Peer Critique: Project #1, Education and Film
Writer’s full name _________________________________________________
Critiquer’s full name _______________________________________________
1.
Critiquer: what are your immediate reactions and thoughts after reading the paper? What,
right off the bat, do you like?
2.
Does the paper have a good title that helps you know what the piece will be about?
Suggestions for the writer?
3.
How would you rate the introductory paragraph for the rhetorical analysis? Does it:
a. Make clear what film is being analyzed? ________
b. Make clear that what follows is an objective analysis of the argument being made in
the film? ________
c. In general prepare and stimulate you to read the rest of the paper? _______
If you answered “no” to any of the above, explain:
4.
Has the writer clearly discussed the film’s key topic or issue? What is that issue?
5.
Has the writer clearly discussed the film’s rhetorical situation or context? Why was the film
made, when was it made, who made it, and what audience is it intended for?
Is there more that you need to know about the circumstances under which the film was
made? Comment:
6.
Has the writer clearly addressed the movie’s rhetorical stance? That is, what is the film’s
“angle” on its subject or issue? What position is it taking? What is it MAINLY saying?
Complete this sentence:
The movie primarily seems to be saying that ________________________________.
If you have trouble completing that sentence, discuss with the writer:
7.
What APPEALS does the movie use to persuade us that its main angle is valid?
a.
Logos
How does the film use REASON to persuade that its thesis is valid? What
specific scenes or details in the movie appeal to logic?
b.
Pathos
How, according to the paper writer, does the film use EMOTION to
persuade us that its angle is valid? What specific emotions are being
appealed to? What specific scenes elicit those feelings in us?
c.
Ethos
How well does the writer discuss the film’s ethos? Does the film have
credibility? Do we have reasons to trust or distrust the filmmaker? Does the
movie get its facts right? Does it handle opposing views fairly, allowing us to
see what “the other side” things or feels?
7.
Organization
a.
b.
Does the rhetorical analysis have a clear beginning, middle, and ending?
Paragraphs are not one of the CHIEF concerns of this assignment, but, if the writer’s
paragraph seem to be unfocused or undeveloped, or lack transitions, comment
below. (Note: a logical way to organize a rhetorical analysis is to provide one good,
well-developed paragraph for each element being analysed. That is, one for the
rhetorical situation, one for rhetorical stance, one for each kind of appeal, and so
on.
8.
Is the rhetorical analysis sufficiently objective? Remember that this assignment doesn’t ask
you to EVALUATE or JUDGE the film you watched, but rather to impartially examine its parts
and how they work. Comment:
9.
As mentioned in class, it is ok if, near the end of these analyses, that the writer offer a brief
evaluation of the film’s effectiveness. Does the writer before you offer any short assessment
of the film’s effectiveness as an argument? Do they maintain their objective tone?
10. Other comments, concerns, or suggestions to improve the essay? Thank you for your help!
2