Rhetorical Analysis of the Minimalism Documentary

Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course Number:
Date:
Rhetorical Analysis Review of Minimalism Documentary
What if we lived a meaningful life, instead of simply living? These are the very questions of the minimalists Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus, the makers of Minimalism: A Documentary about the Important things, a film that helps 20 million people all over the world everyday with its significant information. This text will review the rhetorical effectiveness of the 2015 documentary about the two minimalists and their journey to raise awareness and persuade individuals all over the world, of the importance of living a minimalist life, that is, living with the significance of a lot, with the minimal available things.
The film contains information obtained from speakers, other authors of a similar topic, neuro-scientists, a former Wall Street broker, economists and high profile news anchors of the world. From the quantitative analysis of the film, I found out that the application of major rhetorical and persuasion devices has been carefully crafted and effected throughout the film (D’Avella 78). Moreover, although there is minimal use of certain rhetorical ploys (because of the overall positivity of the film’s message), the argument of the two minimalists was effectively persuasive because of the outstanding use of logos, ethos and pathos.
There is an effective use of the rhetorical appeal of logos in the documentary. According to Burk’s readings, this is evident throughout the film used by the minimalists to convince the audience that the adoption of minimalism would make their lives less stressful, meaningful and ultimately cluttered (110). There are numerous clips added to the film about the information of Rick Hanson, a PhD neuro psychologist and Sam Harris, a renowned author and neuroscientist, about the nature of human beings and the fact that they are never satisfied with they have. They use logical description and information to explain that human beings are always seeking to improve their lives and happiness by obtaining possessions that they do not need.
Sam Harris states that ‘I think we are confused with what is going to make us happy. Many people think that material possessions are really the center of the bull’s eye and expect that you gratifying each desire as it arises somehow lead to satisfying life’. Rick Hanson, on the other hand, is concerned with the bottom line that human beings cab never get enough of what they do not really want. The inclusion of this information, similar to the ideas of Colpitt, provides the audience with a logical description of why human beings would always act the way they act and foster an understanding of the actual reason why human being would want to shop endlessly until they stop and begin again on objects that they do not really require to be happy (109).
Secondly, there is an effective use of the rhetorical appeal of pathos where the minimalists connect with the audience on a personal and emotional level (Wrobel 417). In the text, Joshua Fields Millburn narrates an emotional and tragic story of his life before he became a minimalist. In the film, he states that he was an aspiring business man with so many corporate deals every day that he forgot to visit and spend time with his mother, who had previously become an alcoholic when he was only a child. Although this starting explanation sparks notions of pity and compassion for Joshua, he continues to build an emotional connection with the audience by further explaining that one day when he was working, his mother called him but he did not pick up, made her leave him voicemails that sadly revealed to him that she had a stage lung cancer, a disease that she would succumb from, shortly after (D’Avella et al. video). Joshua explains his regret for not spending quality time on what mattere...