Wilber Rosales

Professor Deadrick
English 102
March 6, 2016
The Raid: Redemption, Rhetorical Analysis of Argument
The issue of violence has become a hot topic recently due to the increase in horrific
events taking place in the United States. Events like the Sandy Hook school shooting where 27
died, and the Aurora theater shooting where 12 died, increased the concern of violence in today's
society. People fear for their lives as mass shootings are becoming all too common. The public
has taken some minor actions such as pressuring the government for stricter gun laws, but who
really is to blame for the increase in violence? Many people are pointing their fingers at the
entertainment industry. The movie, tv, and gaming industry have all equally taken heavy
criticism for supposedly feeding the public too much violent content. Especially the movie
industry, where violent movies nowadays are the norm. In The Raid: Redemption review
written by Roger Ebert, Ebert informs us on the amount of violence involved in the highly rated
movie. He compares the action packed movie to video games to prove his point on how
gruesome and poor this movie really is. By comparing the two, Ebert is able to reach movie
watchers who dont realize how surprisingly similar it is to a video game and gamers who might
not acknowledge the connection between the two. In his attempt to persuade his audience, Robert
Eberts argumentation is effective through the use of a rhetorical strategy and the three modes of
persuasion.
First, Ebert uses two analogies, a key strategy in persuading his audience. In his review,
Ebert says The Raid: Redemption is essentially a visualized video game that spares the audience

the inconvenience of playing it. By using this analogy, Ebert is able to alter the reader's thoughts
into the realization of how incredibly similar an action film can be to a videogame. Comparing
the two leads the reader to contemplate whether the movie really is too similar like a videogame,
to a point where one might consider it crossing the line. In paragraph three, Ebert says Have
you noticed how cats and dogs will look at a TV screen on which there are things jumping
around? It is to that level of the brain's reptilian complex that the film appeals. Ebert is
comparing movie watchers of action films to clueless animals. By comparing the two, he
questions the reader into thinking whether we as humans really are oblivious to our movie
appeals. Furthermore, we start thinking whether the film industry has fed us so much violence,
we are no longer aware of it. Not only do these analogies enhance his claim that The Raid:
Redemption is too violent, but it changes the reader's perspective early on in the review.
Second, Ebert continues to persuade through the use of Logos. Roger Eberts claim that
The Raid: Redemption is too violent, therefore unpleasant, is clearly stated. In paragraph one,
Ebert starts by saying This film is about violence. All violence. Wall-to-wall violence.
Although a weak statement, Ebert states what type of movie The Raid: Redemption is in the
beginning of the review. This opening statement allows Ebert to direct our attention to his claim
of violence. Also in paragraph one, Ebert continues to say If I estimated the film has 10 minutes
of dialogue, that would be generous. Ebert is stating that the action movie has little dialogue
compared to the violence. Eberts use of Logos strengthens his effort to persuade.
Third, Eberts means of persuasion only becomes greater through the use of Ethos. In the
second paragraph, Roger Ebert says I am dismayed. I have no prejudice against violence when I
find it in a well-made film. But this film is almost brutally cynical in its approach. He is stating
that he has nothing against violence in a well made film, but The Raid: Redemption is not one

of those films. In this quote, credibility is not directly said, but rather assumed. With this
statement, Ebert hints that he has prior experience reviewing other movie, so his criticism on
The Raid: Redemptions isnt bias. In paragraph three, Ebert says There's obviously an
audience for the film, probably a large one. They are content, even eager, to sit in a theater and
watch one action figure after another pound and blast one another to death. Ebert acknowledges
the opposition, but criticises them in a disgracing manner. He believes he movie watchers of
action films only care about death and have no compassion for human life. With this statement,
we can tell that Ebert is being bias. Ebert thinks these types of people are the only ones to like a
violent movie like The Raid: Redemption. Although these are his opinions, it is backed by the
fact that he was a film critic. Through his credible criticism, Ebert continues to persuade the
reader.
Finally, Roger Ebert is able to capitalize on his argument by using Pathos. In paragraph
three, Eberts says They require no dialogue, no plot, no humanity. With this statement, Ebert is
able to evoke a feeling of disappointment. He is able to evoke a feeling of disappointment by
stating that movies similar to The Raid: Redemption lacked effort and concern for human life.
He believes that action movies nowadays only care about the violence and yet, people are still
willing to watch them. Lastly, in paragraph nine it says Some of the hand-to-hand battles are
shameless in how they mimic video games. A fighter stands in a corridor and demolishes an
enemy. As the enemy falls, another springs into position from around the corner, ready to be
demolished in turn. With this quote, Ebert is able to evoke a feeling of shock. Ebert creates
shock with this statement because he is able to signify how gruesome this movie really is. We
can tell just with that statement that the movie demonstrates killings as a normal thing, even

though in reality, it is not. Allowing the reader to acknowledge his disappointment and shock
supports his means of persuasion even more.
My personal context affects my evaluation of the argument because it caused some bias. I
enjoy watching movies, whether it be a comedy or an action film. When I watch a violent film, I
dont care for the violence, I worry more about the storyline. The violence in the movie is just an
additive to build a storyline. This is where my bias comes in because when I watch an action
film, I should expect violence. I believe I consider myself to be target reader of this argument
because I watch action films. I did not have a position before reading the article and Im not
really invested in the issue of violence in the media. I do realize that in todays media, there is a
lot of violent content being shown. Therefore, I would consider myself to be a neutral reader of
the argument because the issue is something I acknowledge, but not something I personally
worry/care about.
Roger Ebert is effective in his argumentation through the use of many persuading
strategies. Ebert is a credible film critic who is able to reach the reader with analogies and
emotions. Although Ebert used strong persuading methods, Ebert did not convince me. I still
believe the movie is fine how it is, even if its too violent for some like Ebert. I did however, feel
a small shift from my original position after reading the argumentation. Through Eberts effective
argumentation, I did find myself questioning the entertainment industry a bit while reading his
review. Maybe we are oblivious to the violence in the games and films we enjoy.
Work Cited
Ebert, Roger. The Raid: Redemption Review Rogerebert.com, 2012
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-raid-redemption-2012