Benjamin J.

Parks

Meg Prichard

ENG 111 CB MWF 9:05

9 October 2009

Reflecting on Respect: A Rhetorical Analysis

“We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as a backbone of a life

defending something. You use them as a punch line.” In Rob Reiner’s movie A Few Good Men,

actors Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson duke it out in the courtroom over the actions justified by

these simple words. Tom Cruise plays Lt. Daniel Kaffee; an inexperienced Naval lawyer,

overshadowed by his father (one of the best trial lawyers in the United States). Jack Nicholson

plays a hard-nosed, traditional Colonel in the United States Marine Corps who lives by the

system. Lt. Kaffee is currently defending his clients, Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and

Private Louden Downey who are being charged for the murder of a fellow Marine, Private

William Santiago. His belief of Colonel Jessup’s guilt, although correct, limits Lt. Kaffee’s plan

of attack when questioning him in the courtroom. The dialogue witnessed in the climatic

courtroom scene between Lt. Kaffee and Colonel Jessup has a unique rhetorical style that propels

the emotions and plot of this film. Through Lt. Kaffee’s atypical approach to persuade his jury

of the truth, he facilitates Colonel Jessup’s prosecution through coercing his anger.

Lt. Kaffee’s opening statement while questioning Colonel Jessup is filled with emotions.

He is literally screaming at a man who is not only of higher authority and ranking than him, but

has earned the respect of many men in all facets of the military. His discourse is somewhat

informal, not to mention, in a military court hearing, there are great repercussions for a lawyer

falsely accusing any military official of a crime. While Tom Cruise directly asks Jack Nicholson
if he “…ordered the Code Red,” he could lose his ranking as a naval lawyer and have his title

stripped from him if proven otherwise. The presiding judge even states that Jessup does “…not

have to answer that question,” on the basis that there is no hard evidence aside from the

circumstantial assumptions presented in Kaffee’s argument thus far.

Jack Nicholson’s response to the defense attorney’s direct questioning is unexpected. It

is not a typical response of someone trying to evade prosecution for a crime. Instead he agrees to

answer the question and then escalates the scene’s tension through his rebuttal to Lt. Kaffee.

Colonel Jessup asks Lt. Kaffe “Do you want answers?” This instigates a sequence of back and

forth arguing between the two actors. From here forward, his over-zealous pride and honor lead

Colonel Jessup down a path of no return.

If viewers watch Jack Nicholson’s facial expression during this portion of the scene, they

should pay special attention to his eyes.

His glare sends chills and he never breaks eye contact with his opponent. While staring down

Lt. Kaffee, Colonel Jessup raises his voice to the point of screaming. This deep voice which

epitomizes “manhood,” beckons throughout the courtroom, only to be matched by Lt. Kaffee’s

equally escalating voice. At this point, viewers can clearly see that the battle is not just between

guilty and innocent, but between a novice lawyer seeking to break away from his family’s label
and a man who has built that same label for himself. Through this ad hominem style of speech,

the struggle to surmount escalates until Colonel Jessup’s final monologue.

Tom Cruise’s character wittily responds to Jack Nicholson’s questioning through the

statement, “I think I’m entitled to them.” As a lawyer in the court of law, it is only logical that

answers are entitled to everyone involved in the trial. Clearly, Jack Nicholson already knows the

question’s answer as he struggles to evade his demise. At this point, Colonel Jessup’s anger is

getting the best of him. He is shifting in his seat, seemingly uncomfortable with the situation at

hand. Lt. Kaffee’s direct and logical statements seem undeveloped and immature, but serve well

in the support of his claim that his clients were acting strictly under military orders.

Colonel Jessup is not only losing control of his anger, but coercing the same emotion

from Lt. Kaffee. It seems that the argument has surpassed guilty vs. innocent and risen to an

‘alpha-male’ battle. Tom Cruise’s climatic speech in the film may be one of the most quoted

exchanges in all motion pictures. He profoundly states “I want the truth!” Colonel Jessup

quickly cuts off Lt. Kaffee with a direct attack on the Lieutenant’s persona, “You can’t handle

the truth!”

This is the peak exchange between the two adversaries. Jack Nicholson then begins to

justify his military order “Code Red.” He continually attacks Lt. Kaffee as a human especially

through speech such as “...Son we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be

guarded by men with guns. Who’s going to do it? You?...”

As a viewer watching this film, things such as camera angle, shot, and background also

play a major role into the rhetorical style projected by Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. One may

notice that the shot is a medium shot, somewhat zoomed out for view of the background.

However, the camera is focused solely on Lt. Kaffee’s face, which allows the director to further
show the anger and dispute in this scene. In terms of cinematography, viewers should notice that

the camera frame does not change in order to maintain emphasis on Jack Nicholson’s facial

expressions. If anything is done to the cameras, the only aspect that changes is whether they are

zoomed in or out.

Many aspects of Colonel Jessup’s rant hurt his argument as a whole. However, one

statement sheds some light on his support for ordering the “Code Red.” He states that

“Santiago’s death while tragic, probably saved lives.” This gives Colonel Jessup some

credibility aside from his title and rankings. Viewers can undoubtedly see that he has devoted his

life’s responsibilities to the Marines. Following this portion of the speech, he attacks Lt. Kaffee

for “…questioning the manner in which…” he provides freedom for the United States of

America. He places himself on a pedestal judging the mortality of the despicable humans sitting

below. Colonel Jessup’s tone escalates until the end of his monologue where Lt. Kaffee calmly

interjects and politely asks “Did you order the Code Red?”

By lowering his voice, Tom Cruise allows his character to maintain credibility through

controlling his anger after enduring the verbal bashing from Jack Nicholson. Throughout the

rant, cut-away camera shots were implemented in order to show Tom Cruise’s reaction to Jack

Nicholson’s speech. His deep breaths and glaring eyes showed Lt. Kaffee’s reaction without

using words. This body language demonstrates that Lt. Kaffee is tuned into everything that

Colonel Jessup is saying. He is absorbing every word so that he can use it in his rebuttal

statements. He does not break focus until he pressures Colonel Jessup into a confession.

Jack Nicholson’s response to the prior question “…I was doing my job…” was cut off

instantly by Tom Cruise’s reply. He again asks him the same question, however this time he

moves from his stagnant position far away from the witness stand to a few feet from Colonel
Jessup. He escalates his voice and his body even shakes while screaming at the Colonel. This

anger evokes a response from Jack Nicholson that proves Tom Cruise’s claim correct. He admits

to ordering the “Code Red” and fails to win the battle of respect.

Tom Cruise’s tactical yet uncharacteristic approach to defending his clients serves him

well in the court hearing. He understands Jack Nicholson’s character which allows him to play

off of the demand for respect and honor that Colonel Jessup demands. His rhetorical style when

juxtaposed to the Colonel’s is primitive, yet it serves its purpose in unveiling the truth in the

murder trial.

Writer’s Memo

I will admit this was a difficult paper to write. I took on a small portion of a long, drawn

out court hearing. I wish that I had been able to change the length of the video clip, but I was not

able to watch the entire film until Thursday evening. As far as the substantive aspects of the

paper go, my thesis (Through Lt. Kaffee’s atypical approach to persuade his jury of the truth, he

opens up Pandora’s Box unleashing a monster trapped inside of Colonel Nathan Jessup.), was

not difficult to develop. I thought that I was able to pull certain aspects of the scene and apply

rhetorical terminology to them rather well. I also think that my prior knowledge of

cinematography helped in understanding how the director wanted to portray the scene. On the

other hand, I do not think that the paper flows well. I was not sure how to combine my separate

analysis of the actual movie and the director’s perspective. I eventually decided on interjections

which hurts the organization of the paper. The easiest part of the essay to write was the

introduction. I find that I am able to develop somewhat unique introductions that catch reader’s

attention. I think the most effective sentence is this:

 At this point, viewers can clearly see that the battle is not just between guilty and

innocent, but between a novice lawyer seeking to break away from his family’s label and

a man who has built that same label for himself.

I think that this sentence allows the reader to understand the underlying cause of the

rhetorical style that I am attempting to describe in my thesis. My most ineffective sentences are

those describing the cinematography. I feel these are ineffective because I am unsure about how

they break up the flow of the paper. I would like the reader to no simply look for rhetorical

terms and apply them to the scene, but ask “Why were these specifically used?” I have learned

through this paper that understanding rhetoric and the presentation of an argument provides a

great understanding and enables people to sift through the (for lack of a better term) bullshit that

many people spew when trying to win an argument. I used ethos, pathos and logos in my paper

through implementation of quotes and analyzing them specifically. I used other words such as

claim and ad hominem, but I really wanted to try to employ an understanding of the definitions

rather than simply using terms.

Writer’s Memo—2

I feel that after completing the revision of my Rhetorical Analysis assignment, the paper

is much stronger than before. I focused on re-organizing the paper and going more in-depth in

emotional description. It is a significant revision because I reorganized the opening paragraph of

the paper. Consequently, this change my thesis and my argument overall. However, I believe

that the redesigned thesis statement is more applicable to my original document than the original.

This helped while revising the rhetorical analysis because I was able to keep the “shell,” which

allowed me to focus on describing the specific emotions in the scene.

 The sections that I struggled with in the first draft were the areas describing emotions in

the courtroom scene. Additionally, I struggled with implementing my cinematographic

knowledge and injecting that into the paper without prohibiting flow. In order to improve

describing the emotions of the dialogue, I had to first decide what emotions were being

exhibited. After I decided that it was an overall angry tone, I changed my thesis to how Lt.

Kaffee coerces Colonel Jessup’s anger. This shifted the paper’s focus to the how Lt. Kaffee uses

rhetorical strategies to draw this weakness out of his adversary. The shifted focus made my

paper stronger because it focuses more on Lt. Kaffee’s approach as opposed to simple

observations.

In the original analysis, I attempted to inject the paper with my film making knowledge.

I interjected in between paragraphs that would analyze the rhetoric in the scene. This cut the

paper into segments. I feel that the paper did not flow as well as it could have, so I grouped the

cinematographic elements together into one full segment and placed it at an opportune point in

the paper. This increased the flow and decreased the choppy feeling in the original document.

In the revision, I kept most of the evidence that existed in the original. However, I

omitted the assumptions that were implied and weak. I believe this improved the strength of my

argument since most of my evidence was irrefutable in the first document.

Works Cited

Cruise, Tom, and Jack Nicholson, perf. A Few Good Men. Dir. Rob Reiner. 1992. Web. 11 Oct.

2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/>.