“Calorie Detective Response”

In Casey Neistat’s opinion documentary, he reveals some interesting finds about the amount of calories people are actually consuming. Although the New York City health code requires chain restaurants to display the amount of calories in each item on the menu, Neistat wonders if those numbers are genuine. He performs an experiment with certified food scientists to uncover the truth behind these numbers and wants to show his audience the true accuracy of the calories that he or she is consuming. He does this because there may be people who do not know how much they are actually eating or drinking, and this can be concerning for people who are trying to lose weight or become healthier. In this documentary, Neistat’s audience are the people who are counting calories for health reasons. We know this because he himself is doing this in the documentary and is going out of his way to show this audience the extra calories consumed that are equivalent to foods like the unhealthy Big Mac burger. He appeals to the audience in a variety of ways. He is logical. He does this by providing his audience with assurance by working alongside qualified food scientists who are experts at what they do. He is ethical. He does this by showing honest results throughout the documentary and showing himself buying the actual foods used in the experiments. Lastly, he also appeals to the audience’s emotion through humor and honesty. Light, fun music plays throughout the documentary, creative drawings that incorporate junk foods are used in the introduction, and his light-hearted personality brightens the mood of the film. Even fun blooper clips were spread throughout the documentary. If serious music was playing, and no creative effects were added, the film would have come off as more depressing and dark. This could have made his audience feel bad or insecure about what they were eating, but he took the opposite approach. Neistat’s opinion documentary was the complete opposite of Berends’ “Toys of War.” Whereas Neistat’s film was light-hearted and full of humor, Berends’ film consisted of an upsetting emotional appeal. He uses melancholy music which makes the film sad to watch. He wants his audience to understand the pain of the children and families in the Yida Refugee Camp and Nuba Mountains. There is no humor whatsoever in this film and for good reason. He wants his audience to sympathize with the refugees and feel their pain. He even films himself hiding under caves with the Nuba villagers as they are bombed by airplanes. Another difference is that he uses interviews in his film. These interviews show the children’s point of view and allow the audience to make a connection with them. Both documentaries are amazing and show great examples of logos, pathos, and ethos. Although very different, they both established their purpose.