BarnardSarah_The+Corporation

  //The Corporation | // Mark Achbar | 2003   //The Corporation // is an eye-opening film about the ramifications of the modern day corporation. The corporation was made a “legal person” in the mid-1800s, and since then, has become more and more concerned about profit and increasingly less concerned with ethical or moral considerations. These artificial creations based on profit have taken over our current business community, in a race to privatize everything from animals to water to a human’s DNA. The film interviews executives from a wide range of industries, as well as economists, historians, and critics. Much of the film is based around a “psychiatric evaluation” of these big corporate identities, with the resulting diagnosis of a “psychopath.” //The Corporation// focuses on the lack of public control over big corporations, and explains the narrative of how they have become what they are today (for better, or more likely, worse).   While corporations may not always appear to have direct ecological consequences, //The Corporation// draws out many sustainability problems that are constantly being faced. Legal, economic, organizational, and behavioral implications are all present in the analysis of the corporation, especially in light of considering it a “legal person.” The media also plays a role in these sustainability problems, fueling the fire for this “science of exploitation” that the corporation seems to be perfecting.  One of the largest sustainability problems facing corporations is economic. Corporations are most often completely profit driven, and enough is never enough. The company is concerned about short term profit for their stockholders, not necessarily the product cost to customers or the customers health and well-being. Large companies can even afford to pay the large fines imposed for breaking environmental protocols or similar violations, meaning often it is easier to pay the fine than deal with the consequences. A related problem is the legal aspect of the corporation. As previously mentioned, a corporation is considered a “legal person,” yet they are not held accountable to the same laws as all other human beings. A corporation can’t be tried for murder as an individual can, and therefore the sense of liability often becomes lost. The corporation has all of the rights of an individual but not the same implications. The question then becomes about liability and responsibility, something the corporation is never quick to claim.  The organizational and behavioral problems acknowledged by //The Corporation// have a great deal to do with conflicts of interest. When the media is owned by the same companies they are supposed to be reporting on, it becomes obvious that the organizational structure dictates the results before they are even final. Behaviorally, the film addresses the “psychotic” tendencies of a corporation, The corporation has a “highly antisocial personality,” and often doesn’t even consider the impacts on human health, workers, or the biosphere. The organizational make-up, so highly driven on profit, leads to behavior that would be unallowable coming from an individual human being. The example of the company in Bangladesh that tried to privatize rainwater is proof of this apparent disregard for the social workings of the world. The media only multiplies these problems, airing falsifying information and pushing reporters to report only some of the facts.   I thought that the most compelling line in //The Corporation// came from the commodities trader who said that “September 11…became a blessing in disguise,” and that the first question they asked as our country was falling apart was “How much is gold up?” It’s impossible to say that these are terrible, evil people for saying things like this, but it is the system that forces them to act that way. They, like the corporations, are looking for a constant profit. This quote just made me realize how great of lengths these companies will go to in order to make a few pennies more.  The film was quite compelling overall, and the other big part of the film that I found quite persuasive was the section on the price of whistleblowing. Two reporters who refused to tell a watered-down version of a story about rBGH were fired by Fox news. Their case was overturned when the judge reminded them that falsifying the news isn’t actually against the law. This scene on the apparent cover-ups through the media/corporations relationship was attention-catching.  <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I found the least compelling part of //The Corporation// to be the scenes in which they utilize the World Health Organization’s checklist to determine if a corporation has the diagnostic criteria of a “psychopath.” I completely understand the concept they were trying to achieve through this checklist, showing qualities of individuals and proving that the corporation would qualify as a “psychotic human being.” However, the very straightforward way in which they did it make broad generalizations and don’t really get the point across in the best way possible. The checklist seemed to be a way to reinforce the main ideas from the interviewees, but I do not think it was the bulk of the educational value of the film.
 * <span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 6 | //The Corporation// ** <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?**

<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I would be interested to further investigate the legal ramifications of a corporation as a “legal person.” Does this mean they have all the rights of an individual, or does it also mean they can be legally responsible in the same way an individual is? Also, regardless of the supposed ramifications, it would be interesting to see if the precedents actually follow those same lines. The ideas of patenting anything except a full-born human being were also quite intriguing, and I am curious to know how large of a role the corporations played in legalizing patenting living things. The huge power of the corporation to bend the rules to increase their profits was really drawn out by this film, and it brings up many questions as to the true legal realm of their reach. <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 Corporation// best addresses individuals of most ages. It is a great film for reinforcing to the viewer the boundary issues associated with corporations, and how those issues can affect people on an individual level. Anyone who is a top level executive at one of these companies would probably look down greatly on the film, claiming it is a bunch of false propaganda, yet individuals who have been harmed by a company’s negligence or apparent lack of moral standards would greatly disagree. I think the film may very well change the way viewers think about corporations, and possibly even affect college students to consider a few more issues when choosing “real world” jobs for the first time. It was important to realize that not every person who works for a corporation is inherently evil, but just to understand the ramifications of our decisions. //The Corporation// was very good at speaking to the audience on the individual level of the human being. <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%;"> There weren’t really too many points of intervention suggested by the film, rather just information about the corporation as a sustainability problem. The large-scale suggested options are admittedly infeasible; namely, restructuring our capitalist system to negate the lack of public control over big corporations. The more feasible actions are simply to stand up for your individual rights, and in the case of the Fox News Story, fight as hard as you can for what you believe is right. If companies are always trying to better themselves at the science of exploitation, the consumer must learn to counter these techniques and take a stance when possible. An excellent example of a triumph was the citizens fight in Bangladesh to nullify the privatization of their rain water. <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 Corporation //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> was a very educational film on the secret side of corporations, with a lot of knowledge that I did not previously have before seeing the movie. The film tries to focus on the larger consequences through smaller examples, which is quite successful. I think that the film could enhance its environmental educational value by talking about a few more specific examples like the Monsanto case. Also, perhaps the film could focus on some smaller-business models and show the differences in consequences between the two. The film didn’t focus on a lot of solutions, so possibly showing some of the alternatives to large corporations could help increase the educational value. Helping people to realize the large matrix of problems associated with an issue not typically considered a sustainability problem is a step in the right direction.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">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?**