'A Few Good Men\r'

'You can’t traveling bag the integrity! Son, we live in a world that has w exclusivelys, and those walls have to be keep an eye on by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you oath the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of non knowing what I know. That Santiago’s expiry, bit tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, musical composition grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth beca purpose deep trim down in places you don’t bawl out about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.\r\nWe use terminology like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backb adept of a carriage play out defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the meter nor the sway to explain myself to a macrocosm who rises and sleeps chthonian the blank et of the very exemption that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would preferably you fairish said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. either way, I don’t bedevil a damn what you think you argon authorize to.\r\nRHETORICAL ANALYSIS A Few Good Men is a film that was released in 1992, a eon when the United States was between soldiery conflicts in the Persian Gulf and Kosovo. The film investigates the nonions of inviolate power, particularly in the military. Along with that, it in addition is about the legal investigation into the privy death of a marine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. At the film’s climax, Col. Nathan Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, is cross-examined by decagram lawyer, Lt. Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise.\r\n impeach of playing a division in the torture and death of a marine, Jessup is chuck in a position where he has to defend his actions and articulate his role of magnificence in the preservation of American granting immunity. The consultation in the film which Jessup is fork outing to run that he is absolved of any victimize doing is a control panel made up of military officers. It is this group of people who conciliate the fate of Jessup. Through and interesting amalgamateing of ethos, logos and pathos, Jessup employs a short, but well-rendered monologue to appeal to the jurors.\r\nWhen establishing a thought of ethos with his auditory smack, Jessup does so simply by stating his name. As a Colonel in the United States Marine Corp. , his auditory modality, also made up of military force-out would recognize that he is a high-altitude officer whose words and character should continue prestige. He also establishes ethos with a series of rhetorical questions: â€Å"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be keep an eye on by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? Y ou, Lt. Weinburg? When using rhetorical questions referring to whether or not Kaffee or his partner Weinburg would be up for the task of doing his job, Jessup is also asking these questions of the jurors. The schema is to get one to ask one’s self if they could handle the formidable responsibility that comes along with Col. Jessup’s role of defending America’s freedom at Guantanamo Bay. Chances ar that given these questions, the members of the jury would recognize, if anything, that Jessup’s job and title are demanding and that he is a man of honor.\r\nSimilarly, when Jessup states, â€Å"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. ” What he his doing is attempting to take his listening by using the inclusive pronoun â€Å"we” and the goop â€Å"you. ” By â€Å"we” Jessup is implying we the true members of the United States m ilitary, we who treasure the freedoms of our country and we who live by the credo: honor, code and loyalty. â€Å"You,” on the other hand, is referring to Kaffee who has the toad to challenge Jessup’s role in a marine’s death.\r\nBy implementing a we/you dialogue, Jessup is difficult to appeal to his sense of credibility with the audition. Jessup also refers to the marine’s death as â€Å"tragic. ” Using this eccentric person of word is important. By calling the death â€Å"tragic” his is exhibiting to his audience, the jury, that he is sympathetic to the expiry of lifeâ€even when he is cosmos accused of causing it. Showing his audience that he can be sympathize with is also a way of establishing ethos with the jury Along with ethos, Jessup uses a good gist of emotional appeal, or pathos, in this monologue.\r\nThe source line, for example, is â€Å"You can’t handle the truth! ” This type of emotionally charged re solving power is meant to inspire the emotions of the jury. By having established that he is not a man who go out be pushed around on the come over to it stand, that he is a person who go away fight back against his accusers, Jessup opens with an emotionally-loaded punch. Soon after, Jessup refers to his interrogator a â€Å"son. ” season this may be like a casual and ordinary word, it is not. By calling Kaffee â€Å"son,” Jessup is again display his contempt for the people who have the typeface to question his authority.\r\nIn short, it is an insult. Using footling language to refer to someone who is in or so regards Jessup’s peer emphasizes that while both people in this burst are men, Jessup holds rank over Kaffee. Jessup’s use of the word â€Å"son” to control Kaffee is an attempt to persuade the jury’s view of the lawyer. In fact, may members of the audience probably out-ranked Kaffee. If they would see him also in this li ght, they would side with Jessup. Finally, toward the end of the monologue, Jessup states, â€Å"Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are authorize to. Listening to the words spoken, these lines are the most emotionally impactful. Jessup personally attacks Kaffee’s statement that he felt he was entitled to the truth. By this and the previous examples, Jessup uses pathos to try to persuade his audience. Effectively, he is exhibiting his anger and anger to the audience, the jury, to counter act any descent or evidence presented against him. By trying to appeal to the emotions of the jury, Jessup hopes he can â€Å"out-bully” his opponent. magical spell ethos and pathos are evident in Jessup’s monologue, he appeal to the audience’s intellect, or logos, is also present.\r\nWhile logos is most commonly exhibited with the usage of statistical data, expert certification and survey findings, Jessup appeals to the jury’s sense o f logos by constructing logical arguments. In the middle of Jessup’s monologue, he states, â€Å" I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. ” Here, Jessup is appealing to his jury’s sense of logic.\r\nHe is accusing Kaffee of engaging in insincere behavior. Jessup sees himself as almost a god-like figure, someone who â€Å"provides” America with safety and freedom with his actions. In Kaffee, he sees a beneficiary of that freedom who questions his authority. By trying to make Kaffee compute like a hypocrite, he is attempting to persuade his audience with a logical argument. Jessup is in effect saying, â€Å"all of your luxuries and freedoms are granted to you by me… who are you to bite the hand that feeds you? In trying to make th e jury see this logical argument, Jessup hopes he can persuade them to see things his way. Through an interesting mix of appeals to credibility, emotions and intellect, Jessup tried to persuade the jury to view his point of view. By using his military clout, choosing aggressive language and constructing logical arguments, Jessup defended his actions to the jury. though it is at times effective, it was all for vigour as moments after delivering this monologue, he succumbs to all the pathos built up in his speech and admits he is guilty.\r\n'