Skip to main content

A perennial BHR movie The Corporation

2004 documentary The Corporation

In their 2004 documentary The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and author Joel Bakan delve into the ascent, characteristics, and downfalls of one of the most pervasive entities of the modern era: the corporation. The Corporation focuses on “corporations” and “corporatism” as a whole rather than dissecting any particular, singular business behemoth. In doing this, the film makers coerce viewers to think about the entirety of the issues associated with corporations rather than allowing us to point fingers at a single scapegoat. This film features an all-star list of contemporary political and economic thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, and Milton Friedman whose commentaries intersperse with representatives from the corporate world. With the help from these folks inspired dialogue, the film weaves through a bevy of hefty topics such as pollution, sweat shops, privatization of natural resources, sustainable production methods, manipulative advertising to children, corporations’ effects on the biosphere, etc.

In the mid-1800s, corporations were recognized as individuals in the legal system in the United States. This recognition gave them unprecedented rights and powers. Because corporations are thought of as individuals, one might wonder what kind of an individual would an entity be who has no feelings or central nervous system or an actual body. This is exactly the question that these filmmakers tackle in this two and a half hour film. The documentary uses psychiatric and psychological standards to determine that if corporations were actual individuals, they would be considered psychopaths. Everything from selfish decision making to lack of regret to unrealistic thought patterns points to psychopathic tendencies that are common amongst corporations.

The Corporation has not only great breadth of topics, but also great depth. The film pinpoints specific instances of corporate ills. For example, featured throughout the film is the Bolivian workers’ struggle to regain rights to their water after a corporate privatization. Also, the film features an in depth story of investigative reporters from Fox News who got fired for refusing to disperse false information about Monsanto’s dairy cow antibiotics that were known to cause harm in humans. And, we also hear from an advertising firm who is willing to market to kids at all costs. The film succeeds in painting the modern corporation as a psychopath because is shows the lengths at which corporations will go to serve themselves above all else. The Corporation makes real the utter pervasiveness of corporations and their culture in the world today. The film seems to ultimately suggest that with such power and such beneficial legal status should come a responsibility to protect and respect her fellow citizens. One criticism I have of the movie is the one sided picture it presents. One of the most constant criticisms I have of right leaning documentaries and news coverage is how one-sided (and often inflammatory) they are. Intellectual consistency leads me to want the same thing even for those pieces with which I tend to agree more. One of the things that my time as an academic has taught me is that there is always nuance in an argument. Finding where those nuances are and using that to develop common ground would seem to me the best way to develop momentum and change.In their 2004 documentary The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and author Joel Bakan delve into the ascent, characteristics, and downfalls of one of the most pervasive entities of the modern era: the corporation. The Corporation focuses on “corporations” and “corporatism” as a whole rather than dissecting any particular, singular business behemoth. In doing this, the film makers coerce viewers to think about the entirety of the issues associated with corporations rather than allowing us to point fingers at a single scapegoat. This film features an all-star list of contemporary political and economic thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, and Milton Friedman whose commentaries intersperse with representatives from the corporate world. With the help from these folks inspired dialogue, the film weaves through a bevy of hefty topics such as pollution, sweat shops, privatization of natural resources, sustainable production methods, manipulative advertising to children, corporations’ effects on the biosphere, etc.

In the mid-1800s, corporations were recognized as individuals in the legal system in the United States. This recognition gave them unprecedented rights and powers. Because corporations are thought of as individuals, one might wonder what kind of an individual would an entity be who has no feelings or central nervous system or an actual body. This is exactly the question that these filmmakers tackle in this two and a half hour film. The documentary uses psychiatric and psychological standards to determine that if corporations were actual individuals, they would be considered psychopaths. Everything from selfish decision making to lack of regret to unrealistic thought patterns points to psychopathic tendencies that are common amongst corporations.

The Corporation has not only great breadth of topics, but also great depth. The film pinpoints specific instances of corporate ills. For example, featured throughout the film is the Bolivian workers’ struggle to regain rights to their water after a corporate privatization. Also, the film features an in depth story of investigative reporters from Fox News who got fired for refusing to disperse false information about Monsanto’s dairy cow antibiotics that were known to cause harm in humans. And, we also hear from an advertising firm who is willing to market to kids at all costs. The film succeeds in painting the modern corporation as a psychopath because is shows the lengths at which corporations will go to serve themselves above all else. The Corporation makes real the utter pervasiveness of corporations and their culture in the world today. The film seems to ultimately suggest that with such power and such beneficial legal status should come a responsibility to protect and respect her fellow citizens. One criticism I have of the movie is the one sided picture it presents. One of the most constant criticisms I have of right leaning documentaries and news coverage is how one-sided (and often inflammatory) they are. Intellectual consistency leads me to want the same thing even for those pieces with which I tend to agree more. One of the things that my time as an academic has taught me is that there is always nuance in an argument. Finding where those nuances are and using that to develop common ground would seem to me the best way to develop momentum and change.

Submenu
WVU LAW Facebook WVU LAW Twitter WVU LAW Instagram WVU LAW LinkedIn WVU LAW Youtube Channel