WilsonFilmAnnotation4

The Corporation, Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, 2003.
 * Adrienne Wilson** **Film Annotation** **The Corporation**
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

The central narrative of this film revolves around how out of hand the corporations have become and how their negative influences are affecting people’s daily lives around the world. This argument is achieved through evaluating the corporations’ behaviour towards society and the world at large as a psychiatrist might evaluate an ordinary person – based on the new development of corporations’ new legal status as an individual.
 *  2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

Throughout the film actions corporations take are compared to those taken by a psychopath and how they are systematically compelled to behave with the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, i.e. callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law. The film features 40 interview subjects from CEOs and top level executives of industries that include: oil, pharmaceutical, computer, tire, manufacturing, public relations, branding, advertising and under cover marketing. In addition the film also features interviews with a Nobel-prize winning economist, the first management guru, a corporate spy, and a range of academics, critics, historians, and thinkers. These interviews relay the information and message of the film by showing us how and what these people think. The film has emotional appeal in that it caters to the audience’s sense of justice and absurdity.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The Corporation probably touches on every possible issue in the list mentioned, and they are all probably the cause for a large majority of the societal strife out there. However, the most obvious sustainability problems the film draws out are political, legal, economical, technological, ecological, and media & informational. These all tie into each other in that they are all results from the same actions of the same entity. The search for profit has become like a disease to corporations, completely engrossing them in a state of constant irresponsible entrapment. The exploitation of resources without regard for external effects to people or planet is one such illustration of this. Integrity and honesty are also traits no longer associated with corporations, as accounts after accounts of corporations being found out for tax evasion or muddling accounting records come to light. This can be extended to include safety precautions on soon-to-be-released products. Corporations also do not take care of their workers, and even utilize horrible sweat shops (with poor health and safety standards overall) that force poor people to slave away for a few measly cents a day. The problem is, the public has allowed them to get away with this all this time.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I was surprised with how well the film was able to illustrate the juxtaposition between what CEOs say and what their companies end up doing. For example, when Michael Moore invited the CEO of Nike to visit his sweatshops in Indonesia, the CEO revealed that he had never visited them before and seemed very averse to not going with Michael. In another example of this comparison, Shell’s executive said that he was concerned about worker safety and the depleting oil reserves yet a few months later he expanded drilling into Nigeria. However the most alarming thing that the film showed me was how scary media conglomerates can be as exampled through Fox New’s censorship of the Bovine Growth Hormone piece in their “The Investigators” show due to corporate interests and funding (ads).
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not compelled by the two examples that were connected to Nazi Germany. These examples were the invention of the soft drink Fanta by the Coca-Cola Company due to the trade embargo on Nazi Germany and the alleged role of IBM in the Nazi holocaust. I felt that these examples had little relevance to the overall argument the film was trying to make except to provide shock value and “did you know” trivia. I understand one could argue that they were included to showcase how corporations even back then did not care much for empathy, but I think it came off as “all corporations are secretly Nazis”.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I think this film could be understood and be catered to audiences of high school age and up in first world countries like the United States of America and England, where consumerism is a way of life. This film would also be most helpful for those who work for corporations or who are inadvertently affected by a corporation’s decisions in some way. This is because the film will then allow the audience members to re-evaluate the roles corporations play in their respective lives and to decide if they support that role or not (instead of, “well we can’t help it so so be it”).
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I feel like not every corporation is evil or at least not all parts of it. I would have enjoyed (if there were any) examples of corporations who were “doing things right” (to some extent) or what kind of specific steps corporations would have to take to ensure a sustainable or socially responsible existence. I would also like examples as to what specific individuals were doing in their communities to combat the problems corporations induce.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film suggested that perhaps corporations were never meant to get so big and should instead be dissolved into smaller companies. I am personally not sure how I feel about that but from a logical standpoint I can understand how that argument could make sense. Some action plans listed on The Corporation’s website lobby for “commercial-free” childhoods or to remove corporate interests in education. I suppose the usual “writing to congressmen and policy makers” will also be effective in this situation if one were aware of problems a corporation may be causing in one’s community. Actions against corporations are generally viewed as difficult though, due to the unfair advantage of lawyers, time, resources, money, and voice.
 * 9. 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.**

Recently, there has been the Occupy Wall St Movement which was put together by the Canadian group Adbusters, who are listed as references on The Corporation’s website. The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns. According to Wikipedia, by October 9, similar demonstrations had been held in Washington, D.C, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, Chicago, San Diego, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, Salt Lake City, Portland, Maine, Jersey City, Trenton, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Denver, Charlotte, Kansas City, MO, Austin, Ann Arbor, Cleveland, Dallas, Minneapolis, Sacramento, Tampa, Atlanta, Albuquerque, Hawaii, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. On October 15, protests are expected in at least 25 cities outside the U.S., stretching from Hong Kong to Buenos Aires, Dublin to Madrid.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

In addition, the film also compelled me to find out more about what happened to “The Investigators”. In doing so I’ve realized how much worse (or better?) Fox has become at misleading the public. The only news update on the website provided by The Corporation’s website hasn’t been updated in a while, but states that they are in the process of bringing the case to the Supreme Court (since Fox had previously appealed the earlier decision and won).

References: [] [] []