MovieChat Forums > The Corporation (2004) Discussion > These movies tick me off...

These movies tick me off...


The problem with these sorts of 'contraversial' films is the fact that they are almost allways slanted beyon belief. It makes me mad because I think alot of the points made in the movie are valid, and the positions taken can easely be defended without resorting to EXAGERATION AND HYPERBOLE!

I suppose the makers of this film were hoping to gain converts at any cost rather than make a legitimate compelling case. One of the first things that tipped me off about the level of exageration was the story about Fanta and it being invented by the nazis or something... Anyway, the movie implied that the evil coke corp. had tresonous dealings with nazi germany under the name Fanta in order to spare its public image stateside.

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the story and makes unfounded implications. Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp

What ticks me off about this is that there are legitimate, well-documented, 'bad things' the coca-cola company has done! Yet, they have to resort to sensational tabloid tactics in order to make their point.

I concider myself a liberal, and I personaly don't think this movie is very honest. Granted, it has it's moments, and it makes some good points, but unfortunetly it's tendancy to exagerate and misrepresent compromises its credibility over all.

reply

The movie merely mentions that Coca Cola introduced Orange Fanta in Germany to keep revenues coming from that side of the world while Coca Cola retains its status as an All-patriotic brand back in America, it didn't state that Fanta was invented by Nazis "...or something". Besides, this was just one minute in a two and a half hour movie. I believe that segment had more to do with how corporations were involved with Fascist regimes back in those days. Besides, if I remember correctly, I believe IBM was the one company that got singled out in that segment, and the film got one of IBM's executives to defend its company, so it really wasn't all one-sided.

This is a two hour and a half documentary. They've gotta keep it entertaining with dramatic footage, dark music and all those techniques, otherwise people are going to sleep through it. Filmmakers in these types of documentaries have the tricky challenge of both preaching to the choir and appealing to open-minded people. It's not gonna win any fans from hard-line conservatives, which would explain the 100 "0" votes in its IMDB score. I'm surprised that there weren't more...I guess this film is still kinda "obscure" compared to, say, a Michael Moore film.

reply

I have to agree with you. The orange Fanta "bit" was hardly even a sidenote. It was barely mentioned and no arguments where based on it so it was basicly just filler. Mildly entertaining, but hardly reason to discredit the film.

reply

I liked this film better than Michael Moore films. The cinematography was excellent. And the interviews and transitions were interesting. I personally didn't learn something all that new. It's hard to make a documentary on "The Corporation" without going over things that a lot of people are familiar with. It's also really long.If they would have focused the film a little bit more I would have enjoyed it better. Also, it was a one-sided film. Even though the filmmakers interviewed people from "the other side"--you still knew which view they wanted to push across, and that affects how you watch the film.

reply

I think the film was bang on. The point it was trying to make is a corporations will virtually brand a product however they can in order to maximise profits. They don't give a *beep* about you or me or the planet. I mean what about the stock trader who said that when the twin towers came down all the traders were saying "buy gold". I think if the world continues on this downward spiral the planet it going to be monumentally F#*($d by as early as 2050.

reply

It's unfortunate that the root cause of nearly all of the travesties brought up by the movie is proposed as the ultimate solution to those very problems.. namely, the power of government to create and safeguard monopolies on behalf of corporations and otherwise interfere with people making voluntary transactions. Reduce or eliminate the government's power in this regard, and the size and power of corporations will decrease, not increase.
One small example near the end was that small town (can't remember the name) that had restricted any new restaurants being built in town. Apparently this was a great triumph for the populace, but it wasn't entirely clear what it was they feared or why this was such a great thing for them? Would the populace have willingly gone to a new restaurant if it were built? Presumably, yes, or else there's no point in banning it. So now think about those restaurants that are left. Are they more powerful or less powerful as a result of this interference?

reply

True, but if you started caring, won't the "corporation" also try to cater towards that market?

So, you're main issue is that the education system in the United States sucks monkey balls. Well, whose fault is that? Certainly not corporations, since they've been funding local school sadly better than the damn government.

reply

starmars, is it hard to have a brain, but no instructions for its use whatsoever?

Learn to use it, learn how to spell and see "these movies" again.
I guarantee you that you won't ever be ticked off by them again.

reply

I would have to agree with starmars on a seperate point. These movies are entirely one sided with the other side only being given ground so that it can be refuted and made to look even weaker without an actual argument. Then when they want to prove thier points about "synthetic chemicals" being such a gigantic problem, they do not cite any stastics but instead show one case from dupont and pictures of animals that were experiencing defects that happen naturally anyways. Then they have an "expert" say that these chemicals are the main cause of cancer because he somehow knows. In reality most of the cancer cases that he was using for his stastic of one half of men were skin cancer (cause by the "synthetic chemical" THE SUN!!!) or smoking cigarettes (which are created by corporations but people consume willingly). I could go on but movies like this just use emotion to play on the fears of the ignorant or to convince people that already have the same viewpoint that they are little Jesuses and they are right about everything.

This is the same fear mongering that got us into the Iraq War and its amazing how you liberals and conservatives both play to it whenever it suits your fancy.

reply

[deleted]

People haven't historically consumed cigarettes "willingly", they've been manipulated into it. Lied to about it. For hundreds of years corporations have manipulated people's emotions on a far grander scale than this film has attempted. They're simply trying to make this information more accessible to the general public. Personally, I wasn't so much moved by the soundtrack as much as the cases themselves. What's wrong with a small group of people like these filmmakers showing the other side of things? I think it's great that they were able to accomplish this. Especially considering that media-controlling corporations like the FOX network seem to have a habit of suppressing information that doesn't help their bottom line.

Quit nitpicking. Quit watching movies like this looking for any little thing you think might discredit it. Open your mind.

You've heard the other side of things your whole life, give this one a chance.

reply

CNN is giant news controller too as big as Fox News, and i watch everything with a critical tone. If you watch movies or anything else political without one then you are just a mindless zombie mr filetomiah. Im glad that you are also using cool new phrases you learned from the movie like "heling thier bottom line."

Im glad that there are mindless stooges like yourself to gobble up emotionally manipulative crap like The Corporation because you cant think for yourself as you so proudly stated.

reply

I would try to argue with you more, but you seem to already have everything figured out. Good luck.

reply


"People haven't historically consumed cigarettes "willingly", they've been manipulated into it. Lied to about it. For hundreds of years corporations have manipulated people's emotions on a far grander scale than this film has attempted. "

How stupid do you have to be to TRUST corporations, advertisements, commercials or governments about breathable smoke?

A fool and his money ..

The point about 'willingly' is that no one absolutely FORCED anyone to smoke. People don't have to smoke. They don't have to even watch commercials, and they absolutely don't have to believe the commercials/ads. Lastly, and most importantly, they do not have to act upon what anyone claims. I can claim that I am your long lost uncle, and lie to you about a hidden treasure, but that doesn't mean that you HAVE to believe me and give me money so we can go dig up the non-existing treasure.

You don't have to be duped!

That's why the law, for a long time, didn't even include "fraud", because it was considered that stupid people deserve to be fooled, and that everyone should be smart enough in their dealings not to be fooled by con artists and fraudsters.

In my opinion, it isn't, and can't be against the law to lie. I mean, where's the freedom of speech, if freedom to lie isn't included? What about predictions that do not come true - have those been lies?

Lying is not against the law, even though it's immoral. But why would any sane human being EXPECT MORALITY from a soulless "person" (=corporation)?

Manipulation is one thing, forcing people to do something without a reasonable alternative is another. Like, "if you don't smoke, I will shoot your kneecaps". That's not a choice, it's a dilemma.

But "if you don't smoke, then .. you will be free not to smoke". That's a choice.

People have responsibility to be smart, aware, see what's going on, and to the truth. Furthermore, people can always ask help from the Hand that created them - isn't this what a cosmic messenger told us anyway thousands of years ago?

How can anyone think that breathing smoke into their lungs would _NOT_ be harmful to the health?

You can't protect people from their own stupidity. If they are stupid enough to choose to be stupid, there's nothing you can do - they have the right to be stupid, just as they have the right to be wrong.

To lie is wrong, yes.

To be lied to, is a good, spiritual test. Will you let your greed and lust for 'better life' (or whatever) blind you from the truth, or will you be able to stay calm and see through the lie?

People were not told the truth about cigarettes, but they could have found out without smoking their lungs to death. If you choose to be naive and trust the governments, corporations and other entities that are supposed to be your SERVANTS, not your MASTERS, then you are a fool, and deserve everything that's coming to you.

Nike paying a few cents to its child labourer who works in a second-schedule (or was it 'thousandths-of-a-second'-schedule) is an atrocious and hostile deed, because the corporations first make sure the people are exploitable and have no alternatives, and then give them a dilemma: "starve to death or become our slave".

That's NOT a choice!

That's a dilemma.

But "choose to smoke or not to smoke" is a choice, not a dilemma.

So, although I wish corporations didn't exist, and governments were small and people were intelligent, aware, knowledgeable and vigilant enough to keep them in their proper place at all times, you are wrong about people not smoking them 'willingly'.

Sure, they were manipulated and lied to, but why did they LET themselves be manipulated and why did they BELIEVE the lies? Aren't they supposed to be intelligent, adult human beings instead of childlike, moronic robot-drones who believe and do anything corporations tell them to? Where's the responsibility? Where's the adulthood? How can these kind of people be trusted to be responsible adults in ANY situation?

This is the reason why I don't mind the manipulation and the lying, but I do mind corporations making deals with schools (or vice versa, actually, stupid schools!) to install candy machines and offer basically candy for the students, and make sure there is not much exercize in schools. I do mind that - schools should offer fresh vegetables, fruits as dessert and freshly-made, organic food, not that horrible, processed candy stuff (watch "Super Size Me" for more on this - that one school shows a good example with doing the right thing, which doesn't seem to even cost more).

But at the same time, the students should CARE enough to RESEARCH the information that would help them make INFORMED DECISIONS about what they eat, even at school, surrounded by those shiny corporate madness-temptations. Instead, they are like lazy morons, who simply get what their stupidest impulse says when they are hungry.

It's pretty unbelievable, and the responsibility and blame doesn't go to one party alone, but is shared between the human beings, the corporations, the government and its schools, and so on.

If you don't register your child (law doesn't require anyone to do so), you can give them private schooling, and healthy meals. But it's better not to reproduce at all on a planet like this - it's overpopulated already, and there's enough of these mad apes creating more and more problems every day!

reply

Look up this experts name. Look at how he came to that conclusion.

reply

this is in reply to ExtremeHobo...

all politics aside this movie does at least give some ammo to those of us fighting the "war" against Big Brother. i understand what you mean by both "liberals" and "conservatives" playing the fear card and i am disappointed by it also. i do believe that there are powerful people (beyond powerful as we understand it) manipulating world events and economics. this is the real "war". This film might at least wake some people (liberals, conservatives, or the larger percentage of neithers) to this fact.

reply

[deleted]

I am with you there. Some corporations and even NPCs have done some terrible things. Others have done really amazing things, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. It would have been nice to see a movie that showed a balanced view of this.

Oh and Filetomiah, im glad you finally agreed with me, I DO have everything figured out. Too bad that you were so wrong and not intelligent enough to come up with your own ideas.

reply

[deleted]

Of course a movie is going to be one side. This is because anything worth reading/watching is generally supposed to have a POINT!! Hell, I was in high school English when I learned that a story is supposed to have a thesis, presented with facts that back up said thesis! Movies like this are supposed to present a certain view. Otherwise, it would be a directionless excercise in masterbation with no reason to exist. You may not agree with the overall thesis because you know of other facts to counter the presented arguments, but don't dismiis it because it has "slanted musical direction" while presenting FACTS.
That said, I did think the news had a duty to be as factual and unbiased as possible. Especially when they claim to be so "Fair and Balanced" that they consider it to be a trademark that they can sue others over. The Fox News clip is the only one I've seen of this movie, and I think it's true. Does that mean all corporations are looking to steal lollipops from children? Of course not. But just take what's in the movie that you believe to be true (i.e. still effective without subjective adjectives) and add it to your existing knowledge so you can make informed decisions in the future. But don't blast a documentary simply for trying to have a point!

reply

..."Yet, they have to resort to sensational tabloid tactics in order to make their point."

Unfortunately, that is what grabs Americans attention.......

reply

These movies are necessarily slanted--which is a good thing.

They are meant to act as the counter-story to the narratives which companies like coca-cola, etc. are feeding you via their own corporate mythos (e.g. advertising).

If filmakers like these weren't giving you the other side, then the only story you'd ever get is the one told by those companies...

and you can't say that those stories aren't slanted.

reply

I grew up in South Africa, then worked in the Advertising industry. This kind of one sided media is exactly the reason why I was unable to realise what was ACTUALLY going on. How are we supposed to draw an intelligent conclusion with no real information given to us. The sensationalism, and the emphasis on the points that make people want to believe in it that are used in the film is exactly what the Advertising industry uses - and they hate the Advertising industry? Hello? It uses distortion of the truth to get its point across ie fancy editing ie the cows coming in to milk cropped to make it look as if these cows are living 24/7 like this. Also, the defects in chickens and mastitis in cows and goats were common ailments on the smallholding I grew up on - a totally organic one I might add. I have worked in the Corporate world at a fairly high level and you just dont get an intelligent head of corporation (or anybody else above manager level for that matter) acting like a clown as these CEO's that they interviewed did - again, fancy editing.

There were so many more of these blatant omissions and distortions but it was about 8 months ago that I saw this film. I dont care how good one's intentions one should not be allowed to make films like this - the power of agression and the media power over your own ideas of right and wrong get blurred and misinformed, and the most dangerous thing is when it charades itself as information / documentary which makes you think you are informed and justified in defending your opinion. Like I said. South Africa was a forerunner of this technique of propaganda, using formulas pioneered by Hitler.

reply

lora_juliet: "South Africa was a forerunner of this technique of propaganda, using formulas pioneered by Hitler."

you should probably read up on your history of propaganda a little more. hitler didn't pioneer modern propaganda techniques. if you read chapter 6 of his book "mein kampf", you'll see that he points to the propaganda of the u.s. and britain as superior to that of german ww1 propaganda. he also lays out what techniques he learned from the u.s. and british in terms of "psychologically efficient" propaganda.

it was americans such as edward bernays and ivy lee who pioneered modern propaganda techniques. and they, in fact, called it propaganda back then, not like today. it was only after ww2 when the world found out what hitler had done with modern propaganda that edward bernays renamed the propaganda industry to "public relations".





"The only place to spit in a rich man's house is in his face."
--Diogenes of Sinope

reply

lora-juliet!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"one should not be allowed to make films like this" - are you out of your mind? Good God! How can you call youself a rational person and write those words with any seriousness?

reply