The One Percent

First of all I am not going to critique how well I think this film was made. It was an independent film and low budget, but the content was very interesting to me.

How one views this film will depend on, for one, what financial bracket they fall into and how they view money. I love the reviewer that basically said the film maker was a socialist, just like the Nobel prize winner in this film does.

I'm sorry but no matter how intelligent the Nobel prize winner is (I don't remember his name and it doesn't really matter to me) in this film, he did not seem to possess what I consider to be much more important than some great ideas. He did not seem to possess much compassion or caring for humanity in general. He seemed to be very proud of his own theories and of capitalism that is so obviously failing in America.

So perhaps I speak to the middle class or poor when I write this review, if IMDb even allows it to be posted. This is the kind of film whose time has come. Today is April 4th 2011. There is a huge gap between the rich and more importantly decision makers and the fading middle class and poor in this country. This is happening in other countries as well and of course has been happening all throughout history.

This movie is more than a rich kids guilt trip. It is his acknowledgement that something is wrong. He doesn't feel right about it and is trying to do something about it despite how much it might shake things up. The family image. The images of other families.

The fear that the rich seem to have and the need to have more. It is crazy. It is repulsive to me. A kind of thinking I cannot understand.

All I will say is this. It is just a matter of time, in America, before enough people get fed up, and yep I am talking about the fading middle class and the poor. And if the rich think they are scared now, they have no clue what is about to come. This isn't a threat. It is just what I am pretty sure about to happen, yep, I'll say it, revolution.

I believe Jamie achieved his goal in bringing to the forefront, for the 99%, a look into the psyche of the unbelievably wealthy.

This documentary is not so much about the lifestyles of the 1% but is a look into their thought process. We see how they see themselves blessed or chosen by God to be wealthy. We see how they avoid the world outside their highly insulated circle of peers. We see how they intend to keep their empire of wealth within their families thus creating a privileged gentrified caste.

Jamie steps outside this caste and sees what his world is doing to the 99% and experiences the resentment and rejection of his own class because of his 'asking questions' and showing the wealthy for what they are. Even Warren Buffet - who Wall St prays too - is shown to be a hard shell to crack when his grand daughter talks with Jamie.

Jamie has shown us what an ivory tower the 1% has created for themselves and it's only going to get worse for the 99%.

I am an admirer of "Born Rich," where Mr. Johnson looked at himself and those like him from a critical perspective – unimaginably wealthy without having earned it.

The One Percent is a remarkable effort since it attempts to show how the larger community of extreme-wealth-Americans seek to both maintain and grow personal wealth and sustain their status for future generations – a De facto aristocracy. It's clear that aiming his camera at the adults is more complicated – they know how complex the issues are which surround wealth inequality. There are few easy answers.

What I love about the film is that it takes a very simple approach - Jamie Johnson doesn't question business success at all. His interest is how wealth, once acquired, is maintained within the wealthy community. This question is at the heart of the public debate about wealth inequality – why the wealthy are NOT always the so-called, "job creators." He shows that that many are in fact merely interested in maintaining their position within this informal aristocrat class.

It's not an easy job and to be frank, I wish he'd been more aggressive. But he is looking at this topic from the inside. Even with his naïveté, he still gets Milton Friedman to expose an epic flaw in reasoning – Friedman states that the social needs of ordinary Americans are perfectly represented in Washington by their elected representatives – apparently he was either oblivious or cynically ignoring the fact that the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay enormous sums for political influence on behalf of their priorities, very often at the expense of the other ninety nine percent of Americans.

I was thinking about this film for days after watching it. Highly recommended.

Well, Jamie Johnson might not come across as a great intellect in the film ... but you have to respect his efforts. His confrontational perseverance in discussing uncomfortable topics with wealthy Americans is both informative and thought-provoking.

Basically Johnson, a member of the wealthy family of Johnson & Johnson fame, uses his knowledge and connections to interview some of the wealthiest members of society ... and their advisers. The results are sometimes embarrassing to watch!

The basic essence of his questions relate to a comment he makes early on:

"I'm a lucky guy ... we're part of a small number of American families that own most of the country's wealth. But, having so much in the hands of so few can't be good for America."

Most of the people interviewed clearly aren't skilled at answering these types of questions. They don't come across as "bad" or unlikeable - but more as average people who are simply looking to protect the great wealth they've inherited.

For giving viewers a frank glimpse of who these people are ... and are not, I applaud Johnson. I'm pretty sure that none of the people he interviewed will ever forget how inept they seemed at the issues he confronted them with.

As for Johnson ... well, he really needs to fix that strong lisp he has if he wants to add credibility as a narrator. He also flounders a bit here and there on film ... but so what? It's clear he is focused in what he's trying to do and is thinking deeply about the issues - far more so than those he interviews.

If you want a peek at how the wealthiest Americans think about their situations - this is a must-see. It's a great opportunity to see things from an insider's perspective.

This was one of the films I was most looking forward to at the last Tribeca Film Festival and was sorely disappointed. Jamie Johnson's first film, "Born Rich" was an excellent documentary. That film dealt with the issue of children born into mass amounts of wealth and how they deal with it. HBO picked it up and I highly recommend it.

This film apparently attempts to deal with the disparity of wealth between the poor and the richest 1% of America and the ramifications it has on society. Johnson has a tough task, and he clearly misses the mark. To his credit, Johnson gets a great deal of access and interviews the likes of Milton Friedman, Robert Reich, Steve Forbes and Ralph Nader. Although, the star of the film is a random taxi driver from Louisiana.

Johnson certainly has a definite viewpoint on economics that lies somewhere between Nader and Marx. Now, I have no problem if he wants to make a film extolling the views of socialism (which he calls progressiveness), but his style of editing was dreadfully unfair, especially in the case of Milton Friedman. Watching Johnson argue with a Nobel Prize winner like Friedman was just awkward. Johnson comes off looking like some arrogant snot-nosed kid who just took a college course in economics and is "educating" Milton Friedman as to the reasons why trickle-down economics is wrong. Eventually, Friedman gets up and ends the interview out of exasperation. Even if you don't agree with him, Friedman deserve a level of respect.

As for other flaws, he clearly needs an editor who knows how to make a cohesive film. While, he is very good at capturing footage revealing extreme wealth and extreme poverty, the viewer is left without figuring out what his point is. It appears one of his positions is to oppose efforts to repeal the inheritance (i.e. death) tax. He also argues for campaign finance reform and higher taxes on dividend income. Again, these are all legitimate positions to have, but the film is all over the place and he comes across that he's just personally guilty to receive all this wealth by way of inheritance.

As a filmmaker, Johnson's best skill appears to be making his interview subjects (always the rich people) look inarticulate, foolish and crass: even his own father. Considering how badly the father looked in "Born Rich", I'm surprised he agreed to be filmed in the second movie. Here's a warning to his family: If he is filming anywhere near you, do NOT sign the release.)

I truly hope this film is merely a sophomore slump and his future films are better.