Fischer and the Jesus Camp community. In reality, the emotional nature of the film has already angered most audience members, and Papantonio is just there to articulate the problems that are upsetting them. Papantonio's purpose culminates with a radio interview with Fischer that directly challenges the ideas of the Evangelical leader. Papantonio, representing rational public opinion, opposes the entire idea of training children for the army of God, thus coloring the tone of the entire documentary. Although Grady and Ewing claim to present an unbiased perspective, Papantonio is the voice of the audience and thus the voice of the documentary as a whole.

*http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/40691698.html

TOW #28: TOW Review

Throughout the year, I believe my TOWs have been greatly increasing in quality and effectiveness.


http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/tow-3-article-fed-too-familiar-with.html

One of the first TOWs I ever wrote, my September 29 TOW about an article titled "Fed Too Familiar With Lost Labor Seeking New Messages for Policy" is a work of brilliance. I dedicate an entire paragraph to my reason for choosing the article and how well I believe the author achieved her purpose. My chosen rhetorical strategy is that the author "appeals to logos." I also use the phrase "I'm not sure if this next tool has a specific literary term," which I'm sure would have earned no less than a 5 on exam day.


http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tow-11-article-catch-cold-go-to-prison.html

By December 1, my writing had significantly improved. To start, I don't dedicate a paragraph to my own reactions and thoughts about "Catch a Cold, Go to Prison: The Recidivism Debate." I identify two strategies (word usage and juxtaposition) and give each of them a well-developed paragraph, quoting the article in each one. However, I still have absolutely no semblance of a conclusion.


http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/tow-21-article-whats-point.html

Come March 9, I had again improved both the quality of my TOWs and the difficulty of my reading selections. I chose to read the article "Give the PAT the Boot" because it was about football and I knew next to nothing about football. I identified a single rhetorical strategy but thoroughly explained how it was used and what effect it had on the article. I then explained how the context of the article on the website also had an effect on the credibility of the article. I had much more of a conclusion than in the two previously mentioned TOWs and believe that this one was the strongest of the three, showing an upward trend in my writing.

TOW #27: Article (Are Car Journalists "Bought?")

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/road-cars/opinions/are-car-journalists-bought/

Goal: Understand and write about a topic I try to avoid.

One of the most pressing issues in the media today is the question of journalistic integrity. This is especially true in the car industry, where most of the reviews are positive and companies pay for writers to attend their conventions. Do car reviewers really mean what they say, or are their eyes clouded by dollar signs? In Andrew Frankel's Motor Sport article "Are Car Journalists 'Bought?'", he uses anecdotes and lists to prove that the best motoring journalists say what they really think about cars.

Frankel, a "senior contributing writer" at Motor Sport magazine, introduces the topic of journalistic integrity using an anecdote about a car convention he recently attended. While at the Tokyo Motorshow, Frankel explained to a friend that Honda paid for his plane ticket and hotel room, to which the friend replied, "In exchange for which you write nice things about their cars?" Frankel was not surprised to hear this question, but it made him think. The author uses this anecdote to introduce a common misconception in a way that makes the misconception understandable. He gives the reader the same evidence that his friend had to show why it is conceivable that many people may believe there's a cozy relationship between car makers and car writers. Once this is set up, he can begin to disprove it.

Frankel lists reasons why there might be more positive car reviews than negative, and why car makers care enough to fly writers out to their conventions if there's no guaranteed profit. First, he says, motor journalists quite simply love cars, and would therefore prefer to write positive reviews because they want to believe cars are good. "Secondly," he writes, "cars are still getting better and at an astonishing rate, which is not something I think you can say about watches, films or, in my experience, even dishwashers." Because of this improvement, there is usually something new and good to be written about a car that could not have been written five years ago. He goes on to list other reason why there seems to be a disproportionate number of positive car reviews. The effect of this list is that the misconception is disproven in several different, unrelated ways, leaving it well and truly dead.