Once Brothers Part 2 (Option 2)

A personal tragedy preluded by political mayhem.  Once Brothers contains a story that can teach its viewers not only about its own contents, but reflect upon human nature.  As a relatively modern tool of communication, the documentary has the ability to communicate Vlade Divac's message in a unique way because it can show the viewer incontrovertible evidence of the war's turmoil and capture the raw emotion of the people involved.  When mass produced, the documentary can reach a large enough audience to bring awareness to the truth of a historical situation.

Once Brothers, mainly through the use of archival footage and interviewing, is able to accurately reflect  society at the time of the Yugoslavian Civil War.  The director chooses to include archival footage of both the war's destruction and of the basketball games Divac and Petrovic were involved in.  This tells a tale of two worlds constantly tugging on both players' minds.  The footage shows the devastation and horror of the war from a historical standpoint by showing tapings of attacks, pictures of aftermath, and footage of the people involved.  This shows the literal events that resulted in Croatia's modern situation: a historical standpoint.  A map is also included to help the viewer follow the path of the battles practically.  To reflect the feelings of society at the time the documentary uses the more personal medium of interviews.  The interviews provide a reflection on the situation by people who lived through it.  In a way, the documentary is archiving their thoughts and story.  The interviews uncover that Petrovic's "break up" with Divac was actually due to an accidental political statement that Divac made by grabbing a Croatian flag and throwing it after Yugoslavia won the world championships.  Petrovic took it as an insult to Croatia; Divac, who was Slovenian, stated that he only threw the flag because he wanted a united Yugoslavia.  Through further interviews, the documentary uncovers that people in Croatia hated Divac so much that he didn't even attend Petrovic's funeral, held after he died suddenly in a car crash, because Divac was scared of the reception Croatia would give him.  Later, when Divac makes his return trip to Croatia, a dialogue is captured where Divac asks a man who greets him, "Are you the only one to recognize me?" and the man responds, "No, I'm just the only one brave enough to say hello."  This modern form of documentation allows for a unique portrayal of history and society.  Documentaries also allow individuals to change the rhetoric to better suit their purpose.

Rhetoric that comes with the documentary allows the filmaker to elicit various emotional responses that would not be available in traditional written or visual texts.  A major rhetorical device used is the presentation of sound, both in dialogue and in music.  A language barrier is present due to the fact that many of the important characters only speak Russian.  The documentary, having both picture and sound, allows the filmaker to play the original recording and provide English translation in the form of captions.  By doing this, the film captures the original emotion of the interview and gives an understanding of the content, allowing for a more wholesome experience.  Also, the addition and change of music became an effective tool to change the mood of the documentary.  For example, suspense was built when sad music started before the car crash because the viewer became aware that there was going to be a disappointing twist.  The music started off softly and progressed to a more aggressive and loud presence as the event neared.  Music was also used as a transition, with one set of music being assigned to the basketball portion of the story and another to the war and political side.  Another rhetorical device used was the juxtaposition of past and present.  Due to the modern technology, filmakers are able to arrange their pieces so that comparisons could be made between two images from completely separate times.  This modern technology includes the means to gather the visuals as well as the programs to combine them.  This was done when places that Divac visited in his trip to Croatia were shown currently and then before the war.  By comparing the images right after each other, the viewer can further understand the effects of the war and how horrible it was to the Yugoslavian society.  Rhetoric has changed with the introduction of new forms of communication such as the documentary, and filmakers incorporate them to convey their message.

Documentaries serve as an entertaining medium for stories to be shared.  Through 30 for 30, Once Brothers was able to inform and move an audience that can now reflect on the message.  The documentary has proved to be an effective mode of communication as shown by the responses they have drawn.  While Once Brothers was a chronicle of a friendship, it also presented the historical context in ways that would not have been available in the recent past.   

Once Brothers

Vlade Divac and Drazen Petrovic were teammates and best friends on Yugoslavia's national basketball team and helped to pave the way for European stars to journey to the NBA.  Both were heroes in their native countries and helped each other to deal with the fame they achieved.  However, with Divac experiencing immediate success as the starting center for the Lakers and Petrovic riding the bench his rookie season, the two started to grow apart.  The relationship was then ultimately severed by the political tension back home.  Civil war broke out in Yugoslavia in 1991.  Petrovic was Croatian and Divac was Serbian, leaving the former friends on separate sides of the war and causing contempt to grow between them.  The two grew in skill in popularity in the NBA separately, Divac waiting for the right moment to come for the two to reconcile.  That moment never came.  Petrovic died in a fatal car crash on the way to a national game back in Croatia.  Michael Tolajian directed the documentary Once Brothers, chronicling this moving story.  Vlade Divac himself narrates the film and gives a first hand perspective to the film.  The documentary was distributed by ESPN as part of their 30 for 30 documentary series.

In order to draw the emotional response from the audience that was desired, the film first decides to introduce the main characters of the film to the audience.  The chronological order that the film was presented in was effective because it helped the film make sense logically and allowed the viewer to experience the players’ lives from the beginning.  The setting of the film was mainly in modern day Serbia and Croatia, where Divac recounts the events.  This makes the film much more personal by showing the roots of the characters and also allowing Divac to visit families and people who lived through the Civil War.  Much of the story was told from a coffee shop or homes of the players, establishing a sense of friendliness in the film.  Since the speakers in the film commonly used a foreign language, text was used to translate.  The choice to not dub the voices enabled raw emotion to show in the speakers. The documentary also does a good job of keeping both the basketball context and the political context consistent and paralleled throughout the film.  This is very important because the eventual break up of the friends occurs because of the political division.  This is done subtly and mostly through comments that the cast makes, foreshadowing the events of the film without giving them away.  Background knowledge is provided both about the Yugoslavian team and the state of Yugoslavia after World War II. 

When retelling the story of the careers of Divac and Petrovic, a lot of archival footage is used both of interviews and of games.  Old interviews are the only way to incorporate Petrovic’s input into the film, and the old games give the viewers a sense of how sensational the Yugoslavians actually were.  Later, to tell the story of the Civil War, archival footage was used to show the devastation.  The Yugoslavian Civil War was the worst fighting in Europe since WWII, and the documentary uses images to show the viewers how horrible it actually was.  Injured babies and crying mothers were shown, establishing pathos.  Explosions and aftermath were shown to further the effect.  For a technical understanding, maps were added that explained the war.  With all of this devastation, however, the mood needed to be lightened.  This was done mostly by the characters in the film and their dialogue.  For example, Magic Johnson opened his conversation by stating, “All I want is a Coke and a burger.”  In addition, the change in mood was cued by the music playing in the background.  Ultimately, all of the rhetorical choices were made to focus on the relationship of the players.  Basketball wasn’t the main focus of the text, just the background.  Divac and Tolajian created the documentary to recount the loss of a friendship and the hatred that arose from sectionalism in the divided Yugoslavia of the ‘90’s. 

Once Brothers. Dir. Michael Tolajian. Perf. Vlade Divac. ESPN, 2010. Online Film. 

TOW Reflection

Back in September, when I sat down with the syllabus for my first taste of an AP English course, I was honestly skeptical about how the TOWs would benefit me and help me become a more effective writer.  It seemed back then a trivial task that would make my Sundays longer.  However, I realize now that through the hard work that I put into the TOWs throughout the year, I gained vital knowledge for my success in the course.  I first realized how beneficial the TOWs were when we started writing argument essays in class, and both of my examples for one of the essays came from the assignments from the last two weekends.  I noticed that I wasn’t only going on a website and choosing an article at random to try to find examples of parallelism.  For the first time in my life, I was spending an hour each weekend reading the news and becoming an informed citizen.  When added to the practice that the TOWs gave me in argument and analysis, it is evident that this assignment slowly, but surely, improved my writing. 

            This improvement is shown throughout the progression of my posts.  Rereading the first TOW I wrote was painful; it really shows how much my writing has changed.  A common theme throughout the first marking period was that my entries read like a list.  I was following the assignment sheet to a point and made my writing seem robotic.  I was summarizing the articles I read or the videos I watched more than I was analyzing them.  In addition, I didn’t have a full understanding of the various forms that rhetoric could appear in and was relentlessly sifting through the texts looking for specific rhetorical devices, even if they were insignificant to the purpose.  The lack of awareness I had pertaining to the assignment itself was also evident because my choice of texts was narrow and did not encompass a variety of topics.  However, the first marking period did serve as a foundation to my ability to analyze texts effectively in the future.

            After the shock of the first marking period, things started to click for me, including the TOWs.  I started to develop arguments in each post and spend the majority of my time focusing on the analysis.  In addition, the skills I learned from the class appeared in my entries.  The posts read less like bulleted lists and contained more sophisticated diction and sentence structure.  The major criticism of these TOWs is that they weren’t very sophisticated in terms of creativity.  The hooks weren’t very good and each one was in the same format from week to week.  However, I was covering a wide array of topics from numerous sources and reaped the benefits from that.  By the end of the year, the level of my TOWs peaked.  The structure of each one varied and they were written like concise essays.  However, as the AP exam approached, the TOWs were at a comparable length with those from the beginning of the year.  This worked though, because the space was being used effectively.  The best qualities of the latest TOWs included an assessment of the author’s rhetoric pertaining to the purpose of the paper and connections between the current topic and other events.  I felt as if I was able to master forming an argument and analyzing a text during these TOWs, which made writing the graded class essays easier.

            Even with all of the improvements, there are still areas where I can approve.  I think the leading category would be to make sure that I fully elaborate the argument that I am developing.  At times I skimmed that and just focus on the analysis.  Also, I need to make my writing more creative and interesting for success in the future.  Ultimately, the TOW assignments proved to be extremely helpful throughout the school year.  Not only did I have a weekly tool to help develop my writing ability, I was also given a medium to push me to inform myself about the world around me.

Geico Lord Stanley

Known for its witty advertising campaign, Geico maximizes its commercial's effects by producing a wide variety of them and matching them with specific target audiences.  This particular commercial was geared towards hockey fans.  It features Niklas Backstrom, a sensational goal scorer for the Washington Capitals, and the ghost that comes to visit him, Lord Stanley.  With the subject completely separate from car insurance, Geico relies on its brand name for results.  Part of the effectiveness of this commercial comes from the humor that is used.  When Lord Stanley shows up in the locker room, he says that he has a secret to tell.  According to the setting, viewers would infer that it is hockey related, but when Lord Stanley recites Geico's slogan, humor is added and the commercial is effective.  Another pun is made when the commercial makes a play on words.  Lord Stanley enters holding a silver cup, making it Stanley's cup, which shares the name with hockey's coveted trophy the Stanley Cup.  Because this commercial was shown on NBC during a Stanley Cup playoff game, the audience will be able to relate to the humor and the celebrity endorsement, making this commercial an effective marketing tool.

Link to Commercial

Fracking in America

A relatively new development in energy production, fracking for natural gas has offered an alternative to the traditional fossil fuels that are infamous for extreme pollution. However, fracking has not proved to be the environment-saving hybrid that it was marketed as.  While natural gas is better for the environment then coal, the actual process of fracking destroys areas of land, contributes significantly to global warming, and pollutes water supply.  Phil Radford argues in his article that fracking for natural gas only provides a "bridge" and a tool for procrastination, an excuse for not developing permanent alternative and safe options.  This article speaks to the majority of Americans, even referencing polls of Americans on the topic that provide insight on the issue.  The text serves as a medium for the masses to express their ideas with the author channeling the most popular opinions.  The major argument is that not enough is being done to research and move to a new energy source that would actually benefit Americans and the environment, which is what the public is calling for.  Using outside sources in his argument aids to provide a stronger argument because he establishes his point as a popular one and a credible stance.  The author also calls people to action by stating that the more people that speak out, the closer America will be to clean energy production.

Link to Article

Venezuela's Polarized Society

The election in Venezuela is one of the more controversial ones in recent history.  With such a close vote dividing the two candidates, a complete recount was ordered by the loser, Henrique Capriles.  The electorate, Nicolas Maduro, is the socialist candidate and son-in-law of former president Hugo Chavez. The reason the controversy is so large is Maduro does not want the recount to happen and the followers of the candidates have resorted to violence to settle disputes.  It got so bad that South American leaders all met to discuss the issue. After a recount was eventually ordered, the tensions got worse.  This article analyzes the situation in Venezuela and proposes a reason for the intense division in Venezuela.  the author argues that Venezuela's economic state is what polarizes its people.  Even though it is the most oil-rich nation in the Americas, staples of everyday life are running short.  In order to illustrate this, the author develops pathos by using a first-hand account.  He visited a baker in Venezuela running scarcely short on flour.  The baker had to put a limit on people's orders because he only had 6% of the flour he usually has.  This helps the reader infer why people not only want a change from the Chavez-Maduro government, but also why socialism is so powerful in Venezuela.  Also, the author cites statistics about the election to help the reader understand the controversy.  It was so close that with Venezuela being as corrupt as it is, people immediately assumed an infraction in the counting system.  The author did not try to bias the reader, which further helped the understanding of a foreign situation by the reader.

Link to Article

Fast Food Nation Pt 2

Fast Food Nation, a book by Eric Schlosser detailing the business and culture of the fast food industry, is able to effectively portray all of the elements of the industry, from production and raising of the livestock to the marketing aspect.  This establishes ethos because the author can demonstrate advanced knowledge in every element of his text and shows evidence of complete research.  In addition, the book doesn't just say that fast food is bad for you, but unbiasedly presents the information.  This avoids presenting the industry as fat-filled and worthless, a necessary position to keep the readers interested in the book, even if this idea would be eventually proven.  In the second part of the book, much of the book is focused on the increased efficiency, standardization, and mechanization of fast food, showing the transformation into what we are now familiar with.  This does include the chemical enhancement of products that made the 20th century fast food taste so good before a health-conscious America promoted change.  From there, it is noted how working conditions have lowered and health risks are rising exponentially.  At this point in the story, readers are completely turned off from the fast food industry, a contrast for the reader from the humble beginning.  Because of this huge difference, the reader is able to feel the food service grow into a monster.  This fact is illustrated by the rising obesity rates across the globe after the Cold War, an indication of the export of American fast food.  Overall, the informative text was effective in painting a picture of the horrifying fast food industry.