There are many things to consider upon viewing the interview of Will Hunting for the National Security Agency. Keeping in mind Gorgias of Leontini’s thoughts, we see a character with a lot of strife and pain due to unhealed past experiences and the inhabitation of bitterness and a short temper. This doesn’t go over well with a quick-witted genius that is Will. In the encomium, we see a parallel circumstance; one in which the speaker is communicating in such an eloquent way that the audience may very well be convinced of something that is not necessarily true, and is definitely not the mainstream way of thinking in their particular cases. To defend Helen gave a place for Gorgias to, by default, prove that “the power of speech has the same effect on the disposition of the soul as the disposition of drugs on the nature of bodies” (Gorgias, 32). This argument was definitely “written with skill, not spoken with truth” in order to “displace one [opinion and] implant another” (32)
In Will’s case, joining the NSA which is, as he says, is seven times bigger than the CIA, proving to be a widely held and accepted vocation, would be as horrific as about five terrorist and serial killer acts from one person. How did we get to this conclusion? Without going through a detailed summary, we can say that he arrived rhetorically with elegance due to a drive to persuade his audience of something. Rather, in context of the movie, we can see how desperate he is to avoid submission to authority and accept that he can enter a new world due to his rare talents. He uses his quick mind to convince his audience, including the viewers of the movie, that we really shouldn’t have anything to do with or support the NSA if there is even a chance of those horrible events playing out in real life. One reason why his speech works so well is that it appeals to the ethos, logos, and pathos. He comes off as if he has no reason not to speak his mind, for the sake of speaking his mind, not because he wants to impress them or get money out of them. He basically foregoes his chance at a very desirable job and income for the sake of not caring about what others think, and expressing himself, his “truth.” So now we believe our character, because he believes in what he is saying. He is driven because he is convicted and moved by his own ethos, logos and pathos. Within his words we are caught off guard upon hearing horrible situations in a string of events fly by so quickly we have to take a second glance. We know a lot is going on and feel horrible, we feel the pain of others and hear about situations that go on every day and there is nothing we can do about it, and widen our eyes to the fact that we might even be the catalyst. The logic behind his argument is basically undeniable. It is possible, and probably happening every day in some way or another. And so he wins us over.
To this day, I myself feel trapped by Will’s argument, knowing full well that he was not in an unbiased, rational state of thought. It is the skill of this rhetorician in his words that is the persuasive “performance.” He is the antithesis to common thought, yet in less than two minutes had me reconsidering not only the NSA’s process of actions but any major corporation where the gears of the system, so to speak, have no part in some horrific, indirect outcome traced back to his unveiling of some code, for example. The place of uncertainty, the glue that holds Will’s argument together is uncertain things said in a certain way. What can be concluded from gathering together the pieces of this character is that, due to his intelligence and quick mind, he subconsciously constructs an enthymeme pertinent to his adamant point of view. His brokenness only lends to more of a weight on his argument, allowing himself to disregard any offensive, harsh, blunt and especially demeaning air about himself and deliver a solid, temptingly persuasive speech, just as Gorgias of Leontini did over twenty-three hundred years ago.
