See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248988161

A Review of: “The Corporation, directed and produced by Mark

Achbar, Jennifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan”

Article  in  Political Communication · July 2006

DOI: 10.1080/10584600600630040

CITATIONS READS

0 9,199

1 author:

Seth Weinberger
University of Puget Sound
5 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Seth Weinberger on 13 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

250 Film Reviews

the Americans offer not-too-flattering anthropological reflections on Afghan culture.

Home of the Brave—Land of the Free is not a brilliant piece of filmmaking. But like
War Feels Like War, it’s the result of bold and dedicated first-hand reporting, in this
case of a largely forgotten war, and it has much more depth than run-of-the-mill
wartime journalism.

The Corporation, directed and produced by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott, and
Joel Bakan, 2004. Running time: 145 minutes. Distributed by Zeitgeist Films.
Film Reviews

Reviewed by SETH WEINBERGER

If corporations are considered, for legal purposes, to be a person, what kind of person are
they? This is the central question considered in The Corporation. The answer, arrived at
rather early in the film, is: a psychopath. Taking a pseudo-psychoanalytic look at the
pathologies and purpose of big business and using numerous people, from Michael Moore
to Noam Chomsky to an ex-CEO of a carpet maker turned environmental activist, The
Corporation concludes that its subject is a greedy, amoral entity bent on acquiring as
much profit as possible and not caring one whit about anything or anyone else. Unfortu-
nately, what could have been a powerful argument about the bifurcated nature of business
is made in a context where alternative views are either not presented or given in a manner
that makes them appear laughable and easily dismissed. Little serious thought is given to
any positive aspects of modern capitalism, and even less time is spent considering any
viewpoint other than the one espoused by the filmmakers. Sadly, this seems to be the
modus operandi of many recently released “documentaries” which are more interested in
presenting a political attack than carefully examining an issue.
The slant begins with an opening montage of corporate logos and a voice-over declar-
ing that “like the Church, the Monarchy, and the Communist Party, the corporation is
today’s dominant power.” First, such a claim seems to ignore the power of governments,
which still have the power to regulate, police, and punish the businesses that operate
within their borders. Furthermore, drawing a comparison between powers intended to
dominate and control all aspects of life and one trying to sell ice cream or pesticide seems
sketchy at best. However, this statement clearly sets out the main argument: that corpora-
tions are all-powerful, insidious, amoral entities that operate unchecked in our daily lives
and produce nothing but ill consequences.
In support of this argument, The Corporation brings out numerous experts and schol-
ars to attest to the mental state and nature of business firms and to lay out their “diagnosis.”
In their opinion, corporations exhibit “callous unconcern for the feelings of others” and
“reckless disregard for the safety of others.” As evidence of the harm that corporations
cause to those around them, the film points out behaviors including layoffs, union busting,
use of sweatshops, production of dangerous products, pollution, and the practice of “the
science of exploitation.” A former FBI psychologist then pronounces that corporations
can be viewed as the prototypical psychopath. Noam Chomsky denounces firms as

Seth Weinberger is Assistant Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Puget
Sound.
Address correspondence to Seth Weinberger, Department of Politics and Government, University
of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416. E-mail: sweinberger@ups.edu
 Film Reviews 251

“monstrous.” The CEO turned environmental activist decries that companies, such as the
one he once headed, commit “intergenerational tyranny” and “taxation without representa-
tion” by passing off the costs of their environmental “plunder” to future generations. How-
ever, the asset column of the ledger sheet of such taxation is far from empty. Should we
spare our children the costs of modern business by denying them the benefits as well?
Would our descendants prefer to be given a clean slate by starting in a new Stone Age and
reinventing the wheel, the car, the airplane, and plastics?
Presenting the negative aspects of business without considering the concomitant posi-
tives and benefits is a standard tool of the film. How should one weigh the production of
Agent Orange against the impact that modern fertilizers and pesticides have had in the
developing world? Are the workers in factories in Southeast Asia being exploited, or are
they being given opportunities to better their lives? The Corporation is uninterested in
such difficult questions, preferring to focus only on abuses and harms.
The assault on modern business continues with a segment on the evils of privatization, as
Chomsky defines the selling of once-public goods as “taking a public institution and giving it
to an unaccountable tyranny.” Chomsky goes on to argue that the reason certain goods should
remain in public hands is that a public company is able to run at a loss in order to produce other
benefits, such as jobs, which are a “good thing.” Absent is any discussion of who will bear that
loss or how to account for higher prices for the public good. In fact, quite surprisingly for a
documentary about business, there is almost no serious economics discussed at all.
The lack of even a semblance of alternative views undermines the argument and effi-
cacy of the movie. While Milton Friedman is prominently touted in the credits, presum-
ably to provide a veneer of fairness, his appearances are limited to very short explanations
of very basic issues, as when he informs us that externalities are costs borne by third par-
ties. Most of the information that runs counter to the film’s arguments comes in the form
of cheesy 1950s public service films and sitcoms that tell us that “business is good.” An
analyst who makes the not-so-uncommon argument for trading of pollution rights is
mocked with a pastoral reference to the commons of preindustrial England. Of course,
there is no mention of the collective action problems that prompted the establishment of
property rights, such as the aptly named tragedy of the commons.
The movie also buys into the anti-advertising myth being promulgated that consumers
are little more than gullible suckers, waiting to be told by all-powerful corporations what
to buy, eat, wear, and listen to. In blasting the role of public relations firms in overwhelm-
ing the free choice of the public, the movie points out that one firm, whose CEO is heard
in a voice-over defending its work as assisting people in making informed decisions,
helped the Philip Morris Company organize the National Smokers’ Alliance in order to
fight anti-smoking regulations and aided the Canadian logging and mining firms against
environmental groups, among other listed “evils.” There is not the slightest acknowledg-
ment of the public policy debates around smoking laws or conservation. The filmmakers
are right and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but clearly evil.
The height, or low point, of the film’s willful ignorance toward any opposing view-
point comes at the end, when Michael Moore expresses his amazement that corporate
America allows him to practice his trade. After all, his movies and views repeatedly
express his disgust with capitalism and the corporate world. Why would corporations allow
Moore’s films and books to insult them? Moore chalks this up to what he terms the “greed
flaw” of modern capitalism, which is that in the quest to maximize profits, businesses will
happily sell the rope that will be used to hang themselves. It does not seem to occur to
Moore, or to the filmmakers, that such freedom is an inherent component, and a necessary
one, of a modern capitalistic system. The very same Milton Friedman whom the movie uses
 252 Film Reviews

in a very limited fashion addressed this very question in his book Capitalism and Freedom,
in which he wrote that economic and political freedom are inextricably linked, and limiting
one will inherently and inevitably deny the other. Friedman specifically discussed the role
of opposition, arguing that capitalism is the only system that can protect the rights of dis-
senters, precisely because it is value neutral. Where socialism or communism strive to pro-
duce equality, at a cost Friedman argues of political freedom, capitalism produces what is
desired by the marketplace without regard to ideology. Thus, “one feature of a free society
is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical
change in the structure of the society,” and “in a capitalist society, it is only necessary to
convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there
are many such persons, many independent foci of support” (Friedman, 1982, pp. 16–17).
What alternative to a free market democracy would Moore, or the filmmakers for that
matter, prefer? We do not know, as the other possibilities are not presented or even dis-
cussed; we are only told that capitalism is evil. This is even more distressing given that
Friedman appears in the film. Certainly, he could have been asked about this. A debate
between Moore and Friedman would have lent some degree of objectivity and credibility
to the film. Even asking Friedman to address Moore’s argument would have been an
improvement. Unfortunately, no such exchange occurs.
The strongest points of the film come when the directors move away from presenting
their opinions and instead refer to the real world of business. For example, in one scene, the
CEO of a British energy company who finds that his home is being picketed by environmen-
tal activists goes out to bring the protestors coffee and snacks. He then engages them in dis-
cussion, in which both sides become enlightened of the other’s opinions. Here we see the
most interesting example of the film’s premise: a CEO who is willing to admit that his com-
pany occasionally behaves badly and ready to speak to protesters about how that behavior can
be improved. However, this seems to undermine the very argument that the directors are try-
ing to make. Why does the CEO wish to improve the environmental record of his company?
Because he is himself an environmentalist? Perhaps. But, more likely, he has perceived that
environmentalism is good business. As Adam Smith (1976, p. 18) wrote: “It is not from the
benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
The Corporation does provide some interesting anecdotes in which corporations have
behaved badly. The squashing of a story written by two investigative reporters about the
risks of bovine growth hormone in milk by Fox News is one such example. There is no
doubt that corporations do not always behave according to the public interest, and that the
drive for profits often causes businesses to break laws. But such a revelation is not surpris-
ing. In fact, nothing in The Corporation is—except, of course, for the lack of any serious
discussion of the issues it purports to address. Even a tip of the hat to some alternative
arguments could have made this movie an interesting examination of the problems sur-
rounding the modern American incarnation of capitalism. As it stands, The Corporation is
nothing more than a vehicle for the filmmakers, Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Naomi
Klein, and Noam Chomsky to vent their hatred of capitalism. That is not sufficient entice-
ment to watch, even for those who share that point of view.

References
Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, A. (1976). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

View publication stats