I think you made a mistake in your analysis of Tuco Salamanca. The writers wanted to reveal to us that Tuco isn't a logical person but rather an illogical maniac with chaotic morals or feeling he has that he presents as morals. Saul was appealing to ego when he said Tuco is tough but fair and then makes another fallacy when he makes a false analogy about Tuco being all about justice. Another point i'll make is that Tuco doesn't admire a judge but rather envy's the power the judge has. Great video though i love the analysis.
It's not a great defense of the writing to say that the character has such "chaotic morals" that the audience can't possibly understand why the appeal convinced him. You say that Jimmy appealed to his ego but why would Tuco equate power with mercy? Why would he think that it makes him look stronger to spare people who gravely offended him? You built some kind of explanation in your head but it's just not there in the text.
@@edmondantes4338 i completely disagree with ur take. Tuco comes off as a very sorta low iq maniac with few moments of street genius who sorta sees himself as an intellectual, thats it, the vast majority of viewers can deduce this about him cause thats the surface level vibe that helps ground the character once he opens his mouth. Saul's argument doesnt need to be academically accurate, it just has to work on someone like tuco and it absolutely does. The fact that it does tells us more about tuco not the otherway around, u dnt just dismiss that cause you think its not the right way to logos or pathos, its not a fucking college essay. Tarantino when talking about writing reservoir dogs said something about the need for the surface level stuff ie the vibe a characters give off to be absolutely bullet proof, you have to be able to look at a character nd sorta tell what they are about and that just comes with fantastic casting. The deep stuff like mr white and orange having a father son dynamic doesn't necessarily need to be pointed out in the script but its kinda there if you peel back the surface level stuff but we dont need to cause the movie isnt about that. Tuco is coked up half the time he's awake, there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind or anyones mind watching that, that sauls argument would've NEVER worked on tuco, thats just such a crazy assertion since randomness is sorta his whole vibe.
I'm not here to tell you that I liked the content, despite this video being watched by almost nobody. But it did entertain me. And I'm not telling you more people should watch this, I'm nobody to tell you that. But trust me as a person who watches RU-vid, if such videos are not shared, the quality of screenwriting across the world will plummet.
Brilliant comment! Perhaps it would help us in our study of rhetoric to break it down a bit. For starters, one might ask: to whom is it addressed? No doubt I'm just being stupid - so humour me - but to me it's not clear. If it's to MovieWise, surely it's asking him to think something he already believes, which would make it a redundant argument - that is, simply unnecessary. So is it addressed to potential viewers of the video? If so, don't most people come to the comments after watching, meaning they don't need to be encouraged to watch and the comment is, once again, unnecessary? OK, so it sounds as if there's work to be done. A harsher critic might say, 'You f-ing screwed up. Your comment was an epic fail, absolute dog poop when it comes to giving an example of what the video was talking about, and the people who liked it are morons. You should be ashamed to have even posted it, and you should damn well think it through properly before you post anything like that again.' But I'm not that critic. Why? Because I can see your obvious interest in and feel for rhetoric, and I'm sure that all your really want is to get better at it. And I'm certainly no expert, much less anyone qualified to teach this material, but as someone who shares your interest, all I really want to do is encourage it, especially in someone who shows as much potential as you. After all, the true masters of rhetoric throughout history didn't learn it from a RU-vid video, they studied it and worked at it in depth, learning from expert teachers taking them through the world's finest examples - a process that must have been as satisfying as it was enriching. Now...while I am not affiliated with it in any way, I do know of a very reasonably priced course on the subject that does just that...
I think you're missing something about Tuco/Better Call Saul. Its not that Tuco actually has a sense of justice, its that he believes he does. One of the running themes of that show and Breaking Bad is the way drug cartels are organized and operate is ways that mimic legitimate businesses, militaries, and even legal systems. They have their own hierarchies, codes, laws, and enforcement methods. They police themselves and have ethical dilemmas. To be fair, they are bizarro ethical dilemmas that would fit nowhere on a normal person's spectrum of right and wrong. But even bizarro rules are rules, and thus they come into conflict with the vagaries of day-to-day living just like the rules that citizens live by. That's why a guy like Tuco might still recognize an appeal to authority and respect the rule of law (as long as it is the law that governs his way of life). Jimmy learned the rules of rhetoric and persuasion as a conman, but in becoming a lawyer found a way to employ them in the legitimate world... admittedly with some mixed results. Likewise, Mike Ehrmantraut learned his skills in the legit world as a soldier and has translated those to the crime world. Same skills, different world.
I do think the same but... Before I start, I actually hvn't watched any of these show or movie. So I will give my opinion only based of the video. Saul appealing to the drug dealer through "justice" was actually good approach bcs their musle brain only cares about power & shows he is on their side however it's execution was poor. The Succession & Abraham scene both show the leads trying to be equal to who they r appealing. This is important. As it creates an illusion of common interest and ground. Which Saul terribly fails to establish. 1) Saul body language was not fitting to talk to a power hungry man. He looked like shaking lamb 🐑 infront of 🦁. 2) Never established that they r the right one. Mafias only respect power and superiority and occasionally kindness and humor, if it comes from someone they redeem weaker/ harmless to them. So Saul had 2 option - 1) Establish confidence and that he is bigger lion here. With power play. Or 2) Apply to their superiority complex. From get go tell them they r right. Inflate their ego with humor and make the whole ordeal look like it's absolutely insignificant and not at all worth of his mighty energy. Although the writers tried to apply it but did everything opposite of what should be done.
Also, that scene is clearly being played for black comedy, with Tuco as the butt of the joke. It still tries to be somewhat believable. But if you make something too realistic it stops being funny.
Yes I wonder if that influenced the Young Mr Lincoln scene? It's my favorite scene in Shakespeare, and a masterpiece of rhetoric. I was thinking of it during the Succession analysis - Antony calls himself "a plain blunt man who loved my friend" all the while manipulating the crowd.
Commando has the best use of rhetoric ever: Matrix: "Hey Bennett, remember when I said I would kill you last"? Bennett: "Yeah, that's right, you did say that"! Matrix: "I lied". And thus Matrix convinces Bennett to fall off a cliff.
I think you are too harsh on Better Call Saul. Tuco wants to believe that he is more than a thug and can make great leadership decisions, and Jimmy is a young and inexperienced lawyer, who's doing his best to argue with a maniac. The scene may not be the epitome of rhetoric, but it works for the show and reveals a lot about these characters.
Makes sense but the wording is all wrong , he doesn't say emperor or a king that is just , but a judge , a damn courtroom judge , that should habe ticked him off right then and there
I agree with you on the Tuco analysis, and observe that perhaps other commentors who disagree with your view might be overanalysing the obvious to the paradoxical point of simplification. To them I would say, yes Tuco does have a sense of justice, but it is subversive and unconventional/criminal, and so it would not be languaged or even rationalised like how a conventional, law biding person would, and that's why Tuco's and Saul's dialogue falls flat, because Saul is attempting to persuade him in a conventional ethical sense and mode, but Tuco's is subversive, furthermore, Tuco respond's to this conventional appeal is likewise conventional, which is uncharacteristic of his subversive ethics and rationale. Therefore the point here is that in this scene alone, the characterisation is confused, and therefore the dialogue seems to lack credibleness from an audience point of view.
In the Better Call Saul scene Saul knows he can manipulate Tuco, after all he is a professional conman. People are hypocrites and want to justify what they're doing is right to feel good about themselves and Saul uses that to his advantage by targeting Tuco's ego. Tuco validates himself by choosing to believe what he's doing is for justice to the point where he deludes himself that he's thinking like a judge. He's totally selfish and illogical, a psychopath, and this game he plays with Saul is self serving and not about seeking approval from Saul whatsoever, and Saul knows it. This scene epitomizes Saul's character and why he's good at dealing with criminals. Otherwise good video, thanks for sharing.
Atticus Finch's summation to the jury in "To Kill a Mockingbird." My favorite portion is Atticus's plea to uphold the integrity of the law. I am no idealist to believe this . . . That is no ideal to me it is a working reality."
The conclusion that there is a lack of ethos in the BCS scene is somewhat misleading. While ethos is not present in the segment presented, there is an entire scene prior to this one where Jimmy has to prove that he is not an investigative authority snooping on Tuco, his mother, and his operation. Saul is compelled to admit that he is only a lawyer and therefore poses no threat to Tuco. Then, Tuco's right-hand man tells Tuco that killing a lawyer is not in their best interest as lawyers are respected in law enforcement circles. As such, Saul now has credibility because he poses no direct threat and has influence in legal circles. Saul's reference to justice leads Tuco to the "judge" comment and Tuco thus sees Saul in a more favorable light. This gives Saul the opportunity to shift Tuco's focus onto the twins and use lawyerly tactics (logos and pathos).
I love these videos; thanks so much! But I disagree on Tuco. Don't people generally think of themselves as just and intelligent, despite their clearly contradictory lives? Proposing that Tuco be the judge kept the power on Tuco's side and also raised the possibility for Tuco that he might do something to violate his own sense of justice, which Saul has reminded him he believes he has. And using complex words and classical concepts invites Tuco even further into the pleasant idea that Saul thinks Tuco is smart, maybe just as smart as the judges he hates and feels inferior to. At that point Tuco has an incentive to make a more balanced decision, but he doesn't know how to make balanced decisions. So by the end he has to let Saul help him walk back the punishment in order to made a decision that affirms the positive self-image that Saul has emphasized, however delusional that self image is.
This scene hooked me. And several million other people. A criminal leader wants to imagine himself a great leader, a judge, a law giver. He's accustomed to listening to lawyers, expert advisors. This scene is PERFECT.
Hi I like that scene too, and yet the dialogue could have been more persuasive. I just want to enhance your appreciation of the scene. Particularly since Tuco was high as a kite, have you ever tried reasoning with someone like that? If he tried doing that in real life, he would end up in the same ditch as those two.
Another good example of enargeia is the Darth Plagueis speech from Revenge of the Sith - just about the only decent example of subtext in the Star Wars prequels. Another great rhetoric scene like the Young Mr Lincoln one (which possibly influenced it) is Antony's funeral speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Brutus has convinced the crowd Caesar was a tyrant, but when Caesar's ally Antony speaks he sarcastically describes Brutus as an honorable man. But he subtly questions whether what Brutus said of Caesar was true. Eventually he convinces the crowd that Caesar's assassination was wrong, and they turn on Brutus. A great piece of rhetoric and my favorite single scene in Shakespeare.
Wait....saving two boys from execution by a lawyer. And you didn't mention My Cousin Vinny? Also the "drug dealer that skins people alive" bit had me dying.
Tuco wants power and to command authority. Judges have both of those. If Saul had suggested he be like a police officer, that wouldn't make sense, but given Tuco's motivations, the judge idea appealing to him makes sense. Characters are not defined by what they are, but by their motivations for doing it. It doesn't matter that he's a drug dealer who skins people alive, what matters is his narcissism and the angry insecurity that lies beneath it. Also, threats and warnings are two different things. A threat means that you yourself will cause harm to the other person, whereas a warning is that something or someone else will cause them harm. When alcohol companies put warnings saying pregnant women shouldn't drink their products, they aren't threatening fetuses, they are warning the mothers.
Conpared to most modern dialogue, that Tuco scene looked exceptional to me. But its like ive been baptized in John Fords essence. I am a changed man. I definitely explicitly remember thinking, why doesnt tuco just kill him? But I brushed off the thought because the scene was funny.
Completely agreed on the tuco scene. I heard different things about better call Saul - maybe I missed out - but I bailed after a couple episodes mainly because of this scene. Tuco was established as an unhinged psycho he wouldn’t care what these guys had to say. It didn’t matter what jams Saul got in since we know he survived to breaking bad so they’d have to do completely inorganic things to get him out of them.
I have to disagree. Tuco, being a drug dealer and seeing more than his fair share of court-time might like to play judge considering it would be him in the judge's seat. 2nd, Jimmy McGill AKA Saul Goodman does speak in the language of criminals, as an advocate in a court room. Third, he gives excellent legal advice. If Tuco kills the two skateboarders, he could go to jail for double homicide. Whereas if he maims them, he could plead self defence because they entered the home of his abuela. 4th, Jimmy's future clients are the Salamanca family, so even though Tuco is a bad guy, Saul can't actually talk him out of violence. Instead he's settling for LESS violence. 5th Saul is not Lincoln, Saul is not a criminal lawyer, hes a CRIMINIAL lawyer 😀
Yeah I have to disagree with you too about Tuco. He could despise judges but still respect their power. Especially the power they probably had over him and his family
I have no idea how anyone can watch Succession with that wild camera movement. I even recall a couple of ridiculous quick zooms in the pilot. I hear the writing is good. SMH...
You know, I actually have that idea lined up! I’m not sure yet how I’ll tackle it (if it’ll be a list or a good versus bad analysis of scenes like this one) but it’s definitely a video I’ll make!
@@Moviewise Nicholson in The Witches of Eastwick is fantastic (as always) and has amazingly engaging seduction scenes. And don't forget Dangerous Liaisons.
BCS fan here, but I have to recognize the Tuco sequence didn't convince me either. Actually the first 5 episodes are kind of weak, but it takes off from episode 6. But also, I wouldn't take the Succession bit as an example of good writing either. Her method of persuasion is so common in cinema and TV that can rightfully be classified as cliché
Yeah but maybe Tuco would respect someone standing up like that, those guys they often hate weakness so maybe that seemed like strength to talk clear and make his position clear. Even if they’re sadistic they may still have some logic they hold to even if they sometimes don’t follow it.
Stuff was pretty brilliant up until homeboy literally denied the entire point of the School of Frankfurt and the inclusion of social democracy under socialism even by the Socialist International itself lol but the video did satisfy its original point well and was well made.
How's this for a great cinematic rhetorical argument? Dalton Trumbo's screenplay for "Spartacus" has the titular leader, played by Kirk Douglas of course, persuading his fellow gladiators in revolt to stop forcing Roman elites to fight each other in their first hours of freedom -- "What are we, ROMANS?!" -- in order to organize as an army, march through Italy, free all the slaves, and bring an end to the Roman Empire's caste-based cruelties and injustices once and for all. A lesser writer might have had Spartacus argue that indulging in the role-reversal made them just the same as, and just as guilty as the aristocrats and leave it at that. That lesser dialogue would've had two fatal flaws, however: 1) it was patently false; the owners of these grand estates were fat, cruel, greedy enslavers, and they deserved some pain and humiliation; and 2) more serious for the movie, it would've failed to advance the plot as Trumbo's actual dialogue did, by outlining the gladiators' abrupt shift from celebratory self-indulgence, to serious-minded focus on a shared, very ambitious goal.
Anyone has something written with all the terms used here and beyond to describe rhetorical strategies... somehow, what I find deals mostly with "logos", structuring the content, but what I need is terms and descriptions of the strategies around "pathos" and "ethos"... anyone has a hint how to find suche?
I don't think your first example from Better Call Saul is terribly useful, as it is a comedic scenario. Of course none of it makes pure sense or is entirely likely, because it's demonstrating an absurd idea. It's dark humor. I wouldn't say that you've given it more thought than the writers. If he stopped to give a Lincoln-esque speech, he'd probably get murdered, too. His character at this point is quite desperate for multiple reasons, and we're seeing a complete "fish out of water" situation.
Man that's a good stuff you're talking about, but DAMN that LOUD DING sounds are driving me nuts. It is much louder than the rest of the audio. Why? my wife went downstairs to check what was dinging that loudly I can't express enough how irritatingly loud these frequently repeated dings are. Let me tell you this: Most of the time you don't need this accents at all. But if you do, please make it 3 times quieter. Thanks. Otherwise cool stuff
"The slippery slope fallacy" is itself a fallacy. One thing can follow another in a carefully controlled manner to lead to an undesired outcome, for instance, a girl who wants to make extra money from modeling can be convinced to do porn if done in a slow, but sleazy way. This is NOT absurdio ad reductio; you're just being lazy by saying that it is. Also, atrazine in the water is causing spontaneous sex changes in frogs. I hate when people use this clip out-of-context because that's another dollar in the "Alex Jones Was Right"-jar.
What is bit problematic in my point of view, is the "Hollywood". It's the actors/directors. After one hit or two, they are coming overpriced and then overrated. Then mixed with expectations of success...and copied stories or remakes. Mannerism and modern movie clichés. CGI so ruling, that movies are allmost cartoon. (Cartoon could be cheaper ro make!) Artform of movies are now influenced by just profit and woke. Masterpieces aren't grow that enviroment.
Tuco very obviously thinks he is acting in accordance with Justice because he believes the skateboarders deserve to be killed. Jimmy first uses pathos, manufacturing a sympathetic old woman. He hypothesizes Tuco will respond to that because Tuco believes he is acting out of respect for his Abuelita so that fabricates a story that connects to that. Once that fails Jimmy switches tactic, seeing that Pathos was not effective, he goes for Logos. Even though the audience, and Jimmy all know Tuco is not logical and is not fair, most individuals think they act rationally and believe they have a moral code. Jimmy uses this to argue down the sentence. As for Ethos, he appeals to Ethos by pretending that Jimmy believes in the same kind of justice that Tuco does. as you said "share the same values" Jimmy struggles at first, but eventually manages to find the values Tuco has and utilize that in his negotiation. Jimmy doesn't do it perfectly and when his rhetoric falters, Tuco starts to push in the opposite direction, wishing more harm on the boys. So not only does this scene effectively use all 3 types of rhetoric, it manages to move back and forth as the speaker falters which is very rare for shows and/or movies to manage. Usually its "Charismatic guy talk good and convince person of thing". Which is one of the many ways the writing in Better Call Saul manages to really stand out. Also it's the show with by far the best cinematic camera work and blocking which are things I know you appreciate on this channel.
Okay, I totally disagree. That was not brilliant writing. That was homely and predictable and pathetic. It made both women look pathetic and neither look credible. I guess 'Succession' is known for its awesome, sardonic dialogue, so why didn't you show some of that? Not this very lame scene, that seemingly only existed to move the plot along and is best quickly forgotten. Oooh, she took her shoes off in the jungle gym! What a master manipulator....
The tuco take is just wrong. Tuco comes off as a very sorta low iq maniac with few moments of street genius who can have a penchant to sorta see himself as an intellectual, thats it, the vast majority of viewers can deduce this about him cause thats the surface level vibe that helps ground the character once he opens his mouth. Saul's argument doesnt need to be academically accurate, it just has to work on someone like tuco and it absolutely does. The fact that it does tells us more about tuco not the otherway around, u dnt just dismiss that cause you think its not the right way to logos or pathos, its not a fucking college essay. Tuco is coked up half the time he's awake, there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind or anyones mind watching that, that sauls argument would've NEVER worked on tuco, thats just such a crazy assertion.
I think you have an unuseful idea of evil. Evil does not exist. Find someone who is said to be evil and ask them (the individual most likely to know) if they are evil. No one in real life ever admits to being evil. No one says "I am evil." Everyone has a code of justice and this code can be appealed to. Even Milton's Satan has a principle. It may not be a justice that we all understand. It may lack empathy. But it exists. It's what Dostoyevsky's hero's always end up accepting or appealing to. If you are evil and you do not care about justice, you can not ( not will not but can not ) interact with humans. It's the basis of all cooperation no matter how contractural. Even Ghengis Khan had a concept of justice. And he did not think he was evil.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't the same thing as the slippery slope fallacy, although they are similar. In instance, Lincoln is using a slippery slope fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope.
