Another Essay...

Here is an Analysis of an Argument essay.
Prompt: "A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio. “We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”"

My Response:

The argument that the movie will be a failure without increased funding is not entirely convincing. The memo suffers from numerous fallacious assumptions that render its argument illogical and not persuasive. This essay will expose these gaps in the argument and suggest ways that the movie producer could send a more effective memo to the head of the movie studio.

The first assumption that renders the memo not complete is that the movie producer assumes a causal relationship between the funding and the movie's success. He states that without increased funding, then the movie will undoubtedly fail. In other words, he claims that there is not other cause that can make the movie fail. It is dangerous to assume a causal relationship without quantifying it and without the movie producer considering further factors that, in addition to funding, could make the movie a horrible flop. For instance there are many successful documentaries like Trembling Before God and many of Michael More's movies that are produced on a tight budget. In addition, there exists successful non-documentaries, like the Blair Witch Project, produced by film students that have gone on to win movie awards.

Simply put, a lack of funding is not the only cause of a failed movie. Other components like the quality of the acting, and the timing of the realease can have more of an impact on the film's success than it's funding. Additionally, although the movie procuder claims that funding must be increased by 10%, where does he get that number from and why must it be 10%? If he arbitrary picked a percentage, why not randomly pick a 20%, or even higher, like 50% increase in funding? None of these estimates are cited in the memo and it leaves many questions unanswered.

An additional, and striking assumption that the movie producer makes is that the new director will assuredly be wasteful. His view of the new director, is one, disparaging, and two, rather extreme. To assume that that director will no doubt spend resources wastefully and extravaangtly just because the advertising business is wasteful is spurious and makes no sense. Who is to say that the director will pay any attention to what the advertising business will do with its finances? And is it not important that the movie director not belittle his director simply because the only experience the director has had with film is shooting commercials?

Furthermore, it is left unanswered whether those commercials were successful or not, so it is unfair to judge the director based on his previous experiences without providing the head of the studio with more biographical information of the director. And while the relative scope of a commercial is clearly smaller than the scope of a movie, a director's ability to manage successfully and devotion to a shooting is usually steadfast no matter what project he undertakes.

To conclude, the memo the movie producer sent to the head of the movie studio is not convincing and not persuasive. In order to strengthen his argument that the movie needs increased funding to be successful, the producer could provide the head of the movie studio with studies that show funding is directly proportional to a film's success and that 10% is the necessary increase in funding. In addition, he could provide evidence that perhaps the movie director has in the past been prodigal, which is why he believes he will similarly act recklessly with his film. Overall, without these improvements, the memo is not cogent.