Safety Not Guaranteed - Movie Review Example

chengxiang zhang 108 Michael Bluhm 09/24 Rhetorical Analysis of the film ‘Safety Not Guaranteed’ The film entitled ‘Safety Not guaranteed’ was produced by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow in 2012. The story of the film revolved around an ad who asked to accompany him (the one who posted the ad) or her to do time travel. From there, the film took unusual trip and turns that is not only amusing but entertaining as well. Its efficacy in entertaining its audience despite a seemingly unfeasible story line of time travel became engaging with the audience with the effective use of pathos or emotional appeal. The ad which served as the jumping point of the film’s story was placed by a clerk named Kenneth Calloway (Mark Duplass). The ad that caught everybody’s attention read “Wanted: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 91 Ocean View, WA 99393. Youll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before” (Trevorrow, 2012). Curiously, a young intern name Jeff Schewensen (Jake Johnson) who works at a magazine based in Seattle embarked on an investigative mission to find the author of the strange posting. He assembled the oddest team with her friends Kenneth (Mark Duplass), Arnau, and Darius. Darius found out that the source of the ad came from Kenneth Calloway and so she made contact with Kenneth and from there, the story took unusual turn that made it interesting. It has to be noted that The idea of time travel in the film ‘Safety Not guaranteed’ is obviously not feasible and the film’s narrative is not meant to elucidate with using some technological discovery or marvelous science but to make the audience smile with how the odd characters in the film reacted with such technological possibility with each with their own agenda that reveals human nature. Thus, the story is told not from the logos or logical point of view but rather from pathos or emotional appeal to make the film entertaining (albeit not necessarily believable). Synthesizing the film through the lens of rhetorical devices made one realize that the film is not trying to convince or persuade the audience of any argument or some position of the author. Looking at it from the point of logos, the film does not make sense because time travel is not possible (at least in real world application but only in theory) and its technological possibility is not even explained. Even the sequencing of events such as placement of an ad that invites time travel with no safety guarantee to Darius and Kenneth’s trysts are just improbable in real life. One must admit though that the film was entertaining. Thus, having enjoyed and analyzed the various components of the film, the story lie of “Safety not Guaranteed” it would be reasonable to conclude that the film is grounded mainly on the rhetorical device of pathos or emotional appeal. That is – romance and humor that made the film entertaining as well as engaging despite the technological impossibility of time travel and ridiculous subplots of finding lost love and saving dead girlfriend who was after all still alive. Kenneth Calloway, the character with time machine wanted to go back in time in 2001 to save his girlfriend Belinda who, according to his initial story was killed when someone rammed a car into her house. Obviously, this could not be logical and cannot be grounded on the rhetorical device of logos. This was confirmed in the end of the movie when Jeff’s boss Bridget informed them that Kenneth’s supposed girlfriend that needed to be saved was after all alive and therefore, the reason given to do time travel was a lie. So it was expected that Darius who developed feelings with Kenneth will be furious – to the level of a girlfriend being cheated especially when the lie was blatant because Belinda was not a girlfriend as claimed by Kenneth and the stranger who rammed her house was after all Kenneth himself and it was her boyfriend’s house that Kenneth rammed. And what ensued next is the effective use of pathos, where the main characters of Darius and Kenneth waxed romance and sentiment that the audience could altogether forget the time machine and the excuse given by Kenneth when he apologized and updated his reason for time traveling – that is to be with Darius instead and together they disappeared into the limbo of time leaving us the audience salivating with the what romance that must have happened here. This ending scene in the film was obviously designed to tease our imagination and capitalize on the emotional appeal for the audience to forget how impossible the film was. The characters in the film “Satisfaction not Guaranteed” were not even credible. There was this guy Arnau whose aspiration is despicable at best when given the chance to travel back in time to affect the future. He could have done a lot of things but all he wanted to do if indeed time travel is possible is to have sex on the beach. Darius, one of the main characters is unemployed and Kenneth, who has the time machine is a lowly clerk (how did he invented the time machine in the first place?). Having stated the profile of these characters, it now becomes obvious that film has no moral or technical ascendancy to awe the audience in believing. The characters could be funny and romantic though and that could compensate the lack of the two other rhetorical devices in the film Obviously, the film is not trying to convince us through the use of any reason or authority be it in the area of technical expertise nor moral ascendancy because even the main protagonist who could do time travel is just a clerk. Arnau is a sexual deviant and Darius unemployed. But surely we smiled, laughed and even fell in love by just watching the film. Never mind the ridiculous story line nor the improbable events – we can let that go as long as we are entertained. Probably, the reverse of the ethos of the used in the film because instead of elevating characters to convince us of a certain argument, the film instead made the characters lowly and less than proud for us to laugh and like them. And thinking about the genre of the film, it would be difficult to make people fall in love and laugh when you have serious people in the film preaching about a serious topic that would make us fidget instead of fall in love and smile. Thus, the absence of certain rhetorical tool such as logos and ethos and the heavy use of pathos in the film is just appropriate. We do not have to make sense if we want to fall in love and laugh, nor do we employ serious people exhorting some serious matters if we want romance. Sure we would believe them but that will not necessarily make us smile and fall. By employing shady and less than ideal characters in the film, the audience are able to see the part of themselves that they are not proud about. And by seeing them in a distance through the characters of Kenneth, Darius, Arnau, Jess and others, the film allows the audience to laugh at themselves and the less than ideal tendency of human frailties making the film endearing to the audience even if it is not believable. Reference Trevorrow, Colin (2012). Safety not Guaranteed. Big Beach, United States Read More