Luke Singer
Megan Peters
English 111
10/7/12
You’re My God Damn Hero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-XWhH2VSXk There may not be a better ending to a movie that has been released in the last ten years. The ending of Taking of Pelham 123 includes a face-off between good and bad, with guns drawn, and both men up against a wall, creating a dramatic and suspenseful ending to a fantastic movie. As if the film did not have enough action in it, the last scene alone can provide enough white knuckles in the audience to fulfill any demands from the public audience. However, before anyone thinks that this sort of ending just “happens” without a lot of thought and attention to detail, think again. The director, Tony Scott, created the perfect concoction in the last scene to produce something that was unforgettable and that left the audience with a good taste in their mouth as they finished the movie. Through years of directing, this may come more easily to Scott, but the untrained eye would have no idea where to start if they were to put together this last scene. Many factors are working together here that need to be broken down to experience the full effects of what is going on. The multiple forms of rhetoric, with addition to other factors such as camera angles, target audience, and word choice, built a scene that can be analyzed from the inside out. The use of rhetoric here is different than how it may be used in a commercial. Instead of persuading someone to purchase a product, the main character Ryder (John Travolta) is persuading the other star of the movie Garber (Denzel Washington) to take his life. This carries much more weight than a normal request or favor, as it has to do with the murder of another human being. The police are coming, Ryder is up against a fence, and there is nowhere for him to go. Instead of going to prison, he convinces Garber to shoot him, using some of his own rhetoric. Earlier in the movie, Ryder could have killed Garber, but decided not to due to a complication in the plan. Now, as the tables have turned, Travolta says, “We all owe God a death.” The pathos persuasion technique works very well because it brings in religion, which usually evokes strong emotions. While Garber argues back that we all owe God life, he knows that it is not true and that he is just buying time until the police get there because he immediately yells to the police. Ryder then follows with a great persuasive technique, using bargain rhetoric to try and convince his enemy. Now, Ryder is asking for the favor; a favor that would not be possible if he had shot Garber earlier. The next way Ryder persuades is through pathos, saying, “I thought you cared!” which is, in fact, what Garber had said earlier in the movie. The last piece of argumentative rhetoric used by Travolta is win rhetoric, when he says that he will shoot Garber after the count of ten. Ryder is willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish his task, which leaves Garber with only one option: shoot him before he gets shot. In the end, Ryder’s dialogue worked exactly how he wanted it to, and the movie ends with him dead on the sidewalk with a bullet in his chest. Although this is a movie clip, the dialogue provides examples of how rhetoric is used effectively and successfully to enhance the ending of the film. Although the dialogue between the two actors includes a great deal of rhetoric, there is more rhetoric to be found. The music and audio mixture in the scene provide another layer to the scene. Maybe the audience will not realize it at first, but the use of the instruments and amplification of certain sounds really contribute to the situation that the actors are in. At first, you can hear everything that is going on around them for a few seconds, but then certain sounds start to play a bigger role. The sound of the traffic is reduced, which makes sense because the cars going by have nothing to do with what is happening. This allows the audience to really focus in on what is really important to the movie scene instead of being distracted by something else that is going on. Next, the police helicopters that are flying past are amplified. They are very involved in the whole scene; the helicopters portray how trapped Ryder really is, and how there is no way out for him at this point. Following the sound of the helicopter, a higher-pitched, slow tempo piano drops in as the two start to discuss what is about to happen. The piano is a very peaceful sounding instrument, which is ironic given the current situation. In the midst of all of this drama that is unfolding, at the end of a fast-paced, action movie, a calming instrument starts to play. The sound is much different than all the other sounds throughout the movie, and it emphasizes the seriousness of the conversation while allowing the audience to catch its breath before what is about to happen next. As Travolta starts to countdown, a string instrument is added to increase the tempo. The piano takes on a higher pitch and both of the instruments increase speed. The increased tempo reflects your heart rate in this moment, as the intensity increases so does your pulse. The pitch continues to increase as well, right up until the moment that Garber pulls the trigger. All sounds fade away as the gun goes off, and the shot resonates in the air for a moment. Travolta says, “You’re my God damn hero”, a “thank you” to Garber, as he hits the ground. The piano comes in and takes over all sound, carrying with it the emotions of the audience. Because it is such a distinct instrument, people connect with it and allow it to sooth them at the end of a movie thrill ride. The piano continues as the camera zooms out, giving the signal to the audience that they can now relax. In this scene, the audio is vital to inducing emotions, giving cues, involving the audience; it is a little thing that makes a big difference. Just as the audio provides certain aspects, the camera angle and camera techniques contribute equally as much to the success of a movie. In this final scene, Scott uses seven different camera angles to get a full view of the action, with each view providing something new. The helicopters provide a distant view to show the big picture of what is going on. It allows the viewer to see that the two men are on a very large bridge with many unknowing vehicles passing by. Another view shows the police running toward them. The police are a nonfactor in the scene, because based on what Ryder has said, there is no way that the police will get him alive. This view is just meant to tell the audience that time is winding down, and the climax of the scene is quickly approaching. The view on the two main actors however, is very interesting. Both of the cameras are above the men’s shoulders, but only one shows a close up of a character’s face. While the screen zooms in on Garber’s face as the discussion progresses, the camera positioned on Travolta remains behind the fence throughout the entire conversation. Until he is shot, the lens shows that the fence is the closest thing to the camera. While this seems odd, analytically it makes sense. The audience is closer and therefore more attached to the protagonist of the movie, while being much farther away and cut off from the antagonist. When the threat is removed and Ryder is shot, the camera comes inside the fence and now zooms in on him. The last thing that Scott does visually in the scene is a perfect way to let the audience breath visually. As the scene wraps up, the word “freeing” comes to mind. Throughout the entire section of this movie, the viewer in enclosed in this tight space between the two fences. Some may call this claustrophobic, or feeling trapped in a small space for any period of time, which is exactly what Scott has created. As the scene ends however, the camera zooms out, showing the panoramic view of the bridge, and then onto the entire city of New York with a sunset skyline. The audience can exhale as they take in the change of scenery, and Tony Scott’s perfect combination of camera angles is complete. The final piece of the puzzle is how the intended audience reacted to the scene. The movie, while considered action/drama, features two of the most recognizable faces in Hollywood with John Travolta and Denzel Washington. The choice of these two to star in this film was based on their ethos. Travolta has gathered many fans over the years, going all of the way back to his starring role in Grease that made him famous, and has now played in fifty-seven movies (2, Wikipedia.org). Denzel Washington is one of the most versatile actors, drawing from a large fan base over the years and playing in forty-two movies (1, imdb.com). Any scene with just these two actors in it is destined to be incredible. The audience will watch this movie solely based upon the credibility of either of the two stars, and the experience of the two sets up a scene with just them in it perfectly. The last scene is pure acting, from actors that know exactly what they are doing. They captivate the audience with their skills and make the viewer feel involved emotionally in the scene. Technically, the directed audience aims to get people to watch the movie, not for a specific part in the movie. So the target audience is anyone who likes action, drama, or suspense movies, African-Americans (for Washington), and the generation that grew up with John Travolta. This is a very large target audience, and most anyone whom has seen the movie was not disappointed. Using all of his skills, Tony Scott put together a truly unforgettable ending that incorporated everything necessary to grip the audience and tie the movie together. Many forms of rhetoric were at play here, used both by the dialogue and by the director to combine for a great scene. Ryder used his persuasiveness to his advantage and ended up getting what he wanted. Washington tried to use his own rhetorical skills to dissuade, but in the end he had no choice other than to cave to his enemies wishes. Through sound, the audience was tuned in physically and emotionally to what was going on in the final show down. The use of piano and string instrument combined to make the last few moments special. The different camera angles captured whole view of the scene and allowed for the viewer to feel like he/she was on the bridge with them. Finally, the director hit a bull’s eye on the target audience, making sure that most everyone was pleased with a solid ending. Many factors come into play when choosing the closing for a movie; the director has to consider many aspects and how the audience will responds to certain decisions. In the final scene of Taking of Pelham 123, Tony Scott managed the perfect combination, and for that, he is a goddamn hero.

Citations and Cover Letter 1.) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000243/ - Denzel Washington Facts 2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Travolta - John Travolta Facts
Some of the issues that I faced while writing this paper were how to not summarize while describing only one scene of a movie, and how to be more critical of this really good movie scene. I have seen the movie before, but I still had trouble not describing why something had happened or why a character said what they said. Critically, I thought the director included all of the important things that should be in a final scene to a movie, so I was biased on the effectiveness of the scene. At the same time, I looked at all of the things that Scott could have done differently and only came up with one, which I included in the paper. I thought that I analyzed all of the different parts of rhetoric that were shown, even going so far as to break down what Travolta’s character said rhetorically. My goal in this paper was to completely break down one of my favorite movie clips, and analyze it thoroughly to the point where the reader can see every little aspect when they go back and watch the clip again. I knew it would be difficult, and so I had a few people watch the clip, read over the paper, and watch the clip again after. All of those people said that they picked up on different properties that they had not consciously noticed before. This feedback from the anonymous readers was positive, and so I can say that I’m pretty sure the goal was accomplished. I only have two questions and the first one is: will we continue to only rhetorically analyze or are we going to move into a different kind of paper? I really liked this project, so do not take that the wrong way. This whole unit forced me to look at adds differently than I would have otherwise. Also, will we continue to watch shows and movie clips in class? It helps me to understand what we are talking about and they are a nice break from the normalcy of other classes.