The Corporation: Part 1

So earlier I posted the trailer to the documentary The Corporation. Well, last night at school I acquired a copy of the film, all three hours of it. I've only seen part one so far, but it was enough to leave me pacing around an empty room in frustration at what I was being shown.

It had an interesting perspective in that it is a Canadian-produced film but most of the source material is American, American and British history of how the mechanism of limiting liability through chartered corporations came about, and American companies studied as case examples. There were a few Canadians interviewed in the film, like Naomi Klien and someone from the Fraser Institute were interviewed, but largely because they were experts in the field and not because someone at the CBC keeps them on speed dial to fill out their reports as is the case with a lot of Canadian journalism.

One of the more striking parts of the film is where footage of the person from the Fraser Institute who expounds on the wonders of commerce and how corporations have some invisible desire to do good in the world is interspersed with another organization which actually goes and investigates conditions in foreign factories. The Fraser Institute's office is immaculata, bright and looks exactly like any report mill would, unencumbered by any traces of production. The other organization 's office was packed with evidence of corporate excess in production methods. They had a rack full of designer garments, along with paper documents showing how many cents (ranging from $.05 to $.70) a worker gets paid to produce a $125 piece of clothing. The contrast between the separation from the subject matter that the Fraser institute claims to be experts in and the dirtier realities was very striking. This is the sort of thing people don't like about documentaries, the editing that doesn't change anyone's words, but puts them against a contrasting or contradicting background. It's the film making equivalent of the hundreds of photos of O.J. Simpson wearing a certain brand of shoe after he testified that he never owned such a pair. It might not look very polite, but videotape doesn't lie.

The movie was also very deft at not vilifying the rich white men in charge of these corporations that do so much harm, rather it focuses on the institution itself. Noam Chomsky, who provides a lot of the intellectual weight of the film, summed up this idea well when he said that in the time of slavery a slave owner may have been a perfectly nice gentleman, and not himself an evil person. Rather, it is the institution itself that has the fatal flaw that it allows humans to do otherwise unspeakable things to each other and be separated from the liability. Similarly, corporations externalize their liability and business people live entirely in the world of their own creation, externalizing harms and maximizing profit at all costs. The film gives voice to the former CEO of Interface, a carpet manufacturer, who had an epiphany about his role and the role of his company and who now is one of the better spokes people for corporate responsibility, as he can't be painted as a raving outsider like a Michael Moore does.

One last thing, if you live in the states and view this movie you may never want to drink milk again.

Will watch the other two parts probably today and tomorrow, and write my thoughts. I can burn copies or sned over MSn to anyone who wants it and has a decent internet connection :)