Bens+Film+Annotation+5

Ben Clemence, Annotation #5 October 13, 2011 The Corporation Word Count: 1202


 * Title**: The Corporation
 * Director**: Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbot
 * Released**: 2003


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

The central argument of the film is about how corporations have evolved over ever since the 14th amendment was made during Lincoln’s time. It shows how out of control they have become and the effect that it is having around the world both on individuals and on the economy. The greed of corporations and their general disregard for things such as social responsibility have led to numerous issues that are explored in this film.


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

The argument is sustained through a psychoanalysis of the corporation and how their behavior lines up with someone with a mental disorder. For example, callous disregard for others, inability to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness, inability to feel guilt, and also the failure to conform to social norms and laws. Throughout this analysis there are interviews with everyone from CEO’s to local farmers that draw out the problems caused by corporations. One of the more interesting interviews was with a corporate spy whose job was to deceive people into thinking they were working for a company just to try and get information out of them. The emotional appeal in this film is to the individual’s sense of what is reasonable because corporations have certainly gone beyond this.


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

The Corporation touches on numerous sustainability problems caused by corporations but at the core it becomes an issue of corporate responsibility and who it belongs to. Making profit has always been the main goal of corporations but in recent times they have started using any means necessary to make this profit. This has led them to have less than ethical business practices in the pursuit of higher profits. They exploit both resources and people to a point where they are causing permanent damage. In the interviews with CEO’s it became apparent that not only were they not concerned with things such as sweat shops, but that they have never even seen the factories that produce their products. This was the case when Mike Myers interviewed the CEO of Nike and invited him to visit his sweat shops in China.

To illustrate some example of corporate greed and irresponsibility, there is the suicide see which only lasts for one season before it dies which forces the farmer to have to buy new seeds every year instead of being able to just continually plant and harvest his crop. Another example is GE patenting a living organism. At first it was forbidden to patent anything living but the law was then changed to say that anything is patentable with the only exception being a human. Yet another example is the story of Monsanto and the bovine growth hormone. Fox news did a story on how the growth hormone was in fact not safe and that it was dangerous to humans which was not included in the report that was given to prove it was safe. Monsanto kept the story off the air with some strongly worded letters from lawyers saying there would be “dire consequences” if the story aired. The story ended with the reporters getting fired, going to court and winning, but then in the appeals court they lost. The reason they lost in the appeals court was because the court ruled that it was not illegal to falsify news.


 * What parts of the film do you find more persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The part that I found more compelling was the talk about if corporations have social responsibility. What is has come down to is you get to choose whether or not to obey the law based on if it is cost effective. It is often times more profitable for a company to just pay the fine for their irresponsible policies than to pay to fix them. The issue is that no one is being held responsible for the decisions of the company that blatantly disregard laws and any sense of corporate responsibility. The minority of people are making the majority of the decisions the same way the minority of people possesses the majority of the wealth.


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

The part that I was not convinced by was the undercover marketing segment. The claim was that companies will place actors on the street that will discuss a new product such as a CD to try to encourage others to go buy that product. Another example is placing packages near a doorman of a hotel that have their logo on them to make people wonder what was in them and want to buy something. I didn’t see how this fit into the film or added to the argument in any substantial way.


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

The film best addresses people who are too preoccupied with their daily routine to really be aware of what the corporations they are supporting through their choices are doing. Places where heavy consumerism takes place would benefit from viewing this film.


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

It would have been helpful to hear more about corporations that doing the right thing, or more about why corporations are not willing to make these changes despite public demand. I know a large issue is that corporations do not want to lose their competitive edge by spending large amounts of money on making initiatives to be more responsible. This is especially the case if their competitors are also not doing the right things because it then puts them at a disadvantage.


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

In the beginning of the film it outlined the original system in which corporations existed where they were highly regulated by the government. Once they were set free and allowed to start buying other businesses and get as much profit as they wanted is when it got out of hand. This seems to suggest that corporations should never have been allowed to grow so large and should be split into smaller companies. Another thing suggested was to remove corporate influence in our everyday lives through means such as advertising, especially at a young age.


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

After watching the movie I looked more into what is being done and ending up reading a lot about a protest call Occupy Wall Street. The protest is against corporate greed and the money train between corporations and congress. They are not anti-capitalist as Fox News often portrays them but instead against big banks and the fact that 1% of the population controls 42% of the wealth in the US. The movement has gained a lot of backing and is now spreading to other areas such as Boston and Washington D.C.

[] []
 * References**