SullivanPatrick7

Sullivan Patrick Portfolio

The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbot, 2003
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

Corporations try to make as much money as possible without any regard for the health or well being of people.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

Corporations need power in order to operate and so they have influence on government policy. Making money is the only incentive corporations have to get people the products they need. A lot more good would be done if corporations worked towards getting people products instead of making money. In order to make the most money corporations exploit cheap labor in poor countries and then get workers from other countries once one country is not as desperate for cheap paying jobs. Corporations use harmful chemicals in order to increase productivity at the expense of the health of the consumer. Corporations not taking responsibility for their actions. The “let someone else do it” mentality.
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

I liked the explanation of the history of corporations and how they decided they needed power over the government in order to profit. The example of Kathy Lee clothing exploiting cheap labor in other countries, and then the tags on her clothes said that a portion of the money earned from selling the garments would go towards charities for children. This is a great example of the American consumer being misinformed about the truth behind the production of most of the products in our country. People think that buying these clothes will help people in the world but the tag doesn’t even say what charity the money is going towards or how much money. Every time that a company says it donates part of its profits towards charities; the consumer must realize that the company is still making money somehow. That extra money being given to charity is coming from higher prices, exploiting cheap labor, cheaper materials, or some other way. It is not simply the company giving their own money to charity. I enjoyed the statement that environmental conditions are not a commodity and so as consumers we do not hear about it or pay for it. This is a simple way to look at why environmental protection is not an integrated aspect of our economy. Showing how corporations are continually found guilty of breaking environmental regulations because it is cheaper for them to pay the fines than to actually work within the regulations was very compelling. This further shows that corporations are knowingly breaking the law. The section with the Fox news reporters not being able to report their story because it made a big company look bad was done very well. In the end the courts found in favor of Fox because falsifying news is actually not illegal. The film also stated that corporations are held accountable for their actions by their public image. If the news is controlled by corporations and consumers believe that products are giving money to charities but not exploiting cheap labor, then their public image does not reflect their actions.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not convinced by the part about how living things are now patentable. Being able to patent genetically modified organisms that corporations create seems logical to me because it is similar to other products that they make. The part about patenting parts of the human genome is confusing to me. It definitely seems like it is unethical but the movie does not explain what this actually means at all. The music in the movie makes this part seem like a big argument but it is not explained enough for the viewer to actually understand it.
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I want to know what other government regulations there are on pollution and chemicals and pesticides in food. This movie said that there were only regulations on pollution levels to the air. This film showed many times when corporations were sued for disobeying government regulations and I would like to see more about these instances.
 * 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.?**

This film is best viewed by people who work for companies that impact humanity in a negative way. Most people do not realize what their companies are doing as a whole and do not consider that they are a part of what their company does. They will hopefully be inspired to try and change their companies ways.
 * 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?**

This film suggests that people start looking deeper into how corporations are run and what effect they have on the environment. Once people know more about how companies are run they may start to buy more from corporations that are doing better practices even if they are a little more expensive.
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

There could have been more information on what effects corporations pollution was having on the environment.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**