Kluender 1

Anna Kluender

Professor McLaughlin

WR 13300

8 March 2017

What is Happy: A Rhetorical Question

While films are often remembered for their iconic quotes or action scenes, their true

messages are not always as overtly defined. For example, images, sounds, and cinematic effects

that film directors choose to embed in their films play a large role in determining the messages

audiences glean from films. In her book The Rhetoric of the Frame, Judith Lancioni discusses

the effects of camerawork, framing, and the composition of scenes on viewers of a documentary,

all of which are by-products of the directors choices. Happy, a 2011 documentary directed by

Roko Belic, analyzes American happiness and its flaws and is an excellent example of this

phenomenon. Controlling the manner in which the films scenes are presented gives Belic the

power to shape viewers interpretations of these scenes in ways that support the claims of the

movie. By choosing to vary the background, presentation, and selection of scenes in Happy,

Belic is able to subtly yet powerfully control viewers reactions to the film and thus to the claim

that Americans place too much emphasis on materialistic happiness. Belic strategically uses

cinematic tools such as music, varied speeds of clips, and selective cutting and splicing to

persuade viewers that basing happiness on monetary success creates a life full of stress that is in

fact devoid of true happiness.

Now more than ever, Americans and the population of the world at large are focused on

discovering, attaining, and maintaining happiness in their lives, as evidenced by the fact that self-

help books such as Sonja Lyubomirskys The How of Happiness and Gretchen Rubins The
 Kluender 2

Happiness Project continue to reach the New York Times Bestsellers List. In fact, as mentioned

in the film, a whole new field of science called positive psychology has been created in recent

years to study happiness. Happy piggybacks on this recent obsession with happiness and asserts

its own claim about the average persons approach to being happy. At surface level, Happy is a

documentary depicting happiness around the globe supported by interviews from scientists and

researchers. However, Happy can and should be seen as a rhetorical device with a goal of

persuading the viewers to believe its argument. In chapter 1 of James Herricks book, entitled

An Overview of Rhetoric, Herrick defines one of the functions of rhetoric in society to be

shap(ing) and propagat(ing) the societal values that give us both a corporate identity and a

common direction (25). The film Happy most definitely has a goal of shaping modern values:

the overarching claim of the movie is that Americans, who harbor an obsession with material

wealth and power, cannot reach true happiness.

From the beginning of the movie, Happys stance on American happiness is clear. The

movie opens with stereotypical images of consumerism and extravagance: bikini-clad women

grinding on poles, a Vanity Fair cover promising Instant Happy, celebrities starring on the

flashy screens filling Times Square, the Coca-Cola logo complete with the trademark phrase

open happiness, and glittering jewelry adorning a store display case (00:00:33-00:01:11).

These images are juxtaposed with clips of people desperately sprinting to work or slumped over

asleep during their commute. The bombardment of these images and clips appearing one after the

other symbolizes the high volume of happiness icons found in American media. The inclusion of

these images highlights the contrast between symbols of materialistic happiness and the negative

effects of leading a life centered around power and monetary success. Such a contrast causes

viewers to question the validity of Americas obsession with materialistic happiness if such
 Kluender 3

happiness comes at the cost of high stress and a constant sense of being rushed to reach the top

of the ladder.

The introduction of the film is just the first instance in which the selection of images and

the speed at which they are presented cause the viewers to form a certain cultivated opinion

about those images. For example, the documentary later includes a segment covering the

working conditions in Japan (00:29:54-00:36:00). In a cautious tone, the narrator explains that

Japan is one of the unhappiest developed countries despite its recent achievements being the

envy of the Western world. Post-WWII, the Japanese became obsessed with economic growth

and material prosperity above all else (00:30:54-00:30:56), resulting in the workers working

long hours and enduring so much stress (00:31:09-31:14) that they work themselves to death.

This is so common that the Japanese penned a term, karoshi, to describe death from working too

much. To highlight the costs that come with a focus on material prosperity, the film includes

carefully selected and edited clips from the Japanese subway spliced with footage from a family

of a victim of karoshi. These two aspects of the story work together to make an appeal to the

pathos of the viewers, targeting their sympathy and guilt. The clips of home videos of the family

as well as those of the commuters on the subway are played in slow motion, heightening the

drama of the scene. This segment also includes images of website pages flashing with dramatic

warning messages and billboards proclaiming that people need to BE HAPPY. Had the clips

been played at normal speed and not dramatically spliced with such blatant phrases condemning

the Japanese work environment, the audience would likely have interpreted the scene in a

different way. The emphasized presentation of the scenes takes away from the fact that is it not

uncommon to sleep on work commutes; that in and of itself is not a warning of imminent death,

despite the film presenting it as such. This type of camera work is used to lure viewers beyond
 Kluender 4

consideration of the informational contentto the attitudes and values implied by the

arrangement and selection of subjects (Lancioni 108). The slow motion of the clips and their

splicing with the home videos and warnings create a sense of urgency and danger which supports

Happys argument that an obsession with work, money, and power degrades ones happiness.

The directors of any film, especially a documentary, reserve the right to cut, splice, add,

and alter the clips they include in their film in order to further the films message. Taken out of

context, any clip can be twisted to fit the views of the directors and match the goal of the film.

Since the audience is only aware of the images and sounds that they view throughout the film,

they are not privy to any opposite claims or counterarguments. This is especially evident in the

personal interviews that appear throughout the film. In the opening segment, three interviewees

answer the question What do you want? with some form of the phrase To be happy,

(00:01:12-00:01:20). Every film relies on a doxa, that viewers can be counted upon to bring

to their interpretation of the photographic sequence, (Lancioni 111). In Happy, this doxa is that

everyone searches happiness. These interviewees all support this claim. Viewers are expected to

come into their viewing of Happy with the assumption that happiness is a key point of interest

worthy of its own filmbecause everyone seeks it, an assumption that is confirmed in the first

moments of the documentary. The same sort of thing happens later in the film, when a well-

dressed man tells the interviewer that Right now, money (00:24:13) will make him feel

successful and happy. After this moment, the film immediately goes into a discussion of the

correlation between material wealth and happiness. These specific interviews were likely chosen

to be included in the film because they support the purpose and reason for the film while others

were cut from the films footage. Without the people in the beginning confessing to be seeking

happiness in their lives, Happy is not relevant to viewers. Without the stereotypical American
 Kluender 5

man wishing to attain monetary success, the film has no problem to which to respond. According

to Herrick, rhetorical discourse typically is a response either to a situation or to a previous

rhetorical statement (11). Belic specifically curated the clips included in Happy to suggest the

idea that Americans are obsessed with materialistic happiness; the rest of the film is devoted to

responding to this claim.

One could argue that the selective inclusion or cutting of clips in a documentary is simply

a part of producing a film and that the presence of these interviews in Happy plays little role in

the success of its argument. However, if that were true, there would likely be much more

variation in the positions taken in the clips. All three interviewees in the beginning answer the

question What do you want [out of life]? (00:01:14) in nearly identical ways, even using the

exact same sequence of words: to be happy. In a large metropolitan area, as is implied by the

bustling background, it is highly unlikely that three unconnected interviews would contain the

same phrase, a phrase which coincidentally lends a purpose to the film overall. It is equally as

unlikely that the first random person interviewed on the street would play directly into the hand

of the interviewer and say that he seeks monetary happiness. In doing so, he forms a perfect

example of Americas obsession with materialism. There is no logical explanation for this sharp

correlation between the goal of the film and the answers given in the interviews aside from the

clips being selected because they inherently support the claim of Happy. Therefore it is clear that

Belic selected these interviews to give his film grounds upon which to make a commentary about

Americans obsession with materialistic happiness. Without this, the film has little place in

rhetorical discourse. This proves that these interview scenes, as well as the rest of the clips

included in the film, were carefully and consciously planned in order to have a certain rhetorical

effect on the viewer as he or she watches the film.

 Kluender 6

The background of the clips chosen to be included in the movie also play a role in their

perception. The meaning of an image, and our expectations of it, is thus tied to the technology

through which it is produced (Sturken & Cartwright 20-21), and sound is inarguably a key part

of the technology at play in films. The slow-motion scenes in the Japanese segment, as

mentioned above, are played against a soundtrack of the families of karoshi victims singing a

memorial tune. The music is somber, melancholy, and full of grief; women can be seen crying

while they sing. This adds to the emotional appeal of the clips and causes viewers to empathize

with the widowed mother interviewed in the film who critiques the emphasis on innovation. By

contrasting the sounds of the playful daughters giggles (symbolizing the happiness in the

fathers life before he died) with the sadness of the chorus, the film seeks to persuade viewers

that an over-attachment to ones work leads to unhappiness and grief. The music also adds

deeper meaning to a seemingly innocent image of workers catching a few minutes of rest during

their commute. Belic uses the somber music to imply that sleeping on the subway is a sign that

these workers are all at risk of dying from being overworked, which cautions against a life

centered solely around economic prosperity and growth.

It is reasonable to imagine that while somber music shown in the scenes of Japan

cultivates a feeling of guilt and sadness, which becomes associated with the images in this

segment, upbeat music will create a sense of lighthearted happiness, which is coincidentally the

topic of the film. An image presented with a backdrop of cheerful, happy melodies has a much

different effect than one presented with melancholic music. In the mind of the viewer, sounds in

a film link the images on the screen to the underlying messages supported by the film. By the

end of Happy, a claim about American happiness has been made and the supporting evidence

been explained. Associating the end of the documentary with happiness-boosting images and
 Kluender 7

tones connects the overall argument of the film with a positive experience that will last in the

viewers memory. At the end of Happy, a montage of clips from the film rolls by: people

laughing, families smiling, and children playing (1:12:11-1:13:24). These clips reference the

happy lives shown previously in the film and further reinforce the claim of the movie that

seeking happiness based on materialism is an incorrect approach. The clips are accompanied by

an upbeat soundtrack that is catchy enough to make viewers pay attention to the last moments of

the film, the last few seconds in which the film may impart an argument. Belics choice of music

connects the happy feeling brought on by the ending clips to the overall argument of the film,

strengthening the documentarys claim that simple lives bring more happiness than those full of

material wealth.

When viewing a documentary, viewers often assume that documentaries are

transmittingevents rather than fictionally creating them (Lancioni 107). While this no doubt

adds to Happys credibility as a piece of rhetoric, its credibility is also strengthened by the

rhetorical elements of the film itself. Viewers are likely unaware that the directors choices play a

large role in how they interpret the film. Elements of the film such as its soundtrack, scene

selection, and manner of presentation of the scenes have an undeniable effect on the viewer.

Most viewers likely approach a film, even a documentary, as something for viewing pleasure and

enjoyment, ignoring the fact that these films carry a rhetorical message that cannot be ignored.

Though viewers are not consciously unaware of the effects of Belics decisions in Happy, these

decisions leave viewers with a significant message about Americas obsession with materialism

and the faults of relying on that to bring happiness.

 Kluender 8

Works Cited

Belic, Roko, director. Happy. Shady Acres, 2011.

Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, 3rd ed. New York: Allyn

and Bacon, 2005.

Lancioni, Judith. The Rhetoric of the Frame: Revisioning Archival Photographs in the Civil

War. Western Journal of Communication, vol. 60, no. 4, 1996, pp. 105-117.

Sturken, Marita, and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture.

Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2009.