When the Leeves Broke

Cruz 1 Carolina Cruz Professor Gwaltney English 1102 March 14, 2013 When the Levees Broke A Rhetorical Analysis It is nearly impossible to imagine that one day you can be safe in your home and with all of your property and the next day a hurricane leaves you with nonhing. Unfortunately, the 484,000 race who lived in red-hot siege of siege of Orleans had to experience those unimaginable thoughts first hand in 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. An unblemished city was nearly wiped off the face of the earth (Kellogg) and at to the lowest degree 1,833 sight were killed during and after the thrust.There are many theories and conspiracies of what happened with the levees and what could have been done remediate in modulate to military service the residents of bracing Orleans. Director lace up lee side felt authentic strongly ab discover the issue and decided to pull a accusative in straddle to give the pot of red-hot Orleans justice. By directing When the Levees Broke, fas cinate leeward gives the audience his personalized moot on the entire situation dealing with Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath. With his use of television set editing and choice of certain interviews, lee side gave non only randy credibility to his movie but excessively a logical manoeuver of view.The primary(prenominal) line of business of the nonsubjective was to explain the series of until nowts that occurred during and following the storm, duration also getting the inside portend of views of both(prenominal) of the Hurricane Katrina victims. An new(prenominal) argument intertwine leeward was trying to make Cruz 2 was that there was a lot more to the disaster than just the storm. I do view that leeward did a good job in getting his point across in his nonsubjective but I do not consider it was a very strong argument. The argument is not very convincing because not everyones view was included in the sprout.It seems that Spike leeward was very biased while mak ing the documentary and had no problem with expressing it in his film. Though I do somewhat carry with lee sides point of view, I do not believe that it was a very intimately rounded argument. In his documentary, lee side confronts the primal problems that occurred at the time of the hurricane such as racial, cultural and political issues. By adding so much information somewhat what was actually occurring during Hurricane Katrina in his film, Lee do a very well put together documentary.Lees purpose of making the film was to give the victims their chance to speak out and to show how the poor and underprivileged of New Orleans were mistreated in this grand calamity and still ignored today (Chisholm). Lee is a very passionate and out mouth man and he conveyed his message in a panache where the victims had the upper hand and could speak on the real issues. Had Spike Lee not been so biased, I think both(prenominal) his argument and documentary could have been excellent. Spike L ee used the Aristotelian appeal of pathos the nigh through and throughout his documentary in order to catch the audiences help.The way he incorporates certain cultural music and photos of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina make the audience more inclined to be attention. The collection of photographs Lee features in his film not only allow us see what was happening during Hurricane Katrina, they also add texture and even besides weight to these stories (Kellogg). He does this on purpose in order to make the audience feel sympathy towards all the mass who were interviewed as well as those Cruz 3 who passed away due to Hurricane Katrina.The best way Lee kept the attention of the audience was by allowing the people who lived through the disaster to tell their stories (Kellogg). The viewer is more likely to pay attention if they are stimulated emotionally and that is what Spike Lee aimed for. He also shows the audience how the evacuation process separated parents from children as people were ludicrous onto buses, by doing this, the audience gets a more in depth view of the disaster and is more likely to feel sad and watch the documentary more.The underlying issue that Lee was trying to explain to the audience was that the storm was damaging by itself, but that was not the true disaster (Chisholm). close to critics do not believe that Spike Lee was meant to make this film because he did not capture everyones point of view. This film is so-called to be about just the victims opinion on what they thought about the situation dealing with the government and Hurricane Katrina. I think he was well fit for the job because Lees films have looked unflinchingly at some of the most polarizing subjects (Jacobs) nd it was no shock that he made this documentary about Hurricane Katrina. There were many criticisms about the documentary such as it did not necessarily discuss all of the people of New Orleans and it gave us a bad view of the government. Lee had his profess camarilla on how the levees were blown up as opposed to just creation ruined by the hurricane. Lees film was also criticized because it suggested that the fusillade assured that the poor neighborhoods be damaged and not the rich developments further down (Jacobs) and that did not take well with the conservative circles.Another reason his documentary was Cruz 4 faulty was because it had a very biased standpoint and Mr. Lees documentary boils with anger and a degree of paranoia (Holden). The three main topics this documentary touched on were those such as politics, cultural issues and racial issues. There were many complaints within the movie about the government from the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The people of New Orleans were outraged by the tardy response of the shrub administration to the crisis (Jacobs).A large portion of the documentary focused on the drop of help from the government, it explained how a few government officials took longer than normal to help with the disaster in New Orleans. The fact that bodies were still being raise after F. E. M. A supposedly searched all the houses was a big lodge in for the people. F. E. M. A had not been giving the victims the proper care they needed for the get of time that they had left and that was a very high concern to the people who desperately needed help from F.E. M. A. George Bush and Dick Chaney were also spoken upon in a bad manner as well because they had more important things to do rather than help the dying people of their own country. Just like most of his other films, Spike Lee made his documentary mostly about race. At one point in the movie it explains how the disaster started the racist, vigilante atmosphere which gave cops and soldiers carte blanche to shoot on sight looters (Onesto) and how they were not afraid to follow through with orders.The majority of the people Lee interviewed were poor and black and were treated very poorly. In this film, Lee insinuates that the victims are b eing treated like slaves and separated from their families. He expresses the verity of how the institutions of white supremacy and the ideas of racism are woven into the very kit and caboodle of this system of U. S. capitalism (Onesto). Culture is a big deal in Cruz 5 New Orleans the people consider their culture the most important and valuable thing to them.A very large part of the New Orleans culture is Mardi Gras and it was a concern of the people whether they should or should not have the jubilation the following year after Hurricane Katrina. Mardi Gras is an annual celebration and even the hurricane could not completely bring the residents of New Orleans down. Spike Lee wanted to show that even though the city looked bad, the people of New Orleans still had their high spirits. All the controversy involving New Orleans such as race, politics and culture lured Spike Lee to make a documentary about the hurricane.Based off his previous films Lee was fit to make this film and did a good job in conveying his message. With this use of enhanced photography and video editing Lee was able to make an informative yet captivating film that showed the other side of the story. In his documentary, we can finally put human faces on the devastation (Jacobs) and realize that these people were once like us in their homes. His film not only allows us to see what occurred in horrible of 2006, but it lets us hear the individual stories and realize what we were not told by the government.The documentary gives us the victims view of the disaster and it makes the viewer more conscious(predicate) of the devastation that the people of New Orleans had to face. By making this documentary, Lee not only helped explain the troubles of the victims of Hurricane Katrina but he also let the people come out and express how they felt during the evacuation and construct process. Cruz 6 Works Cited Chisholm, Kenneth. Plot Summary for When the Levees Broke A coronach in Four Acts IMDb. IMDb . com, n. d. Web. 8 Mar. 2013. Holden, Stephen. When the Levees Broke Spike Lees Tales From a Broken City. Www. nytimes. com. The New York Times, 21 Aug. 2006. Web. 2013. Jacobs, Jay S. PopEntertainment. com Spike Lee query about When the Levees Broke A Requiem in Four Acts. PopEntertainment. com Spike Lee Interview about When the Levees Broke A Requiem in Four Acts. N. p. , 18 Dec. 2006. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. Onesto, Li. Spike Lees When the Levees Broke Bitter righteousness About the Crimes in New Orleans. Spike Lees When the Levees Broke Bitter justness About the Crimes in New Orleans. Revolution Newspaper, 27 Aug. 2006. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.