AndersonFilmAnnotation3


 * Film Annotation #3**
 * The Corporation**
 * Word Count: 1206**

This extensive documentary about the far-reaching power of corporations was directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott and is called //The Corporation//. It was released in 2003//. //
 * 1.** **Title, Director, and Release Year?**

The central argument of the film is that large corporations have an excessive amount of power and are ruining many people’s lives. Since corporations are allowed to make campaign donations and offer to provide other benefits to governments, there is little that anyone can do to stop them. Corporations have even gone so far as to hide scientific results from people so that they can get their drugs and chemicals passed as safe when they might not really be.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The argument is made using cartoon-like scenes and real life Not very much scientific information is provided, but many economics and business experts shared their opinions. The film had a lot of emotional appeal; for example, corporations were compared to the definition of sociopaths. Many other metaphors for corporations were used, like a dinosaur walking through a city. The film also showed the awful things that corporations had profited from; for example, IBM systems were used by the Nazis in concentration camps. An IBM employee had to check the systems one a month.
 * 3.** **How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film draws out many different sustainability problems with corporations and their power. Corporations influence politics. One way they do this is by promising jobs to communities if the community allows them special privileges. Another way is threatening to move from the community if stricter laws are passed, which could hurt the community’s economy if many citizens are employed by the corporation. Corporations are considered a “person” and therefore are allowed to sue real people if they want. This keeps people from being able to say negative things about corporations without fear. Since corporations buy a lot of advertisements, they have power over the news companies, too. Two people, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, were asked by Fox News to research rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone). They did so, and made a documentary about the negative health effects of rBGH. Monsanto, a large corporation that owns the patent, told Fox News not to air the documentary. Akre and Wilson were asked to make some changes to the documentary- “Just write it the way the lawyers want it written”- which they did. When Akre and Wilson were asked to make changes that were not true, they were told: “We’ll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is.” They refused to do this, and were told that they could get the rest of the year’s salary in exchange for never talking about rGBH anywhere. They refused and were later fired without cause. Akre and Wilson attempted a lawsuit against Fox but ended up losing. Many people do not know how bad corporations are for both society and the environment. Advertisements for corporations help people believe that they are friendly, nice, and caring, when in reality, corporations just work for the “bottom line”-more profits. This would be an educational (because people do not know what is really going on) and cultural (why we trust corporations and buy so many products from them as opposed to a more local economy).
 * 4.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I found the idea of a corporation as a sociopath very interesting. Considering that corporations in America are “people” according to the government, I felt that the analogy was both striking and persuasive. The whole story surrounding the Fox news documentary about rBGH that was never aired was also a compelling look into how much influence corporations have. I also enjoyed learning about the history of corporations. I had known a little of it but not much. At first, corporations were an entity with a charter from the government. Corporations were formed for a specific purpose and dissolved once that purpose had been accomplished. Now, once a corporation gets a charter, it basically lives forever. Sometimes, I feel that environmentalists act like non-environmentalists are stupid and totally opposed to the movement.I liked that the film showed that CEOs of corporations might not necessarily be bad people, they just might not feel like they can make changes or might not be educated enough.Solving that, or enforcing laws making it more profitable for corporations to engage in environmentally friendly (and socially just) methods of operation is more likely to be effective than simply demonizing corporations and CEOs.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The part that I was not compelled by was the part that was basically left out: solutions. While positive stories were told (like the people in Bolivia who fought against water privatization and won), there were no real, effective solutions presented to the audience. When a film details all the problems surrounding an issue-which //The Corporation// did very well-and then does not present solutions that the average person could do, it makes the film easier to forget and the viewers feel powerless.
 * 6.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The audience that the film best addresses is people interested in business and economics. Those that did not already know much about these might not have been able to understand all parts of the film.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

While I saw the connections, I felt like most people would not understand how closely linked corporate greed and environmental problems are. These connections could have been discussed more in the film. I did feel that //The Corporation// was very educational, in general.
 * 8.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film did not suggest any actions that people could take, just that a large carpet company is using more sustainable methods. Actions that I could see being useful could include making it known that corporations can have their charters revoked, and having regulations stating when a charter must be revoked (for example, large disasters like the BP spill last year or the Bhopal Incident in the 1980’s). Also, liability could be extended to CEOs and perhaps shareholders. While it is true that it is hard for the CEO of a large corporation to know everything going on, perhaps such a law would keep corporations from getting too large. Also, CEOs would feel the need to educate themselves more about the company. There could also be some law stating that the lowest paid worker would have to be paid a minimum percentage of the CEOs salary, so that there is not the extreme gap there is today.
 * 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.**

**10.** **What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)** I had known that not everyone, specifically the wealthier business people, were not pleased with Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, but I had not known that people tried to overthrow him, as was stated in the film. I did some research and found that someone had been inspired by the film to write their[| thesis] on the plot to overthrow Roosevelt! It goes into great detail about the politics of the time. For example, a [|special house committee] was formed to investigate Nazi propaganda and other activities after the attempted coup. This [|short article] states the issues more concisely. Basically, a military coup was formed to try to overthrow Roosevelt. They were going to tell Roosevelt that he had to pretend to be too sick to carry out his duties and appoint someone taking orders from Wall Street to run the country. I also found a [|documentary] about the whole thing.

References:

Documentary: [] House records: [] Article: [] : Thesis: [|http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=etd_hon_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Frlz%3D1C1GGGE_enUS452US452%26aq%3D0%26oq%3Dplot%2Bto%2Boverthrow%2B%26gcx%3Dw%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dplot%2Bto%2Boverthrow%2Bfdr%23q%3Dplot%2Bto%2Boverthrow%2Bfdr%2Bjp%2Bmorgan%2Bdupont%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1GGGE_enUS452US452%26prmd%3Dimvnso%26ei%3D6gSXToWlMajL0QHszMmrBA%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN%26bav%3Don.2%2Cor.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.%2Ccf.osb%26fp%3D2d2403e1866258da%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D795#search=%22plot%20overthrow%20fdr%22]