How does the "argument as story" work in this particular case? Does the story make sense internally and externally? How does the last line change the impact of the story?
I think the "argument as story" does work in this video, for several reasons. First, as we discussed in class, the delivery and style of a story is important. In this particular video, the lawyer delivers the story in dramatic manner, using appropriate language and voice. Second, the lawyer included some very gruesome, but necessary, details in his story. This was also crucial to making the story as an argument effective. It made the story believable, in my opinion.
I'm not sure what is meant by "internally and externally" but I believe the story in and of itself does make sense. However, to understand the full impact of the lawyer's argument/story, one must be familiar with the entire movie's plot. The purpose of the lawyer's story was to display the inherent racism that plagued the South during this time period.
The last line of the summation speech is very impactful. The lawyer states, "Now imagine she's white." This line suggests that had the victim in the story been black, the white jury would not have cared about the crime. Ultimately, this last line, in conjunction with the full story/argument leads to a not guilty verdict for the defendant, an African-American man who had shot and killed two white men that had raped his young daughter.
The fact that the verdict came back as not guilty shows that the story/argument made by the lawyer was successful.
Matthew McConaughey's closing argument as a story in "A Time to Kill" places emphasis on truth, law, and a story in particular that correlates all of his points. McConaughey's argument points out that as "humans we all seek truth." We have covered this point in class, that for argumentation and debate it is about finding and seeking truth. The law is supposed to seek out the truth and guarantee that we are equal and to be given a fair trial. However, when this film took place, racism was in it's prime, and the law was no longer seeking out the truth due to the human prejudice eyes that decided a verdict. Internally speaking, these few points are all true. Internally, we as humans seek truth and for the law to provide justice and punish those for the injustice that they cause. So all of these points in his arguments, made sense internally as the viewer. Externally, when McConaughey gave this emotional story, the story moved the jury as well as others in the room. This particular story pointed out the injustice of disregarding the truth based on the simple color of the skin in one sentence. This argument worked as a story, because back in this time period there was a push for justice and equality within the law. It is also his last line he delivered to the end of his story and argument combined that in the end worked to prove someone's innocence, and provided an impact that was powerful to prove all of his points.
The argument as story makes sense to use in this particular case because at the beginning of the clip Matthew McConaughey says he is trying to get a fair trial for a black man in the South. Through telling this story and not saying if the girl was black or white is the key component. This is his way of getting a fair trial through the story of the young girl to make a point about the defendant. The point being that the trial should be fair no matter the skin color of the defendant. When his is trying to make the point that every person makes a fair trial the external story of the girl who suffered the tragedy was a good move from a legal state in that the jury thought internally about how they would feel about a little girl. Matthew McConaughey went through the whole story and even showed how emotional he got by the end of the story shows how this was a good story to bring up as a closing argument for a trial. He spoke of the way the girl was treated and how she was hurt and the suffering it caused her and at the end to just say the words, “now imagine she was white” was a good way to make his point of a fair trial. Overall, the argument technique of argument as a story was in my mind the best way to go for McConaughey’s character. He had a point to make and he made it through a story.
I think its pretty obvious in this situation that the argument as story worked in both situations. In the beginning he sets the point of view for everyone regardless of race and origin and didn't mention the fact that the was black or white until the end. In this case the story had to be presented in this way for everyone to understand completely the side on which he is defending. In retrospect it actually is the perfect closing argument, because most defense attorney's are taught to learn to know how to sympathize and relate the case to everyone. That in turn helps everyone empathize will the accused and justify reason. In this particular case race just so happens to be the blinding issue and the lawyers story is completely necessary. The closing line in its self was the icing on the cake and regardless of race or association, no one can really argue with that. He makes the story seem like it could happen to anyone's daughter or sister and essentially eliminates the race issue all together. You could tell by everyones faces and reactions that his argument hits close to home with everyone.
So I would say that i agree that the story makes sense in both facets, externally and internally. And the last line of the argument impacts the story to a degree of success and reason to which everyone can relate.
I am unfamiliar with this movie so it was a little hard to follow whether McConaughey was the defendant or the prosecute, however his "argument as a story" was very effective. McConaughey painted a picture of the series of events to the count house with his vivid story. The "argument as a story" ties with the narrative paradigm that "humans are essentially story tellers, and that we base our opinions on good reason." His story alludes to the prominent race problem in the south.
I am unfamiliar with this movie, so I am not sure how relevant this story is to the court case.However, judging by the racism seen outside of the court house- with people dressed as the KKK, and a black woman spitting in the face of a white man- it seems the case was similar to the story McConaughey described.
The last line of the story was, "Now imagine this girl is white." Judging by the faces of the members of the jury, I believe this statement hit home. The observation I am able to conclude is that this takes place in a primarily racist or "white privileged" area and so the story McConaughey told with the ending of the young girl being white made no one feel safe and drew sympathy and fear from everyone.
In the movie “A Time to Kill” Matthew McConaughey used the method of argument as a story, which persuaded the juries’ racial beliefs to put aside what they felt and make a decision on what was the right thing to do. The main point of the movie was about a young black girl being raped and tortured, and her father killed the white males that hurt his daughter. Society back then was separated by a person’s skin color and therefore a black person killing a white person was frowned upon more than what it did if it was the other way around. That being said after the lawyer tells his story and describes the young black girls situation and at the end he portrays a young white girl, everyone in the court room sets aside what they have been taught to believe in and realize that it didn’t matter on the color but the fact that it happened to a young woman and that people needed to set their racism attitude aside and follow through with a fair legal court system. Internally and externally the story the lawyer describes made sense because he had everyone hooked on him describing the black girl and when he mentioned the white girl everyone jumped to reality and taught about their own children. The last line of the story made the story intense and eye opening because no one saw it coming and everyone knew the reason why Denzel Washington committed the crime he was convicted of.
The argument as story makes sense in this clip because he gets sympathy from the jury and makes an emotional connection. He is pushing for a fair trial in the south since his client is black. In a time where racism is a serious issue, a fair trial would be rare to have for a black man in the south. He does a great job of stating that from the beginning and makes an external connection with the jury. By telling everybody to close their eyes and listen to his story he does a great job of connecting internally with the jurors. He emphasized the gruesome acts of the men that raped the little girl to make a point of how terrible of an act that has been committed. By giving such gruesome details he gains a sympathetic connection with the jury and influences their decision on an emotional level. By not ever mentioning what the race of the little girl is, he leaves no opportunity for the jurors to have a biased opinion on the story. The final line when he says, "Now imagine this girl is white," he hits home with everybody in the courtroom and really emphasizes that even though the little girl is black, the crime is still an awful act. By leaving this detail for last he proves to the jury that race shouldn't be an issue, when it comes to the law. Ultimately he persuades the jury to find his client not-guilty of his charges, so I would say that his story worked exceptionally well.
The argument as story helps to draw an emotional response from the jury by creating a narrative that is inevitably relatable to each individual's sympathy-black or white. This story works well internally, since the case is won. I haven't seen this film, so I wasn't moved toward thinking anyone was innocent or guilty, but the way the story was told does evoke a raw image one cannot turn away from - it calls the jury to act in the name of justice, not prejudice. The last line of the argument changes the impact of the story because the sordid tales of a horrifying rape become more tangible and the jury's sense of urgency spikes. I believe the last line also focuses the argument's persuasive force on the internal audience, isolating the possible external understanding without knowledge of the context it's set in.
Matthew McConaughey's argument in "A Time to Kill" as a story is a great example of the technique. By describing the particularly violent and sympathetic event he created an atmosphere wherein the jury peoples' emotions would overpower their rationality and be compelled to seek justice. Even the language he used helped his cause by using very passive language, like "she was taken to", "she was raped", etc, to describe how powerless and helpless the girl was. Lawyers like Mr. McConaughey's character know that storytelling is a much more successful tactic when trying to persuade a jury. It's just human nature. We all tell stories in all aspects of our lives to receive a certain result.
The last line of his speech is very important. Just look at the faces of all of the people in that courtroom. It's not that a white person would have felt more pain, more humiliation, or more injustice from the same situation, but it made the case more relatable to the all-white jury.
First off, I have seen this movie and I have read john Grisham books before so I understand the motif that this is all set in. In this setting the use of a story allows this argument to hold water. Since I have seen the movie my opinion is very biased however, I feel this is the only way to be able to “win” the debate. The argument as a story is what makes his case. It makes sense and the opening argument is what sets up the story. “What is the truth?” What makes us to want to seek out the truth?” I believe are the lines and the way he starts the argument sets up this story. The story makes sense internally and externally and most people should be able to relate to this due to the fact all of us were either raised here in Texas or have lived here in college and understand prejudice. That’s is why to me that it makes sense, we are of similar backgrounds of that of the jury. The last line is the crucial line however in the entire argument without that line there is no all around moral to his argument. All of these facts had already been presented to the jury but the story and the line at the end is how he is able to “win” the debate and sway their opinions due to the fact most of them have children of their own, white or black. The emotion in the speech allows for this to actually hold water to all races and backgrounds
The argument is affective because the jury got to almost feel the pain of the little girl before knowing what race she was. The text in which he uses helps get a strong visual of how awful this situation would have been thus persuading the jury in his favor. We get a strong internal feeling of sympathy towards the girl and also externally. Externally we can almost feel the pain like it is someone we know and this can persuade the jury. The closing line tops off his argument and lets the jury understand the morality of the situation not based on race. Thats how its done McConaughey did it again
I haven't seen this movie entirely and the argument in this story expressed by Matthew Mcconaughey's character paints the vivid picture of what happened to this little girl. Internally and externally he paints this picture of this vicious act that has happened to this girl and gets the jury to close their eyes to make them picture this girl in her innocence. He explains all the innocence that has been taken from this girl from her outsides to her insides, all races in the jury imagine this as happening to their own or someone they may know. He expresses his fault at the beginning for not being the "best" lawyer but gets on the level that all people can relate to, emotion, and thats what wins him the case. His last line is what wraps up his emotional spiel to relate to all, he hit the jury with the close to home approach and asked, what if she were white? Now he says white because during this trial racism was much more prevalent so he had to sell it to the white jury to help them relate to the black man being tried. In the more general look Matthew's character was simply asking the question what if this was your little girl?
This scene reminds me that Matthew McConaughey should only play lawyers. His character's use of argument as a story is clearly very effective in this scene. The vivid picture he paints tells a story of what can only be described as a hateful act of violence and racism. It works internally because he has everyone in the courtroom close their eyes and visualize this terrible act. He has the entire court room on the edge of their seats. Externally it works as well because as a viewer we want to hear whats coming next. Its also a very good way to drive home the defense for his client. Early in the scene he talks about the racial aspect of the trial. He says that some people can't get past color. The last line of his defense is an attempt to break down that barrier. He had just told this awful depiction of rape and murder, and he closed it up by trying to hit home with the white jury, judge, prosecutor, and court room observers. His approach worked because he proved it wasn't about whether the girl was black or white.
Question #1: The story used was to act as a catalyst to the audience's emotions. In a situation of prejudice and racist views, the speaker had to trick the audience into contradicting their own minds and beliefs in order to see the core of the argument. The argument was over true innocence while the audience was concentrated on a bias assumption through the color of the defendants skin. The speaker had already proved likely innocence of the defendant, however, the audience's prejudice still existed. With his, McConaughey had to change direction and focus on the audience's general beliefs and not the direct focus of the argument.
Question #2: The story makes sense both internally and externally. The speaker knew the opinions of the audience which reflected the external situation. With this, he used his story to change the audience's emotions which made a difference externally.
Question #3: The audience did not view the defendant, moreover the race of the defendant, as being equal to them. The last line gave contrast to the situation by letting the audience catch themselves in their own beliefs. The speaker uses a child in the example because he knows that a child is a controlled variable that produces the same emotion within spectators without regards to skin color. The last line emphasized this and brought it to surface.
In this case using the argument as story was very effective. The standard argument for the case was not going well because of the prejudice that was clear in the courtroom. Using the argument as story tapped into the pathos of the jury. While not always the best way to argue using pathos style arguments can be very effective because most people are tied very strongly to their emotions.
The story does make sense internally and externally. The set up and sequence of events make sense as does the demographics of those involved. The story is consistent and give's the jury an insight into the man on trial. The jury now has an idea behind the man's motivation and can sympathize with him because it was extremely apparent that unless they could sympathize they were going to find hi guilty -most likely- because of his skin color and not based solely on the facts.
The last line of the argument changes the impact of the story by not changing the story at all. The people were touched by the story regardless of the little girls skin color and that is what made the biggest impact. With that last line the jury realized that it did not if the little girl was white or black because either way she was still just a little girl - she was still a victim. Opening the jury's eyes and showing them that it is not about race but about injustice made that last line extremely powerful.
Argument as a story does work in this case. His focus on pathos rather than logos creates an emotional tie between each juror and the victim, at least I assume that’s who McConaughey is talking about. I have never seen the movie. In any case, his use of pathos is incredibly useful. Since I haven’t seen the movie, I can say his approach is understandable both internally and externally. The last line of the argument is incredibly powerful, and I think, makes the case. In this instance, he relies on emotion, something I don’t think can carry a case completely, but has some merit.
After watching Mathew McConaughey's closing argument in the film “A Time to Kill” I think it is safe to say that his “argument as a story” approach worked. One reason this approach was appropriate is because of the setting the lawyer was in, a court room. In court a jury decides the verdict and the jury is made up of everyday people with feelings. By telling this story in the detailed fashion he did the lawyer appealed to the emotions of the jury in a way that he may not have been able to do if he had presented his information in bland facts and statistics. By capturing the audience’s internal emotions he had them right where he wanted them. He knew that they felt awful about what happened to the little girl but he also knew that many members of the jury were most likely racist and wouldn’t allow for their emotions to sway their decision. That is why he closed his argument by stating “now imagine she’s white”. He opened up the juries eyes to how horrible of a crime this was by not specifying the child’s race until the end of the story. He allowed the jury to judge this act by their true values and eliminated racism from their thought process. They judged the crime from an external view while casting their internal emotions aside. If the lawyer hadn’t arranged the story like he did it wouldn’t have been as effective and he may have not gotten through to the racist jury.
In the beginning, he emphasizes on two things that are very important - truth and sincerity. Question, “what is the truth?” is repeated many times, to highlight its importance. Truth is subjective and we are biased. In his story he used visualization and he tries the jury to feel what he is talking about and to emphasize with the victim in this story. In the end of his story he tries them to make change. He assumes that the jury is biased (and maybe a little racist). Therefore he tries to connect the story with something that can touch their hearts and change their thinking. He made the story more personal for them. The story makes sense and I consider it as a very good persuasion method. I consider him as a good public speaker, because he uses lots of rhetorical devices and dramatic devices such as visualization, repetition, rhetorical questions, etc. These elements make his storytelling more appealing and persuasive.
I think the "argument as story" does work in this video, for several reasons. First, as we discussed in class, the delivery and style of a story is important. In this particular video, the lawyer delivers the story in dramatic manner, using appropriate language and voice. Second, the lawyer included some very gruesome, but necessary, details in his story. This was also crucial to making the story as an argument effective. It made the story believable, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what is meant by "internally and externally" but I believe the story in and of itself does make sense. However, to understand the full impact of the lawyer's argument/story, one must be familiar with the entire movie's plot. The purpose of the lawyer's story was to display the inherent racism that plagued the South during this time period.
The last line of the summation speech is very impactful. The lawyer states, "Now imagine she's white." This line suggests that had the victim in the story been black, the white jury would not have cared about the crime. Ultimately, this last line, in conjunction with the full story/argument leads to a not guilty verdict for the defendant, an African-American man who had shot and killed two white men that had raped his young daughter.
The fact that the verdict came back as not guilty shows that the story/argument made by the lawyer was successful.
Matthew McConaughey's closing argument as a story in "A Time to Kill" places emphasis on truth, law, and a story in particular that correlates all of his points.
ReplyDeleteMcConaughey's argument points out that as "humans we all seek truth." We have covered this point in class, that for argumentation and debate it is about finding and seeking truth. The law is supposed to seek out the truth and guarantee that we are equal and to be given a fair trial. However, when this film took place, racism was in it's prime, and the law was no longer seeking out the truth due to the human prejudice eyes that decided a verdict. Internally speaking, these few points are all true. Internally, we as humans seek truth and for the law to provide justice and punish those for the injustice that they cause. So all of these points in his arguments, made sense internally as the viewer.
Externally, when McConaughey gave this emotional story, the story moved the jury as well as others in the room. This particular story pointed out the injustice of disregarding the truth based on the simple color of the skin in one sentence. This argument worked as a story, because back in this time period there was a push for justice and equality within the law. It is also his last line he delivered to the end of his story and argument combined that in the end worked to prove someone's innocence, and provided an impact that was powerful to prove all of his points.
The argument as story makes sense to use in this particular case because at the beginning of the clip Matthew McConaughey says he is trying to get a fair trial for a black man in the South. Through telling this story and not saying if the girl was black or white is the key component. This is his way of getting a fair trial through the story of the young girl to make a point about the defendant. The point being that the trial should be fair no matter the skin color of the defendant. When his is trying to make the point that every person makes a fair trial the external story of the girl who suffered the tragedy was a good move from a legal state in that the jury thought internally about how they would feel about a little girl. Matthew McConaughey went through the whole story and even showed how emotional he got by the end of the story shows how this was a good story to bring up as a closing argument for a trial. He spoke of the way the girl was treated and how she was hurt and the suffering it caused her and at the end to just say the words, “now imagine she was white” was a good way to make his point of a fair trial. Overall, the argument technique of argument as a story was in my mind the best way to go for McConaughey’s character. He had a point to make and he made it through a story.
ReplyDeleteI think its pretty obvious in this situation that the argument as story worked in both situations. In the beginning he sets the point of view for everyone regardless of race and origin and didn't mention the fact that the was black or white until the end. In this case the story had to be presented in this way for everyone to understand completely the side on which he is defending. In retrospect it actually is the perfect closing argument, because most defense attorney's are taught to learn to know how to sympathize and relate the case to everyone. That in turn helps everyone empathize will the accused and justify reason. In this particular case race just so happens to be the blinding issue and the lawyers story is completely necessary. The closing line in its self was the icing on the cake and regardless of race or association, no one can really argue with that. He makes the story seem like it could happen to anyone's daughter or sister and essentially eliminates the race issue all together. You could tell by everyones faces and reactions that his argument hits close to home with everyone.
ReplyDeleteSo I would say that i agree that the story makes sense in both facets, externally and internally. And the last line of the argument impacts the story to a degree of success and reason to which everyone can relate.
I am unfamiliar with this movie so it was a little hard to follow whether McConaughey was the defendant or the prosecute, however his "argument as a story" was very effective. McConaughey painted a picture of the series of events to the count house with his vivid story. The "argument as a story" ties with the narrative paradigm that "humans are essentially story tellers, and that we base our opinions on good reason." His story alludes to the prominent race problem in the south.
DeleteI am unfamiliar with this movie, so I am not sure how relevant this story is to the court case.However, judging by the racism seen outside of the court house- with people dressed as the KKK, and a black woman spitting in the face of a white man- it seems the case was similar to the story McConaughey described.
The last line of the story was, "Now imagine this girl is white." Judging by the faces of the members of the jury, I believe this statement hit home. The observation I am able to conclude is that this takes place in a primarily racist or "white privileged" area and so the story McConaughey told with the ending of the young girl being white made no one feel safe and drew sympathy and fear from everyone.
In the movie “A Time to Kill” Matthew McConaughey used the method of argument as a story, which persuaded the juries’ racial beliefs to put aside what they felt and make a decision on what was the right thing to do. The main point of the movie was about a young black girl being raped and tortured, and her father killed the white males that hurt his daughter. Society back then was separated by a person’s skin color and therefore a black person killing a white person was frowned upon more than what it did if it was the other way around. That being said after the lawyer tells his story and describes the young black girls situation and at the end he portrays a young white girl, everyone in the court room sets aside what they have been taught to believe in and realize that it didn’t matter on the color but the fact that it happened to a young woman and that people needed to set their racism attitude aside and follow through with a fair legal court system. Internally and externally the story the lawyer describes made sense because he had everyone hooked on him describing the black girl and when he mentioned the white girl everyone jumped to reality and taught about their own children. The last line of the story made the story intense and eye opening because no one saw it coming and everyone knew the reason why Denzel Washington committed the crime he was convicted of.
ReplyDeleteThe argument as story makes sense in this clip because he gets sympathy from the jury and makes an emotional connection. He is pushing for a fair trial in the south since his client is black. In a time where racism is a serious issue, a fair trial would be rare to have for a black man in the south. He does a great job of stating that from the beginning and makes an external connection with the jury. By telling everybody to close their eyes and listen to his story he does a great job of connecting internally with the jurors. He emphasized the gruesome acts of the men that raped the little girl to make a point of how terrible of an act that has been committed. By giving such gruesome details he gains a sympathetic connection with the jury and influences their decision on an emotional level. By not ever mentioning what the race of the little girl is, he leaves no opportunity for the jurors to have a biased opinion on the story. The final line when he says, "Now imagine this girl is white," he hits home with everybody in the courtroom and really emphasizes that even though the little girl is black, the crime is still an awful act. By leaving this detail for last he proves to the jury that race shouldn't be an issue, when it comes to the law. Ultimately he persuades the jury to find his client not-guilty of his charges, so I would say that his story worked exceptionally well.
ReplyDeleteThe argument as story helps to draw an emotional response from the jury by creating a narrative that is inevitably relatable to each individual's sympathy-black or white. This story works well internally, since the case is won. I haven't seen this film, so I wasn't moved toward thinking anyone was innocent or guilty, but the way the story was told does evoke a raw image one cannot turn away from - it calls the jury to act in the name of justice, not prejudice. The last line of the argument changes the impact of the story because the sordid tales of a horrifying rape become more tangible and the jury's sense of urgency spikes. I believe the last line also focuses the argument's persuasive force on the internal audience, isolating the possible external understanding without knowledge of the context it's set in.
ReplyDeleteMatthew McConaughey's argument in "A Time to Kill" as a story is a great example of the technique. By describing the particularly violent and sympathetic event he created an atmosphere wherein the jury peoples' emotions would overpower their rationality and be compelled to seek justice. Even the language he used helped his cause by using very passive language, like "she was taken to", "she was raped", etc, to describe how powerless and helpless the girl was. Lawyers like Mr. McConaughey's character know that storytelling is a much more successful tactic when trying to persuade a jury. It's just human nature. We all tell stories in all aspects of our lives to receive a certain result.
ReplyDeleteThe last line of his speech is very important. Just look at the faces of all of the people in that courtroom. It's not that a white person would have felt more pain, more humiliation, or more injustice from the same situation, but it made the case more relatable to the all-white jury.
First off, I have seen this movie and I have read john Grisham books before so I understand the motif that this is all set in. In this setting the use of a story allows this argument to hold water. Since I have seen the movie my opinion is very biased however, I feel this is the only way to be able to “win” the debate. The argument as a story is what makes his case. It makes sense and the opening argument is what sets up the story. “What is the truth?” What makes us to want to seek out the truth?” I believe are the lines and the way he starts the argument sets up this story. The story makes sense internally and externally and most people should be able to relate to this due to the fact all of us were either raised here in Texas or have lived here in college and understand prejudice. That’s is why to me that it makes sense, we are of similar backgrounds of that of the jury.
ReplyDeleteThe last line is the crucial line however in the entire argument without that line there is no all around moral to his argument. All of these facts had already been presented to the jury but the story and the line at the end is how he is able to “win” the debate and sway their opinions due to the fact most of them have children of their own, white or black. The emotion in the speech allows for this to actually hold water to all races and backgrounds
The argument is affective because the jury got to almost feel the pain of the little girl before knowing what race she was. The text in which he uses helps get a strong visual of how awful this situation would have been thus persuading the jury in his favor. We get a strong internal feeling of sympathy towards the girl and also externally. Externally we can almost feel the pain like it is someone we know and this can persuade the jury. The closing line tops off his argument and lets the jury understand the morality of the situation not based on race. Thats how its done McConaughey did it again
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen this movie entirely and the argument in this story expressed by Matthew Mcconaughey's character paints the vivid picture of what happened to this little girl. Internally and externally he paints this picture of this vicious act that has happened to this girl and gets the jury to close their eyes to make them picture this girl in her innocence. He explains all the innocence that has been taken from this girl from her outsides to her insides, all races in the jury imagine this as happening to their own or someone they may know. He expresses his fault at the beginning for not being the "best" lawyer but gets on the level that all people can relate to, emotion, and thats what wins him the case. His last line is what wraps up his emotional spiel to relate to all, he hit the jury with the close to home approach and asked, what if she were white? Now he says white because during this trial racism was much more prevalent so he had to sell it to the white jury to help them relate to the black man being tried. In the more general look Matthew's character was simply asking the question what if this was your little girl?
ReplyDeleteThis scene reminds me that Matthew McConaughey should only play lawyers. His character's use of argument as a story is clearly very effective in this scene. The vivid picture he paints tells a story of what can only be described as a hateful act of violence and racism. It works internally because he has everyone in the courtroom close their eyes and visualize this terrible act. He has the entire court room on the edge of their seats. Externally it works as well because as a viewer we want to hear whats coming next. Its also a very good way to drive home the defense for his client. Early in the scene he talks about the racial aspect of the trial. He says that some people can't get past color. The last line of his defense is an attempt to break down that barrier. He had just told this awful depiction of rape and murder, and he closed it up by trying to hit home with the white jury, judge, prosecutor, and court room observers. His approach worked because he proved it wasn't about whether the girl was black or white.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1: The story used was to act as a catalyst to the audience's emotions. In a situation of prejudice and racist views, the speaker had to trick the audience into contradicting their own minds and beliefs in order to see the core of the argument. The argument was over true innocence while the audience was concentrated on a bias assumption through the color of the defendants skin. The speaker had already proved likely innocence of the defendant, however, the audience's prejudice still existed. With his, McConaughey had to change direction and focus on the audience's general beliefs and not the direct focus of the argument.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2: The story makes sense both internally and externally. The speaker knew the opinions of the audience which reflected the external situation. With this, he used his story to change the audience's emotions which made a difference externally.
Question #3: The audience did not view the defendant, moreover the race of the defendant, as being equal to them. The last line gave contrast to the situation by letting the audience catch themselves in their own beliefs. The speaker uses a child in the example because he knows that a child is a controlled variable that produces the same emotion within spectators without regards to skin color. The last line emphasized this and brought it to surface.
In this case using the argument as story was very effective. The standard argument for the case was not going well because of the prejudice that was clear in the courtroom. Using the argument as story tapped into the pathos of the jury. While not always the best way to argue using pathos style arguments can be very effective because most people are tied very strongly to their emotions.
ReplyDeleteThe story does make sense internally and externally. The set up and sequence of events make sense as does the demographics of those involved. The story is consistent and give's the jury an insight into the man on trial. The jury now has an idea behind the man's motivation and can sympathize with him because it was extremely apparent that unless they could sympathize they were going to find hi guilty -most likely- because of his skin color and not based solely on the facts.
The last line of the argument changes the impact of the story by not changing the story at all. The people were touched by the story regardless of the little girls skin color and that is what made the biggest impact. With that last line the jury realized that it did not if the little girl was white or black because either way she was still just a little girl - she was still a victim. Opening the jury's eyes and showing them that it is not about race but about injustice made that last line extremely powerful.
Argument as a story does work in this case. His focus on pathos rather than logos creates an emotional tie between each juror and the victim, at least I assume that’s who McConaughey is talking about. I have never seen the movie. In any case, his use of pathos is incredibly useful. Since I haven’t seen the movie, I can say his approach is understandable both internally and externally. The last line of the argument is incredibly powerful, and I think, makes the case. In this instance, he relies on emotion, something I don’t think can carry a case completely, but has some merit.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Mathew McConaughey's closing argument in the film “A Time to Kill” I think it is safe to say that his “argument as a story” approach worked. One reason this approach was appropriate is because of the setting the lawyer was in, a court room. In court a jury decides the verdict and the jury is made up of everyday people with feelings. By telling this story in the detailed fashion he did the lawyer appealed to the emotions of the jury in a way that he may not have been able to do if he had presented his information in bland facts and statistics. By capturing the audience’s internal emotions he had them right where he wanted them. He knew that they felt awful about what happened to the little girl but he also knew that many members of the jury were most likely racist and wouldn’t allow for their emotions to sway their decision. That is why he closed his argument by stating “now imagine she’s white”. He opened up the juries eyes to how horrible of a crime this was by not specifying the child’s race until the end of the story. He allowed the jury to judge this act by their true values and eliminated racism from their thought process. They judged the crime from an external view while casting their internal emotions aside. If the lawyer hadn’t arranged the story like he did it wouldn’t have been as effective and he may have not gotten through to the racist jury.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, he emphasizes on two things that are very important - truth and sincerity.
ReplyDeleteQuestion, “what is the truth?” is repeated many times, to highlight its importance. Truth is subjective and we are biased.
In his story he used visualization and he tries the jury to feel what he is talking about and to emphasize with the victim in this story. In the end of his story he tries them to make change. He assumes that the jury is biased (and maybe a little racist). Therefore he tries to connect the story with something that can touch their hearts and change their thinking. He made the story more personal for them. The story makes sense and I consider it as a very good persuasion method.
I consider him as a good public speaker, because he uses lots of rhetorical devices and dramatic devices such as visualization, repetition, rhetorical questions, etc. These elements make his storytelling more appealing and persuasive.