Visual Rhetoric—Vinny Colantuoni

Dumb Ways to Die

Dumb Ways To Die:

  • Video starts as a cartoon, seemingly for younger people.
  • Sun and a Dandelion are all in the picture, i feel like this is to set the tone as peaceful in the beginning.
  • almost immediately, a figure runs into frame with its hair on fire. slightly shocking
  • it starts becoming funny in the next few scenes with different figures each poking a stick at a grisly bear, eating medicine out of date, and using their private parts as piranha bait.
  • Suddenly, this cartoon as turned into a shock-value-driven comedy short which has by now captivated the attention of those watching it.
  • Then, The “Dead” characters begin dancing saying that there are so many dumb ways to die.
  • Throughout the song, everything becomes progressively funnier, captivating the audience.
  • Towards the end, things take a turn: deaths take a theme into ways to die around a train station.
  • Oddly enough, those three characters that died from train-related deaths took a front spot in the final chorus with everyone else in the background.
  • after the song, the camera pans up, revealing that this entire song/skit was a PSA by Metro.

This video turned out to be a PSA by Metro. The entire video was to tell you to be safe around trains. The video itself does a beautiful job of keeping its audience captivated. It is entertaining to it’s audience and keeps you hooked right up to everything important it is saying and beyond. The creator has done a beautiful job of delivering an important, life saving message to a targeted audience which may result in fewer deaths caused by train accidents.

It targets its audience remarkably. The funny adult humor cartoon persona the video displays reminds me of shows such as family guy and south park. I would assume that it would target the same demographic as well. The teenage/young adult people who may think that they are “too cool” to stand behind a yellow line, believe they are invincible, or just don’t think the safety rules apply to them. While i have no data to back this claim up, it certainly makes a lot of sense.

While the argument is clearly stated in the video, it is not overbearing. It makes its claim concisely without annoying it’s audience. I remember the first time i watched this video. I believed it was funny at first. I then thought it was strange when the three train deaths were introduced, and I became suspicious. When it was finally revealed that it was a PSA, i laughed. I wasn’t mad that i was shown something or thought that it had wasted my time. It was almost like the punchline of a joke. It was so unexpected that it stuck with me as funny. It stuck with me long enough to remember it now and write about it. I would certainly think that the message came across and stuck to me.

While charming at first, the video delivers a vital point in safety around trains. Since so many people use trains to commute to work every day, who knows how many lives this may save. It could even be passed on, the video went viral for a reason. People tell other people about it and they then watch in and learn the same message, which they then pass on to their other friends. The cycle continues. As far as the idea, the medium it was produced on, and its actual delivery, i do not believe it could have been any better than it is.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Visual Rhetoric—Vinny Colantuoni

  1. recon740's avatar recon740 says:

    Professor, Sorry this is late. If you have time for feedback, it would be appreciated.
    ~Vinny

    Feedback provided. —DSH

  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Charming. For this to qualify as a critical analysis, Vinny, you’ll want to analyze the video’s effectiveness at delivering its message. The rhetorical value of snagging the viewer’s attention is primary. What would be the analogy for “The primary job of the first sentence is to get the reader to read the second sentence”? Though the answers might seem silly, what evidence is presented? What is its credibility? Does the author make any mistakes that spoil the logical progress of the argument? When the “turn” occurs, and the viewer recognizes the thesis, is the payoff what the author hoped? Does the viewer resist the author’s conclusion, feel cheated, feel gratified, offer rebuttals, accept the inevitable lesson . . . .? Remember, these ditzy cartoons are tasked with saving fragile human lives. The stakes are high. How well do they succeed?

  3. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Imagine two commuters on a platform, one standing very near the edge as a train approaches. The other says, “That would be a dumb way to die,” and they both laugh in recognition, but the risky commuter steps back from the platform, danger averted. That could happen, and it would prove the ads were not just delightful but also life-savingly valuable. How did the author accomplish this important job?

  4. recon740's avatar recon740 says:

    Added an actual analysis to the assignment.

Leave a comment