Garcia 1

Iris Garcia-Barnett
Dr. McLaughlin
Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric
9 December 2016
Happiness From the Inside Out
Happy is a documentary about peoples stories from around the world which depict the
positive correlation between personal growth and relationships and happiness. The film was
clearly being meant for an American audience as it was released in the U.S. initially in 2011 with
Japan and Belgium following years later meaning the filmmakers initial audience in mind were
American watchers. With the audience established as American viewers, one of the central
claims the film addresses is their disproportionate focus on extrinsic goals - which are defined as
money, image, and status in the film - to achieve happiness instead of concentrating on intrinsic
goals (personal growth, relationships, and community) which have actually been found to
produce higher levels of happiness. By intending to convince its viewers of this position, Happy
could be described as rhetoric. George Kennedy defined rhetoric as the energy inherent in
emotion and thought, transmitted through a system of signs, including language, to others to
influence their decisions or actions (Herrick 5). The filmmakers had to intelligently depict their
intended message to appeal to the largest audience possible while also staying within the
constraints they came across. As a result, Happy utilizes interviews from experts as well as
common people, background images, and the juxtaposition of scenes to enhance the claim that
giving more importance to intrinsic goals rather than extrinsic goals is what will ultimately bring
people true happiness.

Garcia 2
The initial interviews seem to be happening in an American city allowing the audience to
make the assumption that this is how Americans seek out happiness. One of the men being
interviewed in the first scene specifically referred to being happy as the American Dream
(0:52-1:34). If thats so, why do Americans think they can buy it? The American Dream is a
concept that has been around for ages; James Truslow Adams officially coined it in 1931 and
defined it by saying, life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity
for each according to ability or achievement regardless of social class or circumstance of birth
(Adams). If that is truly the case, why do people think being more good looking, having more
money, or obtaining a higher position of power will make them happier? Despite the American
Dream not being explicitly discussed more thoroughly in the film, it is a topic that is worth
mentioning since Adams clearly states that everyone has the opportunity to be happy regardless
of external factors which does tie in with a point the film does thoroughly discuss. Therefore, by
that logic, if people are going to place the American Dream and the achievement of happiness
into the same metaphorical box, they should not worry about external factors as they do not
matter.
From the start of the film, there is the subtle claim that most Americans look for
happiness through external sources, while people living simpler lives without so much outside
influence seek happiness from different means. The very beginning of the film starts with various
scenes filled with billboards about being happy and ads and magazines promising people instant
happiness. Meanwhile, Manoj Singh, a rickshaw driver from the Kolkata slums of India in the
next scene, has very little and is found to be just as happy as the average American. His joy
comes from when his son calls out to him after he returns from work and the community his
neighborhood shares. The viewers see the conditions this man lives in compared to the average

Garcia 3
American from the scenes that are shown in between the interview. Americans are seen with,
surrounded by, and being sold material possessions while this man and his family have almost
nothing. Their clothes are ripped and Singh does not even have shoes on when he is at his job
which requires a lot of walking. The filmmakers want to make Americans aware of this
difference and since a rhetorical audience consists only of those persons who are capable of
being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change (Bitzer 8), they think they
could make a difference in the levels of happiness of the everyday American because of it.
In support with the films central claim is the idea that rural areas are better than urban
settings in the sense that rural areas allow for more time with matters that carry more importance
like family and companionship. In The How of Happiness, Sonja Lyubomirsky discusses that
only 40% of happiness is within ones control. Everyone starts off at a set point which is 50% of
ones happiness and 10% is based on circumstance (Lyubomirsky 13). However, the
circumstances do affect the 40% one controls which is demonstrated by the differences in the
two scenes in Louisiana and Japan. This is a paradise to me is how the first scene with Roy
Blanchard, the man from Louisiana, starts (7:47). He is referring to the bayou he lives in. For
him its a peaceful landscape he gets to call his home. He smiled every second he was describing
his home. No one else really talked about their home that way. The next time the audience sees
Roy, he is with his family all of which live modestly and all live about a mile from each other
around the bayou (25:51-27:11). They all get together at least once a week every week and eat
seafood from the bayou that might typically cost a lot of money, but because of where they live
they can enjoy those sorts of meals without having to worry about it being to costly each week.
Had they lived in an urban environment, this sort of get-together would not be possible and the
Blanchard family would like find themselves in the trap of money in an attempt to make these

Garcia 4
dinners still possible. In a city, there is no land to live off; they would likely end up losing that
sense of community from their more modest lifestyle. The subway systems of Japan are a perfect
example of that lack of community within the people of a city. The audience is presented with
massive groups of people all getting on the subway at once (35:04-36:08), and while technically
no one is alone in these scenes, there is a definite sense of loneliness amongst most everyone.
That, coupled with the obvious exhaustion a large majority of the public felt from working
themselves to death for money, created an extremely unhappy environment.
Image is a goal that has been consuming America for decades. Women, specifically, are
constantly killing themselves in order to look their best and usually for people who could not
care less because they are also consumed with their own appearance. Happy shows the viewers
that looks are not everything with the story of Melissa Moody, a beautiful woman who got her
looks stolen from her in a tragic accident and ended up being better and happier because of it.
The film does an excellent job of setting up the scene for the audience. By filming Melissa solely
from the side at the beginning, the viewers are really impacted by the dramatic reveal of her face
after the accident. Judith Lancioni, in her essay The Rhetoric of the Frame, mentions Sonja
Foss who stated that a rhetorical response should be engaging in a critical reflective analysis of
the work or a cognitive apprehension of it (Lancioni 106). That scene definitely made the
audience think critically since it was so unexpected. Surely, the audience felt for Melissa in that
moment and maybe even thought about how they take something as simple as their looks for
granted. Melissa suffered through a really arduous time after that accident; her friends could not
even recognize her, her husband divorced her, and she was just angry to be alive. The only reason
she did not commit suicide through all this was because she realized her kids needed her to still
be there with them (19:49-21:10). Once she got over that initial period of anger and frustrated

Garcia 5
confusion, things began to turn around for her with her marriage to Hap Wotila and her work
with self-healing for others, and 19 years after the accident, she states that she is now happier
than she has ever been (22:19-22:46). When people stop worrying about how they look and
whether they look better than someone else, they can become more grounded and better
themselves on a more personal level.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, author of Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, writes
that once one reaches a state of flow when singing, or playing a sport or instrument, there is one
clear goal and all else disappears. People forget their problems and their ego goes away (14:2915:35). Finding flow can bring happiness since it usually requires something one likes doing in
the first place, so one feels right at home with the task and any problems that might be going on
seem less important for the time being. Essentially, flow can create a temporary sense of
fulfilling bliss. For example there is Andy Wimmer, a volunteer at a home for the dying and
destitute in Kolkata, India. Before this, he was a bank and computer manager and his ultimate
goal was to become the youngest bank director there (1:06:46-1:07:37). From the interview, it
did not seem as if he was the type of person to worry about others until he realized there was
more to life than spending money on frivolous things and began volunteering at the home.
Wimmer got into the flow of helping others rather than himself and says that [his] life is a loan
given from God and [that he] will pay back this loan, but with interest (1:10:06), all the while
learning acceptance, tolerance, and generosity from serving at the home. In a different instance
of flow, there is Ronaldo Fadul from Brazil who has been surfing for over 40 years (12:0612:27). He lives incredibly modestly because he finds no reason to be spending money on
himself and would rather be doing what he loves which is surfing. Lyubomirsky goes into
considerable depth on the topic of material wealth and happiness. Studies show that very

Garcia 6
wealthy people have great deal more than the average person, but research shows that they are
not much happier. For example, Americans now are about twice as wealthy as they were about
fifty years ago and yet the average level of happiness is still about a 7.2 (Lyubomirsky 16-17).
That information shows that happiness is independent of money and Fadul understands that.
Although most people do not comprehend either Faduls way of living or that money and
happiness are separate, he lives just as happily despite that. To him, surfing is not only a sport but
almost a religion in the sense that to him, surfing is spiritual and something he can share with his
children (12:31-13:51). So, once again relationships are seen to be important even to a man who
chose surfing over just about everything else.
Many might still be skeptical about this claim, but it makes more sense than the
alternative which is that extrinsic goals are more fulfilling than intrinsic goals. Not once did
Happy show that people were happier because they had more money, were better looking, or had
a higher status. Obviously it is still possible to be content with money or good looks, but what
the film is showing through all its stories, is that it is not necessary nor is it the most important
thing. Andy Wimmer, the volunteer for the home for dying had money and status and still felt
like his life was missing something because extrinsic goals are empty goals. They do not create
an extended periods of contentment but rather a short surges if happiness. Melissa Moody was
beautiful and she certainly had no complaints about her life before the accident, but afterwards,
she claims to be the happiest she had ever been because she learned to accept herself and in turn,
help others to accept themselves through her self-healing practice. Relationships, community,
and personal growth proved time and time again to be the more satisfying of the two options.
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that If I had [fill in blank here], I would be so
happy! (Lyubomirsky 16) and many Americans (and people in general) do that which is what

Garcia 7
makes Happy so relevant. It brings up a topic that everyone can relate to, happiness and shows
its audience ways of achieving it that are essentially universal. By going to fourteen different
countries and getting such different anecdotes from everyone the filmmakers interviewed, their
claim becomes so much more persuasive. Relationships, community, and personal growth are the
correct path to happiness because money, image, and status only provide pleasure which on the
surface can appear to be the same thing but the two are actually quite different. Pleasure is a
momentary feeling from external sources while happiness is something that comes from
experiences and internal sources which result in something longer. At the end of it all, nothing
lasts forever and when ones looks have faded and their money is spent, what will truly matter is
the time they spent with others they cared for and whether they did anything meaningful with
their lives.

Garcia 8
Works Cited
Adams, James Truslow. The Epic of America. Boston: Little, Brown, 1931.
Bitzer, Lloyd. F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric. vol. 1, no. 1, 1968, pp.
1-14.
Happy. Directed by Roko Belic. Wadi Rum Productions. 2011.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn
and Beacon, 2001.
Lancioni, Judith. The Rhetoric of the Frame Revisioning Archival Photographs in The Civil
War. Western Journal of Communication. vol. 60, no. 4, 1996. pp. 397-414
Lyubomirsky, Sonja. The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You
Want. New York: Penguin, 2008.