McNeilFilmAnnotation10

Title: The Corporation Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott Release year: 2003


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The central argument of the film is that corporations are largely in favor of making profits and disregarding any ethical or rational thinking when it comes to deciding upon socially conscious. Instead companies focus solely on profits and pleasing their stockholders. This line of thinking now encompasses a larger part in the world than other institutions.


 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film supports the narrative of corporations being evil and corrupt by presenting facts about large corporations moving to third world countries for production. This enables the companies to pay their employees low wages, and sell the products at much higher retail prices to make enormous profit. One example is Monsanto. Monsanto’s growth hormone for dairy cows caused negative health effects on cows and humans, yet it enabled the company to make even more money. An example was provided about a river in Brewer, ME being contaminated from paper mill discharge, and everyone just learned to accept it. Corporations should not have this kind of control over us. They need to be held socially responsible whether corporations do it from within or are regulated by government policies.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

Maximizing profits, while creating products and services without consideration for any environmental or personal health is a huge sustainability problem. The government and business are linked in this country and this film does a good job exploring how those two worlds are linked. Behavior is discussed a lot in this film. What is the outward appearance of a company, if we look at the company as an individual rather than an organization? Also, what are the ecological problems that come from these large businesses and their tactics to maximize profits


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I think that the most compelling part of the film, and I believe that the makers of the film agree with the amount of time focused on this single topic, was the milk scandal at fox news. It was a perfect example of people in a relatively weak role taking a strong opposition to a corporation and coming out on top by damaging their integrity. Seeing all the steps a corporation takes to try to cover something like that up was very interesting to. Having them try to use authoritative, then monetary, then legal was revealing and slightly humorous.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I was not completely convinced on the aspect of how corporations that break legal parameters should be punished. The movie seemed to gloss over the fact that every year, millions of dollars are given by companies for transgressions against the government due to treason or breaking laws. In those cases ,I would have liked to see a more specific look at what should be done.


 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film best addresses, for the use of current events, the “99%”. That is to say, the 99% of Americans that makes less money than the incredibly wealthy 1%. These people run the corporations that impact us in various negative ways and we do nothing about it.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

I think that the movie could have been much more focused. It moved on from chapter to chapter where any one of those segments could have been expanded into a movie of its own. While this would have increased environmental education, it may not have had the sample impact as the many shallow, but broad topics had. I would keep the movie the same.


 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

All of these problems could be solved if people became more involved. After all, the companies are our own creation. Legal regulation and a focus on community would increase the good of a corporation while limiting the bad. Transparency would also help out in this instance. Another way that problems could be solved is for more CEO’s to have more epiphanies and make their companies more sustainable. I loved the addition of the converted CEO in the film and thought that it was a very powerful image that perhaps should have been more focused on.


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**

I was surprised to hear about the IBM and their involvement with the Nazi party. This is a website that provides information on IBM and the lengths of which they were involved with the holocaust. I had never head of this scandal before, and I’m surprised that it’s not more widely known. I had also discovered that there have been numerous books written about this researching what IBM knew during this time period. I plan on reading one over thanksgiving break.
 * http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/**

This is a Washington Post article about horrendous factory conditions in an Apple Production facility. Apple employs more than 200,000 Chinese workers who live in dormitories, they work about 15 hours a day and make $50 a month. I was surprised to hear about this since I thought Apple was one of the more socially conscious companies in the world. Apparently they are just as consumed with profits as every other corporation in the world.
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501898.html**