The Trophy of Doom

It is Oscar season again. On February 22, 2009, America will find out what the best films are and who are the best actors, directors, and et cetera are of 2008. As the big event draws closer, editorial columnist, Andrew Gumbel, of the Los Angeles Times, writes his opinion about the upcoming awards. In his article, “Oscar’s Evil Influence,” he claims the public is at the mercy of Oscar himself to choose and side with movies. It is no longer about enjoying movies; it is about liking and rooting for only one of the Oscar contending films. Gumbel describes the unnecessary hype and repercussions of the Academy Awards. He claims that the Academy Awards ruin the true value of movies.

Andrew Gumbel’s article does have some valid points, but it is not thoroughly valid. There is a hint of biasness running through the article. The evidence is somewhat clear, but Gumbel uses many fallacies to nail down his point and convince the audience of his clarity.

He uses the logos method of appeal to grab his reader’s attention and keep them interested. Gumbel includes a lot of logic and order in his article; he provides almost sufficient and accurate evidence to back up his argument.

Gumbel uses anecdotal evidence try to back up his argument regarding the Academy Awards. He begins in his introduction with an explanation of the “Chicago syndrome.” Andrew Gumbel dreaded watching the Oscar winning movie Chicago with severe distaste. He dubbed it “an exuberant piece of all-American flim flam.” Six or so years later, he watched the film again and absolutely loved it. This is part of his evidence that the Academy Awards corrupts movies and their true value.

Gumbel uses bifurcation to simplify the essence of the movies brought to the big screen. He claims that the Academy Awards forces viewers to like only one of the Oscar contending movies. He states that movies have come to the point of “such an absurd either/or proposition.” There is no place for someone to wish that two movies got an Oscar. With all the awards and competition, it appears like the entire meaning of receiving an Oscar is lost.

It is very pretentious of Andrew Gumbel to use hasty generalization in his argument about the Academy Awards. In his article he mentions the “Chicago syndrome,” then goes on to infer that that this one example of a movie applies to all Oscar contenders. He says the “Chicago syndrome” suggests “we wait at least five years to let the hype die down,” to know which is the best film of 2008. Instead of letting people enjoy movies, he tells them to wait to see them until there is absolutely no publicity about it.

Andrew Gumbel’s article looks at the Academy Awards from an entirely new perspective. It does present some valid arguments, but uses a lot of fallacies in the process. Without my knowledge of these errors in the English language, I would have mistaken his article for complete truth. The public should be educated in the structure of the English language so that misconceptions like this article are not completely idolized in the future.

Here is the link to the article...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-gumbel23-200...