WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-04 16:40:50 +0000

"...but it would have been nice to see anyone stick up for....the idea that a truly free market might be able to regulate itself as opposed to being micromanaged by the government." We learned quite harshly in the 1870's thru to the 1920's that if government does not step in, workers are forced into inhumane and often deadly working conditions. Yes, unions create balance in the free market ideal, but this also leads to threats and murder of Union leaders. (I suppose in a perfectly free social fabric, murder is allowed, but can we really go there?) Just imagine a pre-1880 style American workforce making $3.50 an hour, working 70 hours a week, without OSHA, and it is not a pretty picture. But the even bigger picture of world environment: Limiting the impact of high industry coupled with pollution is paramount to any society interested in surviving more than ten or so generations. We shall see how we did in this arena in the next hundred years. I hate to be a pessimist, but I believe more regulation may have been necessary... Lastly with: Ray Anderson, Maude Barlow, Chris Barrett, Smedley Darlington Butler, Noam Chomsky, Víctor Hugo Daza, Peter Drucker, Samuel Epstein, Milton Freidman, Janeane Garofalo, Kathie Lee Gifford, Naomi Klein, Susan E. Linn, Luke McCabe, Mikela J. Mikael, Robert Monks, Michael Moore, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Vandana Shiva, Steve Wilson- it certainly seems like the film does have "more than one point of view." I am reminded of when cdubrocker recently joined and rladew posted: "So much for hearing more of a new persons perspective, sigh. Oh well. 'Be careful of what you wish for...'" TGL correctly pointed out it was, in fact, another person's point of view.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-04 19:18:08 +0000

I should rephrase the "different points of view" idea I wrote about. db is certainly right about the fact the "Corporation" espouses more than one point of view. All the opinions, however, work in concert to present one argument. What I meant was, in a documentary, (IMHO) one should see pros and cons about controversial issues, not just all Pros or all CONS... The film shows people NOT voting for Bush/Cheney at the end... Are they trying to inform us to be knowledgable about an entire issue, or do they want to push through a political agenda? I dont know the answer to this question as I am not a documentary film maker or an expert in political rhetoric, but my personal perception was that it leaned more towards the latter "agenda" than the former "providing information" DB: I was about 80% positive and in favor of the film. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. The work of Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky have been an eye opener for me. It is certainly the filmmakers objective to make it an argument for one specific thing, but my question here is whether or not something that gives you all pros or all cons can objectively be considered a "documentary" _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-04 19:29:13 +0000

Not to be too much "the devil's advocate", but what is the quintessential documentary then? "High school" I supposed would be a candidate, by Cambridge's own Frederick Wiseman. Excellent piece: Raw footage, no voice over, yet I remember people complaining it focused too much on students and not enough on teachers...

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-04 19:52:21 +0000

I could tell pretty quickly what the take-away ideas the filmmakers wanted to get across. I went into it knowing that there wasn't going to be strong corporate advocates. Although, they did spend an extensive amount of time with the CEO of Interface. He had an epiphany a few years back about the effect of business on the environment and the sustainability of manufacturing. Then there was the nut from some think-tank that was drooling over the prospect of privatizing rivers, forests, the air. So, I'm not sure what a GM exec., Microsoft exec., or GE exec. might have brought to the table. I saw the virtues of hard work come across as the people of Bolivia fought to get control of their water back from coporate hands. Did I hear it correctly that collecting rain water was illegal? I didn't see this as an attack on capitalism. I saw this as an attack on corporations, which are just legal constructs. Corporations are obliged to maximize profits. Corporations are legal persons, which in effect insulates the decision makers from responsibility for their actions. Corporations are not required to weigh the concerns of the community within which they operate. In fact, they seem to take the opportunity to completely disregard the concerns of the community. At 2.5+ hrs, it could have used a bit more editing. The Corporation

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-05 12:02:51 +0000

Documentaries present the viewpoint of the filmmaker, that's a given. I don't expect, or want, for every opinion to be expressed. Clearly, the makers of "The Corporation" have a certain agenda; I don't expect them to eloquently argue against that agenda. I don't consider a documentary good or bad based on the pro/con ratio as it were. I consider a documentary bad if it was purposely disseminating false information, or inaccurate claims. Perfectly balanced films might be boring... GE or Monsanto or ADM are free to fund documentaries that push their side. In fact, I think they already do, in a way, via advertising and lobbying campaigns.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-08 01:32:27 +0000

Wesley Morris of the Globe's closing words from his review which put a more eloquent spin on the point I was trying to get across of hearing arguments and anecdotes from both sides of the equation: "Akre and Wilson's first-person testimonial makes you realize that, as powerful as the movie often is, it could stand a little more empiricism. It's too reliant on the perceptions of social thinkers such as Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Any movie called "The Corporation" would be remiss without them, but the film is too eager to cede the floor to its pundits, going so far as to give its parting shot to Michael Moore. This feels especially annoying since one of the featured CEOs, Ray Anderson, who runs a carpet company, has had the conversion experience the filmmakers would seem to wish on all executives. Not only does he appear reflective and contrite, he's actually begun trying to steer his company toward safer and ecologically sounder practices. Moore might have the last word, but Anderson is the movie's hero. And as of this writing, he still has his job." _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-08 02:44:43 +0000

I was also a bit put off with Moore being the final say. I thought the evidence was overwhelming, but, I'm easy. To his credit, Moore's point was salient: He gets paid by corporations to bash them. The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself if he can get a good price.