AdamsFilmAnnotation2

The Corporation 1. "The Corporation" (2003) is film directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott about the widespread business entity that exist under different rules as a person, but is actually considered to be one under U.S. law.

2. The central argument of the film is that corporations are largely in favor of disregarding any moral or rational thinking when it comes to deciding upon anything. Instead they operate solely on profits and pleasing stockholders. This dominant institution now encompasses a larger part in the world than other institutions like religion, for instance. The simple truth is that there is no such thing as too much profit.

3. Throughout this film images and soundbites from past media were utilized to provide a historical context. Some interesting interviews with people throughout economic and business helped to add some context. Not much scientific information was provided, unless you consider a historical context of post world war two chemical age. The film discussed DDT, as an example of a product created solely out of profits in mind. The film also creates a checklist for personality disorders since a corporation is considered to be a individual. This film does have emotional appeal, and it plays to the viewers emotions by creating a sense that we are the ones being manipulated.

4.  The creation of products and services without consideration for any environmental or personal health is a huge sustainability problem. Politics and business are linked in this country and this film does a solid job exploring how those two worlds are interwoven. One way they do this is by talking about the social and financial usurpation and the problems associated with third world exploitation. Economics plays a small role in this film, and instead it discusses the organization problems with government and corporate law. Behavior is discussed alot in this film. How does the behavior of a company look like, if we think about it as a person? Also the externalities, or rather the effects felt by third party individuals like ecological destruction are key parts to the mantra of this film.

5. The key interviews with ex-fox news reporters and their direct insight into how corporations rule the world by controlling news and media. Advertisements also fall into this category. This film explores the many facets of the corporate psychopathy and it does so, so well, that it is hard to believe that we got to this point. It was the failure of law and politics that allowed for something good, like the 14th amendment, to have been used for money making machines. By exploring the world of coporate business, and interviewing ceo's and business leaders, one begins to understand that it may not be the coporations that are at fault and it certainly cannot be fully blamed on the people that run these companies. It is more so the system in which a company is allowed to operate in, and to have "unlimited freedom" to make money. If a company is a person, than why do they only get fined for wrongdoings and not punished. If you break a law, a freedom, your rights are taken away. But companies just pay money for their crimes.

6. The least compelling scenes in the film we're the ones focused upon the finance and economics of early 1900 coporations that hold no real relevance to today. The history of how we got to this point is very intriguing but I wanted to know more about how coporations function today.

7. This film is appropriate for anyone who has an understanding of the type of destruction to the environment seen today, and are familiar with the link to corporate activity. Americans will most likely feel some emotion when seeing this film, becuse most of the companies discussed are located here in the U.S.

8. An analysis of how goods and services play a role in resource acquisition in today's market and the obvious resulting forcing on the environment should have been there. There was a little discussed about Monsanto and their terrible actions, but there was never a real strong connection made using images and facts about the overall destruction. This film should have tried at the end to sum up the totality of our situation.

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. This film did not suggest or point to any real responsive action the consumer could take, it only really suggested we be skeptical of the corporations we support and to remember their goals. I think we should deprivatize resources and create a new commons, that allows for people to deal directly. We have so many things and the desire to get more is never met, becuase it impossible to be satisfied. We have to remember in the end our love of material things will destroy everything of true value. Thats why we need to get better in recycling and reusing everything.

10. Garret Harding, author of the article "Tragedy of the Commons," has become an inspiring figure in my recent world. He changed alot about environmental thinking and population dynamics in one article. I have spent some time researching the man's work and have stumbled upon http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.asp#II. Natural, Common, and Civil Law. , an old text from medieval times describing natural law and the rights of things other than humans. It is a type of environmental and moral compass that stems back to the Christian revival. Sometimes we forget where our laws come from and unfortunately they have steered so far from what their purpose really is.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This paper discusses some of the corporate law that was created when the 14th amendment was hijacked for use of corporations.