BarnardSarah_The+Insider

  //The Insider // | Michael Mann | 1999   //The Insider // is a Hollywood blockbuster that dramatizes the true story of the CBS Corporation’s refusal to air a 60 Minutes documentary with an interview by an ex-tobacco executive that would reveal the tobacco industry’s production of “a delivery device for nicotine.” Dr. Jeffrey Wigand is fired from the third-largest tobacco company, Brown & Williamson, for refusing to ignore the use of coumarin, a health-threatening drug, as an additive in cigarettes. After being fired, he is contacted by 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman, who is doing a piece on the fire hazards of people falling asleep while smoking. Bergman initially contacts Wigand as a consultant on a set of documents from Philip Morris, but soon realized Bergman knows a lot more than that. As the film unravels, both parties realize that the truth isn’t necessarily enough when you’re battling one of the biggest corporate industries in the United States. Wigand attempts to tell the truth, and when he tries to break his confidentiality agreement, he begins receiving threats and his life starts to fall apart. Through depositions and break-ins, Bergman is there by Wigand’s side, helping him fight big tobacco. No matter how hard they try to fight, they are constantly reminded that “it’s not the f***ing point whether you tell the truth or not.”   Without a single mention of the environment, //The Insider// draws out many sustainability problems that exist in our modern world, ones that often are not considered sustainability problems at all. The film points to media/informational, legal, organizational, economic, and behavioral implications that have effects on human welfare. It focuses on moral and ethical dilemmas, and how decisions affecting these topics can have drastic consequences. Many of the problems are inherent in the organizational structure of the corporation itself, or in this case big tobacco, which become irreversibly entangled with legal and behavioral problems, further spurred by the media.  The media played a mixed role in //The Insider//, with Bergman standing up for Wigand’s rights and encouraging him to tell the public what he knows, while CBS Corporate is afraid to air the interview for fear of being sued by Brown & Williamson. On one hand, the media is trying to educate the public on the perils taking place behind closed doors, while on the other hand, the media is looking out for their profit interests in much the same way the tobacco industry does. Going public with Jeffrey Wigand’s story meant 30 million people would hear what he had to say, and that is exactly what big tobacco did not want. The Seven Dwarves – the seven big tobacco companies - swore to Congress that they did not know anything about addiction to the nicotine in cigarettes. Even different media outlets fought against each other for the story, with the NY Times finally printing an article at Bergman’s request on CBS’s refusal to air the interview. Without the influence of the media, Jeffrey Wigand’s story may never have been told, but it was precisely because of our media system that it almost wasn’t anyway.  The issues surrounding the media sector in the film would have been virtually non-existent without the matrix of legal, economic, organizational, and behavioral problems within the tobacco industry. Above almost anything, the tobacco industry is focused on one thing: profit. Anything that stands in the way of this profit will be pushed aside, and the industry has the capabilities to do so quite successfully. As they focus so much on profit, they have plenty of money to spend on legal fees to keep them free from blame. The tobacco industry spent over $600 million a year in outside legal, and even with 100s of thousands of smoking-related deaths every year, had never lost a personal injury case. Very often it comes down to money, and there big tobacco almost always wins. Even with the eventual $246 billion settlement to all 50 states, the tobacco industry still thrives today. The economic capabilities mixes with the political power to protect the corporation better than any individual could as well. Brown & Williamson required Wigand to sign a confidentiality agreement, and then a more strict agreement after it was discovered he had spoken with Bergman. The far reaching legal effects of the restraining order on Wigand’s deposition and threatened end of his severance package show the legal ramifications of the organizational structure of the corporation.  Finally, behavioral problems are a large sustainability problem drawn out in //The Insider//. In the scene where Wigand finally tells Bergman why he started working for the tobacco company, he explains how it was mostly because he got paid a lot more than in his healthcare-related research fields. He tells of trying to provide for his family, and the necessity of having health benefits because his older daughter suffers from severe asthma. He realizes he doesn’t agree with most of what the tobacco industry does, but he needs the job to get by. Wigand says that he always saw himself as a man of science, and sometimes it is painful to realize what he has become working for big tobacco. Yet you can’t identify Wigand as an “evil” character just because he works for Brown & Williamson; he characterizes the numerous people who work for large corporations like these to provide for their own families in order to get by, not necessarily to further the destructive interests of the company. It is hard to blame an individual in that situation for the wrongdoing of an entire company.   I felt that //The Insider// was a very compelling film overall. The dramatic scenes and intense dialogue conveyed the seriousness of the subject matter, and the characters themselves were very persuasive. The clips from the 60 Minute special were some of the most compelling scenes, really summarizing the qualities Wigand and Bergman were fighting for all along. The film also brought up a lot of similar ideas to some other documentaries from this semester, such as //The Corporation// and //Energy Crossroads//. It did an excellent job of incorporating important ideas into a dramatic narrative. After a semester of learning to understand the intricate matrices of sustainability problems associated with many topics, //The Insider// was able to make these problems quite clear, while simultaneously producing a Hollywood film that would captivate many audiences’ attention. In my notes I came across many specific scenes that were very persuasive, but they all shared a sense of human individuality and its fight against the all-powerful, elusive industry.  <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> The one major downside to //The Insider// was its length. At over two and a half hours, the film became kind of hard to stick with near the end. There were a few slow parts throughout the film, and I feel that the major ideas were portrayed very well without some of these unnecessary scenes. Towards the second half of the movie, the main focus switches from Wigand to Bergman, and I feel that Wigand could have played more of a role in this part of the film. The scene with the FBI presence at the Wigand home after the email death threat is an example of a scene that was just not convincing, bringing up aspects like taking Jeffrey’s computer that never get referred to again. I expected him to say that all of the evidence he had against the tobacco industry was on that computer, yet nothing was said and it was not integral to the storyline. Shortening the film to some more of the key points could have been much more convincing to a wider variety of audiences. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> Two questions that I wrote down while watching //The Insider// were: How can a company keep someone from testifying in court? and What aspect of the legal system allows that? The part of the movie where Brown & Williamson files a restraining order against Wigand in the state of Kentucky to attempt to keep him from speaking in his deposition was quite intriguing. I was quite curious how many of those nuances were fictional and dramatized for the film, and how many of them are actually true capabilities of our legal system. The legal rights of industry versus the individual have been brought up in a couple of films, and this one really brings out a lot of deep questions at the root of our capitalist society. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I believe that //The Insider// is a film that best addresses college-aged students and middle-aged adults. It seems that regardless of your opinions on tobacco in general, the film makes it quite clear of the problems associated with the industry as a whole. It is a very compelling film that over-dramatizes the narrative in a way that makes the audience feel involved, a characteristic that is often lacking from typical documentary films. The dazzle of the Hollywood spectacle help to foster a deeper imagination and understanding in the audience, but I’m not sure it will change the way they view environmental problems. It may, however, cause some people to rethink their loyalties to large corporations, or allow someone to speak up about injustice who formerly felt they couldn’t do so. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The Insider //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> is all about standing up for what is right. “It feels good, putting what you know to use.” Bergman says this to Wigand at one point during the film, reminding him that he is really helping the public by agreeing to talk about his knowledge of the tobacco company. The two main protagonists show two different points of action: Wigand shows the importance of telling the truth, no matter what the cost, and standing up for what you believe in, even when it is not easy, and Bergman shows that there are individuals who want to help the public good, even if they are not personally involved. Bergman is also willing to see his project through to the end and help Wigand in any way he can, even if he becomes threatened in the process. The film really suggests that people remember these two different types of characters and try to make people realize they have the choice to be one of them. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> To begin, as mentioned in question five, I believe the film could have been shorter. Additionally however, I felt that the conclusion of the movie could have been given a little more attention. A line of text at the end of the movie describes that “Subsequent to the events dramatized here, the tobacco industry in 1998 settled the lawsuits filed against it by Mississippi and 49 other states for $246 billion.” I think a larger focus on this end result could help to reinforce the major ideas of the film, as well as give a more optimistic hope that there is some justice for these large companies, even if the people have to fight tooth and nail to get it.
 * <span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 12 | //The Insider// ** <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">1. Title, director and release year **
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**
 * 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.?**
 * 7. What audiences does the 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?**
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**