How the rhetoric design allows for more understanding

The four articles leave quite the impression with their use of ethos, pathos, and logos, when it comes to the topic of race changing. But when you analyze them deeply, two of the articles shine on their feedback within this topic, those articles being “The Whitney/Brandy Cinderella Was One of the Most Important Movies of the ’90s” and “‘I Don’t Want a Black Ariel. ‘ — Why We Shouldn’t Be Satisfied With Race Switching | The Final Cutback”. These two articles talk about different movies and their contrasting views when it comes to race changing. The use of pathos within these articles show us the views of certain people who watched or heard about the race change within films. This led me to view these articles as great examples of very opinionated articles but they also allow for those who believe the same to understand the article and where the writer is coming from. With the articles, it allows for a broader cultural talk about race and identity in the media today.

The article “The Whitney/Brandy Cinderella Was One of the Most Important Movies of the ’90s” by R. Eric Thomas is an article that captures the positivity, the film was able to spread by being more diverse in its cast, of course within its time it wasn’t the first to have a more diverse cast but it was still unique in that it was a reimagine of a beloved classic that allowed for kids to be more represented in movies, this on look was mainly done due to its 20th anniversary and time telling what it impacted. The writer used pathos to make the readers understand What he felt and what most likely those who watched it felt when they saw the film have a cast that looked just like them and acted the same way with their cultural values. Not only did he use pathos but also ethos in that he himself is a fairly known author and much more, that he has experience talking about subjects that partake about representation. This leads to his article having a sense to be read by those who feel the same as him about how impactful the film was to others. It all builds up to him essentially saying that due to this film it led to him realizing that stories have an unlimited amount of potential to tell diverse stories with the cast and tales it can. Showing that race changing can be a great thing in films as long as the character is captured right. This contrasts to the purpose of the other article.

The article “‘I Don’t Want a Black Ariel. ‘ — Why We Shouldn’t Be Satisfied With Race Switching” by the Final Cutback completely contrasts from the positivity within the other article and claims that race changing is not needed at all due to how it is done. This claim mainly stems from the fact that he dislikes the Ariel movie due to how they are changing the race of Ariel and that they shouldn’t change the races of notable characters, this mainly coming from the announcement of the new Ariel movie. He continues this claim in a sort of blog and rant type of writing, trying to get the attention of those who agree with him on this topic / opinion. An example of this is “My main gripe with race-switching and what I don’t think people realise is that we are getting the short end of the stick. A very short end. A stub. Representation is not something that should just be visual i.e through seeing a black face in place of another on screen; it should be through diverse stories, characters, settings as well as the casting”(Cutback 3). Within this article he shows a lot of pathos and this is an example of that, throughout this article he is trying to make those who don’t understand him, to comprehend what he has an issue with, and reach out to those who understand him. Unlike the other article the purpose of this article seems more like he’s just ranting and the credibility isn’t there for the writer due to them being just a blog writer, which anyone can do. The Fact that he’s a blog writer lowers his credibility which truly affects how the audience perceives his writing and information, and due to having just that as his credibility simply makes it seem like the writer isn’t too justified to make his claim compared to the other writer.

This brings us to the fact that the two articles are complete opposites, one advocating and giving examples on why race changing could be good for more representation, and the other claiming that race-changing well known characters is not needed, and can be seen as simply a cash grab. The contrast can be seen in that “Cinderella taught me something revolutionary about the limitless nature of storytelling. That in stories, there are no constraints; the only limit is your imagination”(Thomas 9). This portion of the article shows the main good that came out of this movie, compared to the other article in which we really aren’t shown how it negatively impacted the author or others. The author The Final Cutback simply says what he doesn’t like but he never gives us how it exactly affects him. This brings it back to my opinion. I agree with Thomas in that race changing can be great as long as it shows the culture of those being represented. I simply mean that they should show it how Cinderella did in which certain things were changed so that people could see themselves in the character’s shoes and learn from them. This being that The Final Cutback does have a point in certain cases in which they have to represent others in multiple ways instead of just showing a different skinned character but I believe that iconic films can be changed to be uniquely different just like how fairytales were changed based on how the author which to show the character. The wide debate of race changing within the media is still ongoing and it will most likely never die down due to racism and the fact that nostalgia will lead to those not wanting new and more representative pieces of media.

All in all, I believe that both writers effectively appealed to their audiences one way or another using mainly Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. This resulted in us, the readers, to engage within their writing much more and led us to see what the purpose of the context of these films were. Thomas with the use of Ethos, Pathos, and logos, was able to effectively communicate to us that Cinderella allowed viewers at the time to be represented meaning fully on the big screen. On the other hand, The final Cutback tried to appeal to those who were equally frustrated as he when he heard of the race changing done to Ariel and how it was simply a slap to him. In the end both articles were complete opposites in their ideas and opinion within race changing and in the end it’s up to the consumer in which they wish to view the film in the end. After all, you can’t satisfy everyone.