Customer Reviews

The Corporation

5 star:		(130)
4 star:		(33)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

This is an extraordinary film about the creation of the American corporation, its legal organizational model, its global economic dominance and its psychopathic tendencies, and its incredible ambition to influence every aspect of culture in its unrelenting pursuit of profit.

The Corporation was spawned from Joel Balkan's in depth book, "The Corporation: A Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power". (Due to be released in March this year) The film and book begins in the 18th century, in the establishment of the 14th Amendment. Initially the 14th Amendment was designed after the Civil War to give ex slaves' legal rights, like any other citizen of the United States, but through a maze of legal precedents, the business corporation organization model was now deemed a "legal person" with all the civil rights accorded to a citizen. This highly absurd precedent has paved the way for corporations to literarily get away with murder, because a "corporation" is not an individual that you can put in jail. In effect, a corporation has no moral or social obligations; their only obligation is the pursuit of profit. This film offers numerous examples of unethical practices resulting in death for many people, and because of their status under the 14th Amendment, and endless legal loopholes, have gotten away with terrible crimes against humanity and the environment with no more than a fine, a mere slap on the wrist.

As the law treats corporations as "persons", Balkan thought it appropriate to put the various behaviours of these companies under psychological examination. What this psychological study illustrated is that corporations, as "persons" behave and display the symptoms of the clinical psychopath. A psychopath typically does not have a social conscience, is guilt free after committing heinous acts, and will destroy anything or anybody that prevents them from attaining the object of their particular obsession - in this case, the relentless pursuit of profit.

This documentary took several years to produce with over 650 hours of footage, director(s), Jennifer Abbot and Mark Achbar, had to chisel down this amazing amount of material into a comprehensible film. What is most astounding is the range of people interviewed for this film, that argue from all sides of the "corporation issue": Ira Jackson, Ray Anderson - CEO of Interface, the world's largest carpet manufacturer; Noam Chomsky, Richard Grossman, Howard Zinn, Michael Moore, Milton Freidman - Noble Prize winning economist; Jeremy Rifkin - President, Foundation of Economic Trends; Dr. Robert Hare - Consultant to the FBI on psychopaths, and many more individuals from all sides of the debate.

When Balkan wrote his book and then collaborated with Mark Achbar to produce this film, what they did not want was the film to appear as just some left-wing diatribe, attacking the corporations, but to illustrate to people how the corporation began, how they have evolved and what they could well turn into if the people do not become involved in the democratic process, ensuring our governments take back the reigns of power.

After viewing this film, it becomes all too evident that these large corporations have too much power, whose mandate is not the common good of the people, and who will go to any lengths, legally and otherwise, in the pursuit of profit and the bottom line.

I believe this is one of the best and most important documentary films to be made in many years.

This extraordinary documentary is based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (2004) by law professor Joel Bakan (see my review at Amazon). Bakan's thesis is that the corporation is a psychopathic entity.

In his book he notes that the modern corporation is "singularly self-interested and unable to feel genuine concern for others in any context." (p. 56) He adds that the corporation's sole reason for being is to enhance the profits and power of the corporation. He shows by citing court cases that it is the duty of management to make money and that any compromise with that duty is dereliction of duty.

Directors Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott bring these points and a slew of others to cinematic life through interviews, archival footage, and a fine narrative written by Achbar and Harold Crooks. The interviews cover a wide spectrum of opinion, from Michael Moore and Norm Chomsky on the left, to Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman on the right. Friedman is heard to agree with Bakan that the corporation's duty is to its stockholders and that anything that deviates from that duty is irresponsible.

What emerges is a view of the corporation as an entity working both for and against human welfare. Designed to turn labor and raw materials efficiently into goods and services and to thereby raise our standard of living, it has been a very effective tool for humans to use. On the other hand, because it is blind to anything but its own welfare, the corporation uses humans and the resources of the planet in ways that can be and often are detrimental to people and the environment. Corporations, to put it bluntly, foul the environment with their wastes and will not clean up unless forced to.

An interesting technique that Achbar and Abbott use is to go down the list of behaviors cited in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that identify the psychopathic personality and show how the corporation has all of those behaviors including a criminal disregard for the welfare and feelings of others and a complete absence of guilt. Indeed corporations feel no compunction when they break the law. Their only concern is whether breaking the law is cost-effective. The result is a nearly constant bending and breaking of the law. They pay the fine and then break the law again. The corporation, after all, has no conscience and feels no remorse.

Bakan notes that "corporations are designed to externalize their costs." The corporation is "deliberately programmed, indeed legally compelled, to externalize costs without regard for the harm it may cause to people, communities, and the natural environment. Every cost it can unload onto someone else is a benefit to itself, a direct route to profit." (pp. 72-73) We are shown how rivers are polluted, environments destroyed and people placed into something close to servitude by the corporation's insatiable lust to profit.

The answer to this, as presented in the film, is to make corporations pay for their pollution. What many people are proposing is the creation of bills or certificates that would allow the barer "the right to pollute." The cost of these bills would reflect the societal and environmental costs of the pollution. This sounds scary, but what it would do is make those who pollute pay for their pollution instead of having the costs be externalized as they are now. Consequently, to protect their bottom line, corporations would pollute less.

Another problem with the corporation as emphasized in the film is that the corporate structure is essentially despotic. It is not a democracy or anything close. The owners hire officers to exercise control over everyone who works for the corporation. This is in direct contrast to democratic governments whose officers are elected and who are subject to the checks and balances of a constitutional government with shared powers. It is true that if you are a shareholder of a corporation you may be able to indirectly vote for the CEO. However, such a "democracy" is a democracy of capital in which the electoral power is inequitably distributed. Some people have hundreds of millions of votes. How many does the average shareholder have?

Bakan, Achbar and Abbott play fair, and give both sides of the case--although that is not to say that the weight of evidence or sentiment is equally distributed. After all, who's in favor of pollution or the destruction of the environment? The pathological corporation doesn't care about such things, but its officers should. Some do, but feel constrained by their fiduciary duty to their stockholders. Consequently it is our responsibility as the electorate to get our government to make the corporation socially and morally responsible. The way to do that is make the fines for breaking the law large enough to change corporate behavior. Furthermore--and this is essential--make management responsible--criminally if necessary--for the actions of the corporation.

This is absolutely one of the most interesting, most compelling, and, yes, entertaining documentaries that I have ever seen. But beware of some graphic footage.

As a small business owner, I am attuned to the impositions of governmental intrusions. I decided to read the book - and then subsequently saw this documentary - in order to get a more balanced view. Although this author definitely has a bias (addressed at the end of this review), he does not come across as overtly fanatical, and has plenty of examples to document his position.

The corporation is compared to a sociopath. The sociopathic personality is irresponsible, manipulating, grandiose, lacking in empathy, has antisocial tendencies, refuses to accept responsibility for its actions, and cannot feel remorse....Many of the attitudes people adopt and the actions they execute when acting as corporate operatives can be characterized as sociopathic.

Moreover, by the legal way a corporation is set up, its only motive is profit. Every action taken, no matter how altruistic it looks, has to ultimately be a search for profits. Otherwise, the corporation is subject to litigation by the shareholders. The corporation is deliberately programmed and legally compelled to externalize (dump) costs (pollution, for example) without regard for the harm it may cause. Every cost it can unload onto the general public is a benefit to stockholders - a direct route to profit.

Many major corporations habitually engage in criminal behavior with records worse than even the most prolific human criminals. GE collected 42 heavy fines over 11 years - akin to a hardened repeat criminal receiving occasional hand slaps while on perpetual parole. Corporations don't mind chalking these fines up as a cost of doing business - then delegating a committee to figure out how to cover their tracks better in the future. Sounds a lot like a sociopath.

Within the past 20 years, corporations have really gotten in bed with government in the United States. Billions in PAC money is spent every year for lobbying and political contributions. Grateful politicians find reasons to vote for causes supported by their benefactors. How can virtually unfunded (by comparison) watchdog groups compete with this machine aimed toward sugar-coating their industries and de-regulation?

On the other hand, the corporate structure has provided financing for businesses that otherwise would not have been, providing jobs for workers and income for investors. Corporations have played a major role in the dominant economy the US has developed - an economy that is envied throughout the world. Corporations should be seen for the non-altruistic entities they are, and every effort should be made to make sure they continue to thrive with proper regulation - admittedly a tightrope act.

The other fault I find with this documentary is its view on globalization. At least theoretically, every market transaction makes all parties better off. Even Asian sweatshops have full employment because it is the best option their workers have. Antiglobalization protesters say that world trade is something imposed on third world countries by rich countries, but win/lose thinking is wrong when it comes to economics. Trade gives poor countries access to markets in the developed world and the opportunity to work their way out of poverty. The loudest complaints against the antiglobalization protesters come from the developing world. Sweatshops played an important role in the early journey out of poverty by (among others) "asian tigers" South Korea and Taiwan. Have you ever heard of American workers applauding the closing of a factory in the US? It has been suggested that the antiglobalization coalition should be renamed, "The Coalition to Keep the World's Poor People Poor." Every economy that participates in global trade benefits, even when they have to start with sweat shops.

Despite these deficiencies, I recommend this documentary highly. There is no question in my mind that corporations act like sociopaths - it's in their charter (genes). There is also no doubt in my mind that our politicians, in their votes, exhibit sociopathic traits they borrowed from their corporate contributors or from lobbyists representing the corporate mindset. This is a captivating five - star documentary.

***FANTASTIC FILM***...And I'm a Conservative!!!..........
This should be required viewing in all schools and should be played quarterly on all PBS stations in the Country as a reminder...The politicians need a good kick in the ass and know they work for the public good, not the corporations...Corrupt officials and big business must be prosecuted...Lobbyists should be banned...The people have to take back this Country...NOW!!!

I found this film to be extremely well organized with facts and information presented with spread sheet precision. There was a wide selection of very knowledgeable speakers chosen and it seemed obvious that there was a great deal of careful research done on historical and factual data presented. The only small problem I had with this documentary is that I wanted so much to believe that corporations are really evil entities, and yet, I also like to hear a balanced argument so that I come to my own conclusions and not just be led to a predetermined conclusion. The film was clearly skewed, from the beginning, to present facts in a certain light, (again, a view I wanted to share) and it never faltered from that path. I think there were some carefully chosen speakers for the corporate side of things but the opposing side for the most part, grossly outnumbered them. Also, as I feared from the beginning, there was a point in the film where I got completely depressed and felt a sense of hopelessness about the future in general. Then, very abruptly, the last few minutes took an amazing upturn and I left the film on a high note, feeling empowered and hopeful again. I particularly enjoyed the thoughts presented by Ray Anderson, founder and Chairman of Interface Inc. His vision for production with a sustainable future was inspiring and made me want to hear more in this vein. But there was no more. In the end I felt that the film really did give me a lot to chew on and, even though I felt that the filmmakers had a particular agenda that they carefully sculpted, I still feel the film was educational, informative and skillfully crafted. I put in the time and came away feeling that I knew more about the subject, skewed or not, then when I started the film and to me that was worth the time I spend watching The Corporation.

2004 was the year of the documentary. Documentaries were huge over the past year from "Control Room" to "Outfoxed". Obviously the biggest of the documentaries was Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11". After seeing that film, I was definitely interested in seeing other documentaries. Another great documentary I had seen last summer was "The Corporation" which is based on Joel Bakan's book of the same name. Unfortunately it was shown in few theaters other than in big cities like where I live. After seeing the film, I went out and bought the (overpriced) book. I had to laugh at the fact that the book was barely 100 pages and was priced at (...) at Border's. Unlike most films that were originally books, "The Corporation" remained faithful. For 2 1/2 I was engrossed with the film.

The film kicks off with the subject of how the environment is effected by corporate America, which eventually led to sweat shops. The topic of the dangers of globalization is nothing new but it certainly made me look at drinking milk in a whole new light. If you drink milk, make sure that there is no 'special' ingredient (like farmers trying to chemically force their cows to produce more milk). I also was seeing red when two newscasters in Florida were pretty much shut down on this particular story no thanks to upper management at the tv station they worked for (owned by Rupert Murdoch).

I was also repulsed by the suggestion that IBM had donated some of their equipment to Adolf Hilter so he can keep track of the population numbers in his concentration camps. I really don't know how much truth is to that suggestion but it is pretty compelling, if not revolting (if it is true).

Another fascinating segment in the film was how a town in South America revolted against its fascist regime because the government officials then made the locals pay for water, including rain water they would collect. Who on god's green water is greedy enough to charge for rain water?!

What really turned me off was when the film briefly discussed about advertising and how marketers aim towards children. I don't have any kids (nor do I plan on having any) but I felt dirty after seeing this segment because I enjoyed some of the products by the companies that were aiming at kids to nag their parents into buying their stuff for them.

Michael Moore does make a cameo appearance in the film. He shows a couple of clips from one of his earlier films "The Big One" in which he goes after corporate America. I think Michael's role in the film was to provide some levity in an otherwise dour film.

For me personally I loved this film. I had no problems sitting through the 2 1/2 hours. Some people might have issues with that. I always was aware of the dangers of globalization and free trade so nothing really new in this film was talked about. This film is unequivocaly one sided since it does criticize big corporations but then again the whole point of this film is to exposing corporate America and just how corrupt corporations can be. I am so glad that this film is finally coming out on dvd this spring. I am definitely planning on buying it. It is one of my favorite documentaries of all time.

I saw this film with a good friend of mine who comes from a cattle ranching family. He was flabbergasted by this film, particularly the parts concerning the Bovine Growth Hormone, and vowed to have a long talk with his family about it.

This was the most educational film I have ever seen. I have long been the anti-corporate type, but feel this film gave me a lot of new perspectives and a more honest understanding of what and who I am actually dealing with. This isn't just the hogwash I here from other protesters, this is a very intelligent, very straight, very solid account of what a corporation actually is and does. This is NOT a Michael Moore film. Though he is in it, he is featured along side the men and women who have run these corporations, and not in a manor that is making fun of them. That is important because if I don't listen to both sides, then I really don't know what I am talking about. And, regardless of what side you are on, I feel this film is ESSENTIAL in bringing both sides up to par so they can at least complain about the right things.

I can't say enough about this film. Its VERY long, but I wouldn't have cut one minute. I honestly think its one of the most important films I've ever seen. I am going to buy copies for a lot of people, but from local retailers.

Thank you, and enjoy.

This film should be required viewing for all Americans. It exposes why corporations are corrupted by their very nature. It's not that most of the individuals involved in corporations are inherently evil, but rather that the structure of the system is flawed. This film makes a very strong and convincing case for why many changes need to me made. I can't urge you strongly enough to watch this film.

I believe this is a documentary of the first rank that literally everyone should see. But I also don't entirely disagree with what the reviewers who gave it only one star had to say either.

If you're wondering how that's even possible, let's begin at the beginning...

The first thing you need to know is that although "The Corporation" is a documentary of sorts, it is a long, long way from the standard fare you'll find on the History or Discovery Channels. What we get here is an original thesis put forward by people who have thought very carefully about the corporation as a social institution, and who have something that they want to say about it. This documentary sets forth their views in exactly the same way that we were all taught to write our essays: that is, as a logical argument in support of a particular position.

The position taken is that if we look carefully at how the corporation works, it becomes apparent that this institution is set up to operate in a way that would be considered psychopathic were the same behavior to be observed in a real, flesh and blood human being.

Incidentally, since sharing an earlier version of this review with a friend, I have been reminded that most people do not fully understand what the term "psychopath" actually means in a clinical sense. Very, very few psychopaths are the slavering killers of fiction. Psychopaths are quite simply people without the capacity to truly care about other people. They also often have problems with impulse control. As a result, they tend to wreck considerable damage on those around them. However, they are not necessarily - or even usually - criminals, and can lead superficially normal, even highly successful lives. At the time of writing, the Wikipedia page provides a good introduction to this field for those who are interested.

Getting back to the documentary at hand, the core of the argument presented is that since management has a legal, fiduciary duty to maximize monetary returns to stockholders, and to in fact do whatever it takes to fulfill that duty, this creates an institution that is hard-wired to operate in an absolutely and totally selfish manner. Given this grounding, the film then spends a great deal of time looking at how this absolute selfishness impacts upon the broader world, resulting in effects ranging from animal cruelty and environmental destruction to the exploitation of third-world workers on below subsistence level wages. And yes, the film also shows just how closely these impacts mirror the trail of misery typically left behind by human psychopaths.

Despite all this, the makers of this film do give leading proponents of more conservative viewpoints a reasonable chance to set forth their own ideas. It's important to stress that this film does acknowledge that corporations can be, and indeed are, enormously effective wealth-creating institutions in many ways. It's just that it argues that corporations can be enormously destructive as well.

On this note, I'd like to add that the special edition (The Corporation (2-Disc Special Edition)) is very much worth getting. The extra disk is used to supply extended interviews with many of those who appear in the documentary: on all sides of the discussion. This does not fundamentally alter the direction of the underlying thesis, but it does substantially deepen it.

On the plus side, this is a film that really does encourage us to think more deeply and critically about one of the most dominant social institutions of our era. And the evils that it points out in the present system are most certainly real enough. However, on the negative side, I believe that this film is also by turns evasive, coy, and even simply naïve about what alternatives are possible. As you may have guessed, this is where I reveal that I do share some sympathies with the reviewers who gave "The Corporation" just one star.

In fact, for the most part this film is simply silent on exactly what alternatives are possible. To the extent that it proffers positive suggestions at all, the film takes the line that since corporations are no more than creations of law, we could just change the law and give them obligations other than the maximization of returns to stockholders. This is quite obviously naïve. Corporations work in the way that they do not merely because of legal obligations, but because of complex combinations of economic and social forces.

If you want a good example of just how impotent a purely legalistic solution would be, look at Enron. With Enron, as with any company, the legal obligation of the auditors was to report on the veracity of the company's accounts. But Enron's auditors not only failed to report any accounting fraud: they also destroyed documents relating to Enron on a truly vast scale. Why? Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that in our system, company auditors are hired, paid, and fired by the very people they're theoretically supposed to audit.

How well do you think that system's going to work out?

Effecting real change requires not just shifts in the legal obligations of the players, but in the underlying economic relationships as well. And while I personally think that it would be a relatively straightforward matter to change our system so that auditors are hired and fired by a government authority instead of the very people they're supposed to audit (see my review of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room), changing society on the level that the makers of "The Corporation" seem to want is a MUCH harder task.

I can't help but think of how the evils of nineteenth century capitalism gave rise to the ideology of communism, which in turn gave rise to the oppressive tyrannies of Soviet-style socialism. It's important not to lose sight of the fact that the evils the communists were rebelling against were always entirely real. I'd also unhesitatingly accept that the communists themselves were entirely sincere in their vision of a worker's utopia. But it just so happens that what their activities actually produced was a nightmare at least as great as the one they got rid of. So it turns out that creating a better society is hard. Not just hard in the way that running a marathon is hard; but hard in the way that solving advanced problems in quantum mechanics is hard.

Whoever would've guessed?

Whether the makers of this film really have the anarcho-syndicalist beliefs that some reviewers have claimed, I don't know. Which would be precisely my point. Having watched the film in its entirely not just once but multiple times, I still don't really know exactly what it is that they're advocating. At least, not in any positive sense.

As for myself, I'm certainly not arguing that our present system is the best one possible, or that its evils cannot be addressed. But before we all join hands and march forwards towards a brighter tomorrow, I would like to see a roadmap a little more definite than anything to be found in this film.

That said, I still believe that this is a documentary of the absolute first rank, and have no hesitation whatsoever in giving it five stars. I likewise still believe that it's a documentary that everyone, EVERYONE, should see; and really think about, too. Because maybe if that happened, we really would begin moving forwards towards a better tomorrow.

Regardless of whether it'd be the one the makers of this film hope for or not.

Theo.

I am probably one of the millions of individuals in this big Country of ours that have been ignoring the facts that have been displayed in this Video about Corporate America. I wish to encourage the Authors to keep teaching us more. I am sure all those millions are eager to learn about these truths.
Eduardo Rodriguez Las Vegas NV.