Corporate Diem

            Achbar, Abbott, and Bakan’s film, The Corporation, builds a dense wall of information, first laid out through the words of experts, then layered with vast supporting detail, and finally painted with images, either literal or symbolic, that create a refined, humorous and modernistic style with which to dissect the dark subject at hand.  Amidst this structural ocean of sequences, what anchors everything is not necessarily the soft female narrator’s voice that reemerges once in a while.  Instead, there is an engaging duality between the film’s characterization of the corporate entity, and the consistent stream of interviewees who represent those brave enough to speak against or on behalf of that entity.  The 40 plus spokespeople become the multitudinous voice of the film, looking its audience frankly in the eye, feeding off the streamline corporate mood the filmmakers have created.  Far from being a unified chorus of critics, they are in essence the diversified conscience of today’s people, at least a section of the intellectual and influential ones.  Knowing the prevalent philosophies about the world’s economic systems, in this case through expert opinions about the epitome and byproduct of that economy, is an important step toward realizing its flaws and arguing for an alternative.
            The film’s starting point is the comparison between a corporation and a person, and the assumption that if the two are granted the same rights, then they should be held accountable for the same actions.  The premise seems simple and convincing enough that one would not need to elaborate for 145 minutes on all the ways corporations have contributed to the downfall of society, and the reasons they should be regulated.  However, the film must do this in order to break down the ingrained perception of the world as a population of market-dominated, competitive-natured, submissive and indifferent consumers, who have no choice but to allow the forces of the capital to govern their decisions.  One negative reviewer of the film expresses her belief that “shareholders invest their savings, including their pensions, in companies.  Surely, therefore, it is appropriate that company directors should be primarily motivated by the objective of providing the owners (the shareholders) with the best possible return.”  This was Ruth Lea’s argument against the proposition that corporations should have the interests of their “stakeholders” in mind first.  Lea’s mind-set is the foundational flaw of an unjust system:  placing the extrinsic value of property and ownership above the intrinsic value of human safety and rights.
            The Corporation emphasizes repeatedly that the current system (usually upheld firmly by the privileged) is unsustainable, which is precisely the result of extrinsic elements of society taking precedent over the essential intrinsic ones.  The film even displays the viewpoint of one Michael Walker, President of the Fraser Institute, who says “it’s not such a wacky idea” to have every inch of the planet privately owned, with a person or corporation investing interest in it.  At the same time he condones sweatshop establishments as benefactors of society, and worse, the savior of “unfortunate” Third World masses, without considering what imperialistic forces may have put them under those circumstances in the first place.  In this philosophical battle, one side can argue infinitely about the obligations of a profit-oriented organization.  The hard evidence, extensive testimonials, and viewpoints in the film demonstrate what little good it will do to have that kind of orientation.  Since everything functions dependent on the same terminable resources, profits will not continue infinitely, and therefore cannot be a rational ultimate goal of anyone, whether it be a person or corporation.
            The Corporation depicts all this in masterfully edited, epic volumes, culminating with the exposition of a series of social movements that have either successfully altered the disturbing reality of corporate dominance, or are moving in that direction.  Its slick format evolves, first immersing us in an atmosphere of degradation, isolation and even aggression, then uplifting us with the voices of reason into a warmer world of hopeful visions – as long as the current path towards catastrophe is reversed – with cleaner habitats, people defeating injustice and remodeling society by fighting for their water, their seeds, or their town landscape.  Clever sequences parallel historic social movements with current ones that are rising against unjust corporations.  Dr. Vandana Shiva speaks about the revolt in India against genetically engineered seeds, and an image of a round basket of seeds crossfades into black and white footage of round bowls of salt – Mahatma Gandhi’s salt march.  Thus a series of exemplary progressive movements are strung together, even complemented by stories of personal conversion to the cause of sustainable development, such as Ray Anderson’s, CEO of one of the world’s largest carpet companies, now aiming for complete sustainability by 2025.
            The final message of Achbar, Abbott, and Bakan’s film is delivered by several voices in unison, representing the flip side of the introductory concept:  if corporations claim to have the rights of a person, but none of their responsibilities, and if the law refuses to hold the corporation accountable, then the people should hold the corporations accountable themselves by disobeying them, thus expressing their discontent with the law.  A call to action, appropriately given by fellow filmmaker Michael Moore, ends the film on an energetic note, describing perfectly the nature of today’s activist.  In the face of such turbulence, the question becomes not whether to act, but under what cause to enlist, and to what degree hold ourselves responsible for our inaction.  A list of websites scrolls with the credits, a perfect representation of the anti-corporation:  people joining to form groups not motivated by profit, to work in the best interest of the stakeholders of the world, every other human being alive.

back to writing