Rhetorical Analysis of Hungry For Change

 Apples and Bananas: A Rhetorical Analysis on Hungry For Change

            Food is everywhere and a part of everyone’s daily lives. People eat every day, healthy or processed foods, this all depended on people’s knowledge of diets. The directors, James Colquhoun and Laurentine Ten Bosch, were originally nutritionist but turned to filmmaking, and became inspired to make Food Matters and Hungry for Change. The films gave off messages of you are what you eat, and breaking the mold from modern diets and industrialized foods.

            Hungry for change uses this concept and takes it a step further. They had a goal to spread ideas of how diet and food industries have corrupted our food and bodies. They wanted for people to break free from these modern dietary habits, starting from Colquhoun’s dad, and to have a natural detoxifying diet that puts you at the roots of healthiness. They did so by the rhetorical usage of logos (logic); stats of unhealthiness, ethos (expertise); using experts’ thoughts and personal experiences, and pathos (emotion); making you feel disgusted to try and persuade towards a natural diet. Through the use of these the directors are trying to persuade people who currently are unhealthy or on a ‘bad diet’.

Ethos: Health and Nutrition Experts

            Everyone that had said something in the documentary were either nutrition or health experts, have doctorates, had personal experiences, or were well-known establishments. No one would question what a person with a doctorate or master would talk about. The directors made it clear to everyone what the speakers’ merits were by showing who they were while they were talking at the beginning and mid-end of the film. When Doctor Mercola talked about how food industries put toxins in foods to make them more appealing. They gave his stats as being an osteopathic physician. People are most likely to believe him than a guy on the street saying to a person eating pizza that that pizza was engineered for you to eat. Also, when Doctor Northrup said that sugar is worse that cocaine; if there wasn’t a ‘doctor’ in front of her name viewers might have chuckled a little bit. The directors didn’t want you to forget their authority of nutrition so that why they showed their merits towards the end also.

            Believability of how food can affect and change people was also achieved by using personal experience. Kris Carr, who was diagnosed with stage four cancer because of her unhealthy lifestyle and when Jon Gabriel says that the atkins diet didn’t worked for him, so he stayed fat until he started juicing. Reality is a real enforcer when trying to convince people to live healthier. Instead of just using facts, real experience makes it palpable. The stories were put there to make it like if Carr can change her situation around, getting rid of cancer and only eating fresh produce, then people will start to think that they will be able to do it to.

Logos: The Statistics of dieting and the food industry

            One of James Colquhoun and Laurentine Ten Bosch’s reasons for making this was to shed some truth about what actually goes into your mouth. They did this by the use of logos, factual information. They often used facts for the base of their discussions.

            There were moments in the documentary that when they would put up quotes on the screen that showed facts about dieting and food. One quote was “The average American consumes more than 150 pounds of sugar and sweeteners each year” (US Department of Agriculture) or “68% of US adults are overweight or obese” (Journal of the American Medical Association). These were meant to be eye openers to the public in saying that look at all these things people are eating and how most of it are made up of toxins and trans-fats.

            The documentary used pictures and graphs to grab attention. Daniel Vitalis goes in on to talk about hunters and gatherers and modern society. That the hunters and gatherers diets had high protein and modern society has low protein and high calorie intake. His stats were turned into a visual representation and show how big of a gap there is. When there is a graph that shows how unhealthy people are, there will be more of a reaction and action. Some scenes in the film show processed foods like diet cola and how many calories there were in each item. They made these facts frightening so people would face the truth; speakers said that most people ignore the facts.

Pathos: emotions of people

In order for someone to change health wise peoples’ emotions and sub-conscious have to be in favor of it. A way the directors manipulated peoples’ emotions was with their control of pathos. They tried to get the audience to sway to their side of eating healthy by making them disgusted and sympathize for what people have gone through, and make them realize that this could be them if they don’t change.

            A powerful emotion that gets people to get their life turned around is through disgust and fear. The way the people talked about processed food in the film would make anyone disgusted about themselves and the food they eat. As when Wolfe says propylene glycol, which is in blueberry muffins and baked products, are used to clean out peoples’ colons. Toxins like this one and high fructose corn syrup is what goes in everyday products and it enters the body which can cause problem such as diabetes and cancer. Also, when Dr. Northrup says when people buy a child cereal it’s like you’re injecting heroin into them. This would statement comparing sugar and drugs; it would get people to start thinking that sugar after all is a drug because a helpless child was involved. There was an underlying message of if people don’t eat detoxifying foods and keep putting toxins into the body—the body will never become healthy. 

            When Frank goes on talking about the overweight problems he had in his past he began to cry. He said he had depression and some thoughts of suicide. This was to put things in perspective for the people out there that had weight problem so they could relate to his problem and sympathize for him. This would gain those people that had weight problems trust in ways of how to get healthy, juicing.

Conclusion: Juicing is a Solution!

            The documentary, Hungry for Change, enacted great detail into the toxic molecules that go into the body and what dangers come with it. James Colquhoun and Laurentine Ten Bosch definitely got their message across. They interviewed people with credibility in nutrition that talked about the hard truths of what the food industry has done to our foods and diet. Showing that all industries want is more money and obese people actually want and try to get healthy but food industries keep them away from their goal. Like most health films they are effective because of the horrifying facts they use (logos), showing that people actually get through unhealthiness (ethos), and relatable emotions that makes people think if they can do it I can do it too using their methods (pathos).  

Food: The Root of all health hazards (Review on Change for Hunger)

Food: Good or Bad?

            Food is a part of everyone’s daily life. We all have to eat every day whether it is healthy food or food that is terrible for our bodies. This is where the movie Hungry for Change comes in. The directors, James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch, beautifully describe how dieting and the food industry are deceptive; a complete health and wellness documentary. They unfold the deep secrets of food in modern day. This movie tears apart to what we know about nutrition and pounded it into your brain, with this came repetitiveness.

            Hungry for Change, is about the corruption of the food itself within the food world. Speakers of the documentary implored that food choices you make are not by choice but by addiction, factors for obesity and diabetes. Companies nowadays put chemicals into their food that make people want to crave their products more. Medical experts stated, chemicals like sweetener, MSG, and corn syrups lead to addiction of foods. The food industry covers up how unhealthy their products are. Such as when a box of cereal says fat free. True, but sugar turns into fat when entered into your body. Experts would advocate that you should eat local foods (juicing), foods with high nutrition, and in return you will become more healthy.

            What is great about this film is that it brings out the ugly side of dieting and food marketing. They explore the facts that dieting does not bring healthiness and how chemicals like sugar are a drug. According to Northrup, “We need to realize that sugar is a drug just like heroin.” Both ‘drugs’ are addictive and bad for your health. The way the speakers talked about what is really in food and the reality of dieting, left me disgusted. I felt like I just wanted to stay away from unnatural sugars (impossible), and juice vegetables. The directors sent out a very strong message about healthy eating and wellness, but often repeated the same ideas, spanning sometimes half an hour. This can leave you being bored if you don’t care about your health.

            This movie is at the top of the health and wellness genre. They imbed you with terrifying facts about food, then leading to be happy and healthy. If you want your eating habits to change I suggest you watch it.

The truth about “Saving Private Ryan: It’s hell”

“Saving Private Ryan” is not just another war movie; it showed the true horrors of war and all the things soldiers had to deal with during WW2, as to be similarly expressed by Hunter. This movie goes along the lines of a war epic. Stephen Hunter believes that the movie “could be called the last example of that vanishing category, the unit tribute film (1998).” I believe that this film could be a tribute film to WW2 veteran, but it won’t be the last. There always could be another WW2 movie that is just as great and still show gratitude to what the veterans had gone through. None the less the movie gave an in depth persona to how it felt like to be in WW2.

As Hunter talks about the battle on Normandy he says, “Spielberg’s ability to capture the palpable madness of all this borders on the incredible (1998).” He describes the vividness of soldiers being blown up, body parts flying around, and bullets flying everywhere. I cannot agree with Hunter any better. On Omaha beach the allied forces were just being outgunned by machine guns surrounding the entire beach. The immense size and horror of this battle and other battles gave way for what people would do for their country. Hunter and I both agree that soldiers must be willing to die and kill for your country (1998).

            Hunter says “It’s mean, terrifying, exhausting and quip less. There’s no spunk and very little humor. Morale is nonexistent (1998).” I also agree with Hunter in that Saving Private Ryan shows aspects of true war. War is not supposed to be fun, when you see people die next to you it creates doubt. To be in war is like hell. Look at Miller, throughout all the battle almost all of his squad and friends had been killed, what treacherous thoughts might have gone through his head. The darkness of war overpowers any kind of good feelings or atmospheres.

            Miller’s squad ventures on quest to go find Ryan. “Spielberg expertly configured battle scenes- while at the same time keeping precise track of the overall story situation (Hunter, 1998).” I agree in that the plot never lost track, but I don’t see how it’s any different from other wartime movies. They had an objective and they did it, the same with “Platoon” or “Hamburger Hill”. The wars are what give the raw emotions to the plot. It’s not that the movie’s plot is any better; it’s that the gruesome battles allowed the characters to show more suffering and torture.

            The movie’s subject, which is not heroism, is duty (Hunter, 1998). On one hand that’s true, but on the other it could be both. The squad did what they were told no matter the consequences, but also took a lot of kahunas to do what Miller had done, not being a coward. In the end Hunter shows how realistic and terrifying the movie is, but can be overly opinionated about some ideas.    



Reference Page

Hunter, Stephen. July 24, 1998. Spielberg’s War: It’s Hell. The Washington Post: National. Retrieved September 3, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/savingprivateryanhunter.htm