Disgusting. That was the word that came to my mind and the word that lingered there throughout the whole documentary. I've always been uncomfortable with religion-especially with zealots who believe in their religion so fervently that they don't respect anyone who isn't included in their little ideological congregation. The arrogant thought that they are the only "chosen ones" selected personally by God (or any other types of god) who will survive throughout the end irritated me; the camp founder's psychopatical demonstration on the reason why believers(evangelicals, in this video) should be targeting CHILDREN made me want to vomit. Because the wretched enemy, Islams are doing so, because the children are impressionable and vulnerable, and because God ordered her to do so(?)-we should be TRAINING the kids from their youth... That sounded pretty gruesome, if you ask me.
However, maybe this was the exact kind of sentiment that the video intended to stimulate. We don't know if the content of the documentary accurately and fairly depicted the truth of Jesus Camp, and my hostility towards the institution might have been aroused just because of the techniques the moviemakers utilized to manipulate my feelings. The movie was produced in a way addressing the 3 main aspects of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos.
The short film first targeted the "ethos" of the audience: it illustrated the camp as a place where it tried to brainwash and mastermind its immature participants. The ethics of the people in their minds were deeply startled by this malicious image, and they were morally compelled to antagonize it. Secondly, it poignantly appealed to the "pathos" of the watchers as well: the extreme, vivid pictures of distorted examples of Christianity and the obsession over the religion spontaneously led people to feel "emotionally" enraged. Finally, the film also tried to appeal to the viewers' logos: by inserting factual statistics and the opinion of a renowned Christian radio DJ at the start and the end, it conspicuously showed the absurdity of the situation occuring in the camp.
Therefore, although I felt uneasy, or even, repugnant towards the "Jesus Camp" itself, I'd also say that the video may have portrayed the camp with some degree of prejudice-intention to generate a response (just like mine). We don't exactly know the "objective truth" of the "Jesus Camp"; the documentary applied techniques that appealed to the viewers' ethos, the pathos, and the logos-anyone would have yelled "JESUS!" after they had observed the camp through this documentary.
This is good, as usual. Your writing style is fun to read and has a lot of energy and power. However, in this case, I actually think it got a little carried away. There is some "unbridled" flow in here, and while that can be a good thing, I think there's a bit too much in this essay. The intro, for example, branches off into a bit of a ramble against religion. A third of that, compounded into a few succinct sentences would have been more effective.
답글삭제Your analysis is solid and interesting, but similar to issues stated above - sometimes less is more, and I think this got a bit long-winded. The structure feels a bit wonky and sticking a bit closer to traditional essay structure would help.
You're an excellent writer - I've said that many times before. To improve, I suggest focusing on a more controlled focused style that is somewhat removed from your debate style.;)