Ineffectual Trustafarian


Aside from the interviews granted him by trading off his family's name and connections Jamie Johnson just rehashes past exposes broken by real journalists, presenting no new findings that could in any real way destabilise the interests of members of this exclusive white boys club.

Johnson's upper class subjects may feign embarrassment at being portrayed as undeserving of inherited wealth, but in truth they would much prefer to withstand the benign critique that comes from within their own ranks, in fact they welcome it because it gives the illusion that they are somehow accountable.

Johnson's ineffectual film serves as a decoy taking attention away from the true unexplored extent and gravity of the indefensible conditions surrounding these people's highly irresponsible business activities.

reply

I think your criticisms are valid ... this movie seems like a quick re-cut of "Born Rich"
which I think was better. This really goes nowhere but into some Saturday Night Live
like sketches of nonsense ... which in video programming fill up he parts of people's
minds where there is nothing residing currently.

That is, there are not real rich people who sit down and talk seriously about what
they believe ... and they can ... and they can prove what they say - at least based
on their own numbers, point of views and rationalizations. They will not really
talk about it because to talk about it fills that unknown spot with something and
then a conversation can take place and pretty soon people are demanding
democracy.

So, to short-circuit democracy, they put out nonsense ... the best model of this
is the speeches Alan Greenspan used to make as head of the Fed ... there is nothing
there. Money, control, information, freedom is all out of the reach of the American
people, and to be subversive or revolutionary one would have to get past that,
like maybe have a section of Wikileaks financial memos?

reply

I think your "criticisms" are entirely invalid and downright idiotic (unless you are a member of the one percent or deriving benefits from a relative thereof - unfortunately, that broadens the one percent out to five or ten percent - then your "criticisms" make perfect sense in a machiavellian sense. Are you? Of course you are). His subjects weren't "feigning" embarrassment - they were genuinely embarrassed, as well they should be. He made an honest, brave, intelligent and highly relevant film about his own family, about the environment of the superrich in which he was raised - a film that embodies the true American spirit of justice and fairness (however often that spirit has been bloodied and besmirched by the crony capitalist class). What are you saying? That has to take a vow of poverty and live in Haiti to satisfy you? As if you would be satisfied by that rather than manufacture some more disingenuous "criticisms" about that. Your "point" could be logically extended to include the category of whistle-blowers in general. They shouldn't say anything because they are on the inside and therefore don't have a legitimate perspective from the outside. Does that make any sense? No, it doesn't. Jamie Johnson is a true American hero.


Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

reply