The Corporation
- 2003
- Tous publics
- 2h 25min
NOTE IMDb
8,0/10
22 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueDocumentary that looks at the concept of the corporation throughout recent history up to its present-day dominance.Documentary that looks at the concept of the corporation throughout recent history up to its present-day dominance.Documentary that looks at the concept of the corporation throughout recent history up to its present-day dominance.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 12 victoires et 1 nomination au total
Mikela Jay
- Self - Narrator
- (voix)
- (as Mikela J. Mikael)
Avis à la une
This extraordinary documentary is based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (2004) by law professor Joel Bakan (see my review at Amazon). Bakan's thesis is that the corporation is a psychopathic entity.
In his book he notes that the modern corporation is "singularly self-interested and unable to feel genuine concern for others in any context." (p. 56) He adds that the corporation's sole reason for being is to enhance the profits and power of the corporation. He shows by citing court cases that it is the duty of management to make money and that any compromise with that duty is dereliction of duty.
Directors Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott bring these points and a slew of others to cinematic life through interviews, archival footage, and a fine narrative written by Achbar and Harold Crooks. The interviews cover a wide spectrum of opinion, from Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky on the left, to Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman on the right. Friedman is heard to agree with Bakan that the corporation's duty is to its stockholders and that anything that deviates from that duty is irresponsible.
What emerges is a view of the corporation as an entity working both for and against human welfare. Designed to turn labor and raw materials efficiently into goods and services and to thereby raise our standard of living, it has been a very effective tool for humans to use. On the other hand, because it is blind to anything but its own welfare, the corporation uses humans and the resources of the planet in ways that can be and often are detrimental to people and the environment. Corporations, to put it bluntly, foul the environment with their wastes and will not clean up unless forced to.
An interesting technique that Achbar and Abbott use is to go down the list of behaviors cited in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that identify the psychopathic personality and show how the corporation has all of those behaviors including a criminal disregard for the welfare and feelings of others and a complete absence of guilt. Indeed corporations feel no compunction when they break the law. Their only concern is whether breaking the law is cost-effective. The result is a nearly constant bending and breaking of the law. They pay the fine and then break the law again. The corporation, after all, has no conscience and feels no remorse.
Bakan notes that "corporations are designed to externalize their costs." The corporation is "deliberately programmed, indeed legally compelled, to externalize costs without regard for the harm it may cause to people, communities, and the natural environment. Every cost it can unload onto someone else is a benefit to itself, a direct route to profit." (pp. 72-73) We are shown how rivers are polluted, environments destroyed and people placed into something close to servitude by the corporation's insatiable lust to profit.
The answer to this, as presented in the film, is to make corporations pay for their pollution. What many people are proposing is the creation of bills or certificates that would allow the barer "the right to pollute." The cost of these bills would reflect the societal and environmental costs of the pollution. This sounds scary, but what it would do is make those who pollute pay for their pollution instead of having the costs be externalized as they are now. Consequently, to protect their bottom line, corporations would pollute less.
Another problem with the corporation as emphasized in the film is that the corporate structure is essentially despotic. It is not a democracy or anything close. The owners hire officers to exercise control over everyone who works for the corporation. This is in direct contrast to democratic governments whose officers are elected and who are subject to the checks and balances of a constitutional government with shared powers. It is true that if you are a shareholder of a corporation you may be able to indirectly vote for the CEO. However, such a "democracy" is a democracy of capital in which the electoral power is inequitably distributed. Some people have hundreds of millions of votes. How many does the average shareholder have? Bakan, Achbar and Abbott play fair, and give both sides of the case--although that is not to say that the weight of evidence or sentiment is equally distributed. After all, who's in favor of pollution or the destruction of the environment? The pathological corporation doesn't care about such things, but its officers should. Some do, but feel constrained by their fiduciary duty to their stockholders. Consequently it is our responsibility as the electorate to get our government to make the corporation socially and morally responsible. The way to do that is make the fines for breaking the law large enough to change corporate behavior. Furthermore--and this is essential--make management responsible--criminally if necessary--for the actions of the corporation.
This is absolutely one of the most interesting, most compelling, and, yes, entertaining documentaries that I have ever seen. But beware of some graphic footage.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
In his book he notes that the modern corporation is "singularly self-interested and unable to feel genuine concern for others in any context." (p. 56) He adds that the corporation's sole reason for being is to enhance the profits and power of the corporation. He shows by citing court cases that it is the duty of management to make money and that any compromise with that duty is dereliction of duty.
Directors Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott bring these points and a slew of others to cinematic life through interviews, archival footage, and a fine narrative written by Achbar and Harold Crooks. The interviews cover a wide spectrum of opinion, from Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky on the left, to Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman on the right. Friedman is heard to agree with Bakan that the corporation's duty is to its stockholders and that anything that deviates from that duty is irresponsible.
What emerges is a view of the corporation as an entity working both for and against human welfare. Designed to turn labor and raw materials efficiently into goods and services and to thereby raise our standard of living, it has been a very effective tool for humans to use. On the other hand, because it is blind to anything but its own welfare, the corporation uses humans and the resources of the planet in ways that can be and often are detrimental to people and the environment. Corporations, to put it bluntly, foul the environment with their wastes and will not clean up unless forced to.
An interesting technique that Achbar and Abbott use is to go down the list of behaviors cited in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that identify the psychopathic personality and show how the corporation has all of those behaviors including a criminal disregard for the welfare and feelings of others and a complete absence of guilt. Indeed corporations feel no compunction when they break the law. Their only concern is whether breaking the law is cost-effective. The result is a nearly constant bending and breaking of the law. They pay the fine and then break the law again. The corporation, after all, has no conscience and feels no remorse.
Bakan notes that "corporations are designed to externalize their costs." The corporation is "deliberately programmed, indeed legally compelled, to externalize costs without regard for the harm it may cause to people, communities, and the natural environment. Every cost it can unload onto someone else is a benefit to itself, a direct route to profit." (pp. 72-73) We are shown how rivers are polluted, environments destroyed and people placed into something close to servitude by the corporation's insatiable lust to profit.
The answer to this, as presented in the film, is to make corporations pay for their pollution. What many people are proposing is the creation of bills or certificates that would allow the barer "the right to pollute." The cost of these bills would reflect the societal and environmental costs of the pollution. This sounds scary, but what it would do is make those who pollute pay for their pollution instead of having the costs be externalized as they are now. Consequently, to protect their bottom line, corporations would pollute less.
Another problem with the corporation as emphasized in the film is that the corporate structure is essentially despotic. It is not a democracy or anything close. The owners hire officers to exercise control over everyone who works for the corporation. This is in direct contrast to democratic governments whose officers are elected and who are subject to the checks and balances of a constitutional government with shared powers. It is true that if you are a shareholder of a corporation you may be able to indirectly vote for the CEO. However, such a "democracy" is a democracy of capital in which the electoral power is inequitably distributed. Some people have hundreds of millions of votes. How many does the average shareholder have? Bakan, Achbar and Abbott play fair, and give both sides of the case--although that is not to say that the weight of evidence or sentiment is equally distributed. After all, who's in favor of pollution or the destruction of the environment? The pathological corporation doesn't care about such things, but its officers should. Some do, but feel constrained by their fiduciary duty to their stockholders. Consequently it is our responsibility as the electorate to get our government to make the corporation socially and morally responsible. The way to do that is make the fines for breaking the law large enough to change corporate behavior. Furthermore--and this is essential--make management responsible--criminally if necessary--for the actions of the corporation.
This is absolutely one of the most interesting, most compelling, and, yes, entertaining documentaries that I have ever seen. But beware of some graphic footage.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
After a relatively straightforward start exploring the definition of incorporation, this documentary made some fairly meaty punches on its target material.
With the exception of a few sentimental and outdated "the poor people fight back" strands, most of the attacks were well constructed. Beyond simply saying that to a corporation profit is everything, the more difficult case was made: that everything can be turned into a profit. And that includes life, death, and the truth.
The depiction of the Corporation as a psychopath was used to link most of the material. The talking heads were usually on the money, including both Michael "9/11" Moore and Noam "Manafacturing Consent" Chomsky.
But what the film does well was report specific cases that certainly included a few gems. An attempt to privatize water, IBM servicing Nazi accounting, an attempted coup in the US, Fox burying news and of course Monsanto being Monsanto. You couldn't make those guys up.
The attempt to look at alternatives to the worst forms of Capitalism were not so successful. Right wing defenders of profit-at-all-cost use short sentences with single syllable words. The poor want to be rich. We make things you like. We don't care. Much of the left wing however, cannot counter this clarity.
And the last frame had the ebullient Mr Moore telling us to get off the sofa and do something. Yeah, like vote for Bush again?
With the exception of a few sentimental and outdated "the poor people fight back" strands, most of the attacks were well constructed. Beyond simply saying that to a corporation profit is everything, the more difficult case was made: that everything can be turned into a profit. And that includes life, death, and the truth.
The depiction of the Corporation as a psychopath was used to link most of the material. The talking heads were usually on the money, including both Michael "9/11" Moore and Noam "Manafacturing Consent" Chomsky.
But what the film does well was report specific cases that certainly included a few gems. An attempt to privatize water, IBM servicing Nazi accounting, an attempted coup in the US, Fox burying news and of course Monsanto being Monsanto. You couldn't make those guys up.
The attempt to look at alternatives to the worst forms of Capitalism were not so successful. Right wing defenders of profit-at-all-cost use short sentences with single syllable words. The poor want to be rich. We make things you like. We don't care. Much of the left wing however, cannot counter this clarity.
And the last frame had the ebullient Mr Moore telling us to get off the sofa and do something. Yeah, like vote for Bush again?
Our daily lives have come to be so dominated by corporations that we can easily fail to notice it. Most goods, services, information and entertainment now flow from huge multinationals. But what if this dominant player in our existence is certifiably insane?
The Corporation explores this disturbing possibility with mix of wit, opinion and hard facts. It takes us through the visible "personality traits" of these business entities and shows us that, for all intents and purposes, corporations are psychopathic. The film points out that this is not an aberrant state for corporations, but rather an inherent part of their nature. It even portrays high-ranking business executives as people so caught-up in the madness of the corporate world they must act not from their own conscience, but rather from a bottom-line mentality of what is most profitable.
Despite its length and the fact that it features some forty different talking heads (ranging from the former CEO of Goodyear to Noam Chomsky), The Corporation keeps you engaged both visually and intellectually. It is by turns informative, amusing and thought provoking. It does not attempt to present remedies (which would be beyond the scope of a single documentary) but rather challenges its audience to view their world from a different perspective and seek out their own solutions. In this way, it reminds me of Michael Moore's excellent documentary Bowling for Columbine.
I saw this film at the True/False Film Festival and was fortunate enough to hear a Q&A with co-director Mark Achbar after. Many questions seemed to be "Well, what can we do about it." The website for the film has many links available to explore further and learn about actions that individuals can take. Mr. Achbar said half-joking that he may have to bring a handout to future screenings with a list of websites.
Whether you are a longtime activist, or someone who has never thought much about issues of corporate dominance, this film is definitely worth a look.
The Corporation explores this disturbing possibility with mix of wit, opinion and hard facts. It takes us through the visible "personality traits" of these business entities and shows us that, for all intents and purposes, corporations are psychopathic. The film points out that this is not an aberrant state for corporations, but rather an inherent part of their nature. It even portrays high-ranking business executives as people so caught-up in the madness of the corporate world they must act not from their own conscience, but rather from a bottom-line mentality of what is most profitable.
Despite its length and the fact that it features some forty different talking heads (ranging from the former CEO of Goodyear to Noam Chomsky), The Corporation keeps you engaged both visually and intellectually. It is by turns informative, amusing and thought provoking. It does not attempt to present remedies (which would be beyond the scope of a single documentary) but rather challenges its audience to view their world from a different perspective and seek out their own solutions. In this way, it reminds me of Michael Moore's excellent documentary Bowling for Columbine.
I saw this film at the True/False Film Festival and was fortunate enough to hear a Q&A with co-director Mark Achbar after. Many questions seemed to be "Well, what can we do about it." The website for the film has many links available to explore further and learn about actions that individuals can take. Mr. Achbar said half-joking that he may have to bring a handout to future screenings with a list of websites.
Whether you are a longtime activist, or someone who has never thought much about issues of corporate dominance, this film is definitely worth a look.
Joel Bakan, who served as a clerk for Chief Justice Brian Dickson and advocated for human rights against governments, now takes aim at corporations in this documentary. On the way he gets a little help from friends like Naomi Klein and Michael Moore. The stuff exposed in the final product can be shocking and hits home even if the presentation is fairly one-sided. From stuff little-known like businessmen trying to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt and aiding Nazi death camps, to a reminder of Kathy Lee Gifford's sweatshops. It questions the ethics of applying patents on life and rain water. This is a story that needs to be heard, even if it needs to be balanced.
I first saw most of the movie as part of a sociology course. We considered the concept of a corporation as a person, and how if it were a person it can fit the definition of a psychopath. While it may sound extreme to apply that label to men running businesses, sadly there is some truth to it. Even if this movie doesn't convince me corporations should be banned, it demonstrates why they should not have absolute power and personhood. The stuff about Bolivia having a revolt shows people being pushed can push back, and raises questions of how we may see more of that which is alarming from a security perspective. All of this is helped by use of metaphors and pop culture and the calm, female voice of the narrator. Everyone shaping a national economy should see this movie.
I first saw most of the movie as part of a sociology course. We considered the concept of a corporation as a person, and how if it were a person it can fit the definition of a psychopath. While it may sound extreme to apply that label to men running businesses, sadly there is some truth to it. Even if this movie doesn't convince me corporations should be banned, it demonstrates why they should not have absolute power and personhood. The stuff about Bolivia having a revolt shows people being pushed can push back, and raises questions of how we may see more of that which is alarming from a security perspective. All of this is helped by use of metaphors and pop culture and the calm, female voice of the narrator. Everyone shaping a national economy should see this movie.
"The Corporation" is a fun look at how corporations are destroying the world. I had avoiding seeing it at first, because I thought it would be kind of depressing... I was right, but it's depressing AND entertaining. Basically it shows how corporations run most of the known world. The movie starts out with the history of corporations, and how their power grows substantially after World War Two. According to the film, most of the world's governments and job markets are run or at least affected by corporate power. Corporations have the power to poison and despoil the environments and the people around them, and the larger these "corporate citizens" are, the more immune they are from prosecution. Basically, if corporate power remains unchecked, we are all screwed, except for the fat cats at the top. A fun, depressing look at our future.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe current running time is distilled down from 450 hours of footage and 100 hours of interviews. The first cut ran to 33 hours.
- Citations
Robert Monks: Again and again we have the problem that whether you obey the law or not is a matter of whether it's cost effective. If the chance of getting caught and the penalties are less than it costs to comply, people think of it as just a business decision.
- Crédits fousThe credits display addresses and descriptions of related websites but they can also be found on the official website for the film.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Colpo al cuore: Morte non accidentale di un monarca (2009)
- Bandes originalesBad Apple
Written by David Wilcox
Performed by David Wilcox
Produced by Sadia Sadia (uncredited)
Courtesy of EMI Music Canada
Published by Teddy Bear Musical Publishing, A Division of Karl Music, Inc.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Corporation?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Корпорация
- Lieux de tournage
- Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique, Canada(Gas Town)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 3 493 516 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 28 671 $US
- 6 juin 2004
- Montant brut mondial
- 4 605 682 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant