Rhetorical Analysis on "The Technological Evolution of Filmmaking and its Relation to Quality in Cinema'

            In a historian way, Ryan A. Piccirillo’s article describes the technological evolution of filmmaking within society and how it relates to the quality of a film. He then elaborates on how filmmaking tools should be used to actually help portray the story, instead of the story revolving around the filmmaking tools as part of its plot.

There is no doubt that this article is intended for directors, both uprising and veterans alike. Piccirillo has no problem quoting and describing older movies to his audience because he expects them to know what he is talking about. These films range from the silent film era all the way up to 1930’s when society began using audio in their films. His descriptions of these films, along with his explanation of his theory, lead to long paragraphs that attempt to make sense of what happened in the past.

            Piccirillo understands that the quality of a film comes from a culmination of multiple factors. His definition of quality revolves around the ability of a filmmaker to utilize the tools in his or her time to portray a plot in a film. These tools can be anything from sound, lighting, and even camera angle. In the beginning of his article, he explains that when film was just starting out, it had enough tools (he calls them “cinematic formal elements”) to express a plot.  Even though they were only ten to twenty second clips with no sound, people back then utilized what they had to make a good film. He than applauds other movies such as Workers leaving the Factory and Trip to the Moon because of their filmmakers ability to utilize the filmmaking elements of their era to portray stories.

This article, similar to others I have read, doesn’t really seem to stand out to me. It has an introduction and conclusion paragraph as well as lengthy body paragraphs to explain its thesis. However, all of these paragraphs seem to be longer than the “typical essay” because the author is trying to explain his theory on films. The one thing that does stand out is the conclusion, which ends abruptly as if to say,” and that’s why this is the way it is and that’s all there is to it”. Long as it may be, it felt as though it was being rushed at the end and wasn’t given a chance to actually close out its argument.

This essay’s type of writing isn’t any different from most literature that I’ve been exposed to. It’s in a typical essay format with more explanation in each paragraph and more body paragraphs. The last paragraph did show me one way of summarizing an essay, and that is to end an essay with another body paragraph.