Davey.The+Corporation

Michael Davey Film Annotation 5: The Corporation Words: 1210, Date 11/15/2010 2. The central argument of the film portrays the corporation as a psychopath through a systematic diagnosis evaluating the behaviors and tendencies of big businesses in the market space. Essentially, the film characterizes the corporation ideal as only motivated by growth, return on investment and profit. The film demonstrates these points through cases highlighting how irresponsibly and sinisterly corporations can conduct their business. One of the first points made in the film says that there exists a paradox where great wealth creates great harm. 3. The sustainability problems drawn out by the film include irresponsible treatment of chemicals by companies such as ExxonMobil and General Electric, who were fined 125 and 9.5 million dollars for their respective notable chemical spills and environmental malpractices. After creating agent orange, which gave way to birth defects in Vietnam and in the families of US soldiers, Monsanto paid out 80 million dollars in damages. The ability to synthesize any new chemical from oil has been a curse to our environment causing destruction that we can not anticipate as we create new products such as DDT, which was originally used as a delousing treatment. Monsanto and other companies that produce genetically modified seeds are engaged in a “war against evolution” by selling seeds that cannot reproduce. As we continue to move toward a consumer economy, advertising becomes a sustainability problem. Ads make insignificant things both fashionable and expensive, thus draining consumer resources that could be used for food or shelter and putting them into solid goods which will likely become outdated within a matter of months, thus sending the consumer back to the store to replace them. Ad companies also target children, encouraging them to nag their parents for more stuff, which poses the problem of human sustainability. If these children grow up taught that nagging will result in provisions, who will they nag when they are the leaders of the world? With the unlocking of the human genome has come a vast array of science which has terrifying prospects. General Electric invented a microbe that eats oil spills, essentially. Originally, patents could not cover living things, however GE appealed this ruling and passed by claiming that the microbe didn’t look like a horse and was therefore not an organism. The industry this may yield is one of gene prospectors which could potentially render life a utility and perhaps a commodity. Perhaps the most striking sustainability problem drawn out by the film is that of privatization of water supply. The Bolivian privatization of water is only one instance of this horrible injustice which takes something which should be an inherent human right and makes it into a commodity to be bought and sold on the free market. This privatization resulted in massive riots and poverty growth in Bolivia. 4. I found the parts of the film in which CEO’s were interviewed extremely compelling. The CEO of Shell is a perfect case of a monstrous obligation which has been put on leaders in companies to serve the interest of a group of shareholders. He further states that activists need to learn the context of the problems and become a part of the system. As merely activists they may only watch as the corporation goes about its business, but those involved in the company are empowered to make change from within. A prime contrast of this ideal would be the Nike CEO who had never once been on the factory floor of one of his sweatshops, however, an exemplar of CEO’s trying their best to transform their business is the CEO of Interface Carpet, who years ago became aware of the poor practices of his company and quickly educated himself on how to change. He acknowledges that some products should simply not be made, but that corporations go the way of the plunderer, taking without a second thought to what the consequences may be for their actions. 5. I was not compelled by the segment on water privatization. While this segment was informative, I would have preferred to have seen more cases presented and variable outcomes of the situation. Also, perhaps a simulation or futuristic idea of what in the US could be privatized would have served as more of a call to action than showing a foreign crisis. An effective motivator will always be showing the viewer why what is presented matters to them in the very moment they receive the message. 6. This film best addresses an audience that is skeptical of how corporations and our economic infrastructures are run. A corporate loyalist may look at this film and dismiss it, as it does have a very propaganda-like feel to it. The message is so extreme that many who are not somewhat familiar with the concepts may reject the method of presentation. For those who even have remote interest in sustainability and corporate responsibility, the presentation method is exceptionally engaging. 7. The film was very flashy and the data comes at the viewer very quickly. I struggled to take notes on the hard evidence, while being overwhelmed with qualitative information provided by interviews. Many environmental education films lack specific action items which the viewer can set about pursuing on a daily basis immediately, and this movie joins those ranks. 8. Points of intervention that can be inferred after watching the film include boycotting corporations, holding news sources accountable, and voting wisely. Michael Moore’s main point is that corporations are motivated by nothing but profit and are convinced that their consumers are mindless and apathetic and therefore will not act. He describes this as the “Greed Flaw” and maintains that through paying attention to policies and taking responsibilities for our votes, we may be able to overcome or regulate corporations in the future, but the time to act is now. 9. This film compelled me to seek out additional information on Interface Carpets and their sustainability policies. The CEO of that company was incredibly supportive of ecologically minded business in the film and I was curious to see if he follows through on his words. The company’s sustainability page ([]) describes a culture where industry was born and raised to take, make and waste as one that no longer has context. That ideal grew in a time with less people and technology, and more plentiful resources. Now Interface has been on a 16 year journey to improve its practices in three channels: reduction of footprint, new ways to design and make products, and an engaged and involved culture. I also explored water privatization further ([]), finding that the beginnings of policies like the one in Bolivia may be taking root in North Carolina. A water and water treatment company has been pumping water near the city of Raleigh, and coincidentally the city’s inhabitants have discovered a water shortage and their well have been drying up. The water company has not been charging for water, but they have been charging the citizens up to 175 dollars per week for water delivery. If water rights are privatized, we run the risk of having an essential resource controlled by an entity which only cares about profits, not public welfare.
 * Title: The Corporation (2003), Directors: Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott **