FloresJaredInsider

Jared Flores Annotation 1: //The Insider//  1.  Title, director, and release year? // The Insider //, directed by Michael Mann, released in 1999  2.  What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central narrative of the film is the good old Hollywood-style story of two men trying to do what’s right. The movie is about Jeffrey Wigand, a former Brown and Williamson tobacco company employee who decides to blow the whistle when he realizes how corrupt the company is, and Lowell Bergman, a news reporter working for CBS who decides to cover Jeff’s story. The men soon realize that they may be in over their heads, as Jeff receives multiple death threats from the tobacco company and ends up alienating his entire family, and Lowell faces expulsion from CBS after being the only employee to advocate full coverage of Jeff’s story despite the impending multi-billion dollar lawsuit from the tobacco company that would ensue. Ultimately, the truth wins out, though both men do irreparable damage to their very lives in the process. The film is based on a true story.  3.  What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The most prominent sustainability problem in this film is the flaws in the media. Although many news stations would pride themselves in delivering the truth to the otherwise unsuspecting masses, this film shows that the media cannot always afford to be objective. The media should be about delivering to the people exactly what they need to know and are otherwise not being told. In the case of this film, Jeff is interviewed by CBS regarding the corruption in the tobacco industry and what they are not telling the people. However, CBS does not air this entire interview at first because they are threatened with a lawsuit. Bergman, who had been working with CBS for 12 years at that point, was himself shocked and disgusted with how CBS handled itself in this situation. Another sustainability issue in this film is this country’s corrupt legal system. Going back to the issue of the media, the fact that the tobacco company was able to threaten CBS with a lawsuit to keep Wigand’s interview from being aired in its entirety is disgraceful. Additionally, during a court session involving the tobacco company, Jeff is issued a restraining order to prevent him from testifying against the company. It all goes to prove that whoever has the most money has the law on their side. Furthermore, the film addresses organizations as a sustainability issue. Throughout the film, Brown and Williamson’s company is depicted as being virtually untouchable. First and foremost, after being discharged from the company, Jeff was made to sign a confidentiality agreement to prevent him from divulging any of the company’s secrets, like how tobacco is harmful to one’s health and how cigarettes are designed to be highly addictive in order to get people to buy more. As was said before, the company is able to just throw money around and get whatever they need, whether it is a restraining order, a team of experienced lawyers, or to keep a news station quiet about their dirty laundry.  4.  What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The most persuasive and compelling parts of the film were those showing the power of the tobacco company. First there were the scenes involving the fear they were able to instill in Jeff and his family. There was the death threat delivered to his house via fax, the mystery man skulking outside of his house, and the bullets found in his mailbox. Although Wigand called the FBI, all they really did was insinuate that he was paranoid, almost as if they were on the tobacco company’s side. It was just very interesting to see that Jeff were persevere in doing what he believed to be the right thing to do, in spite of the fact that he was being threatened, and that it almost seemed as if no one was on his side. Even his own family abandoned him. Another powerful part of the film was when Bergman criticized Mike Wallace (yes, THE Mike Wallace) for not showing Jeff’s entire interview. He appeared to be in utter awe of the fact that CBS cared more about the business of delivering news than they did about delivering the news. It was a critical part of the film. After all, when the media is looking for the best way to make money over the best way to expose the truth, they become more like businesses, which is honestly not what the media should be.  5.  What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I felt that the film focused too much on the struggle of the characters themselves and not enough on the actual argument. It was definitely a Hollywood film, as it heavily depicted more what the characters went through than anything else, like how the threats affected Jeff’s home life or how Bergman felt when he realized the news was just another business. There was actually very little about the lies told by the tobacco company regarding cigarettes. Also, most of the content was dramatized for the purpose of directing the film towards a mainstream audience.  6.  What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? I would definitely like to read more about this story, the true version as opposed to the Hollywood version. I would like to learn more about the power of big corporations. The fact that money influences so much in this world is saddening, but after seeing this movie, I want to see other incidents where big businesses have used their influences to keep people quiet about their little secrets. I have a feeling that there are many stories just like this one.  7.  What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This film is definitely directed towards an audience that loves a good dramatic story. Being a Hollywood film, it doesn’t really preach, it just tells a captivating story. It is a well made film, though certain parts of the story were played up in hopes of reaching a wider audience and making more money. I don’t know about environmental problems, but I think the film is very informative with regards to what really happens in big businesses and what they can do to people who cross them. Hopefully, this information is useful to people, and will help them realize how dangerous a world run by big business is.  8.  What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film suggests that people do what they can to get the truth out there, simply because it’s the right thing to do. Because the issue is resolved by the end of the movie, I believe the message was that if you persevere in the struggle for change, you can make a difference. The film also suggests that if you are working for a company that is doing something that is bad for the people or the environment, you should do the right thing and blow the whistle on them, even at the cost of your own well being.  9.  What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? I don’t know about environmental education, but I think it would have been useful to see what effect the Wigand interview had on society. The movie was mainly focused on the personal struggle of Wigand and Bergman, and had very little to do with the impact all of these events had on the big picture.