McLibel
- 2005
- Tous publics
- 1h 25min
NOTE IMDb
7,0/10
2,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueMcLibel is the story of two ordinary people who humiliated McDonald's in the biggest corporate PR disaster in history.McLibel is the story of two ordinary people who humiliated McDonald's in the biggest corporate PR disaster in history.McLibel is the story of two ordinary people who humiliated McDonald's in the biggest corporate PR disaster in history.
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 1 nomination au total
Anita Anand
- Voiceover
- (voix)
Peter Armstrong
- Voiceover
- (voix)
Chris Brierley
- Voiceover
- (voix)
Rhona Cameron
- Voiceover
- (voix)
T. Colin Campbell
- Self
- (as Professor Campbell)
Stephen Gardner
- Self - Assistant Attorney General
- (as Stephen Gardener)
Geoffrey Giuliano
- Self
- (as Geoff Guiliano)
Wilson Haagens
- Voiceover
- (voix)
Frank Hutson
- Voiceover
- (voix)
Avis à la une
This is a low budget but very, very entertaining account of Helen Steel and David Morris's fight against McDonalds. They were caught distributing leaflets accusing McDonalds of polluting the environment, cruelty to animals, aiming their produce at children and being extremely unhealthy and lying about it. McDonalds claimed they were lying, so the postman and the gardener represented themselves in a 7 year court case. This documentary charts the trial and verdict, and further footage after the event. It is cheap and cheerful, but astounding in it's simplicity. This was a landmark case that made it acceptable to challenge corporations, in fact, it almost seems to be the pre runner for many documentaries out there. More importantly, it took the wind out of McDonald's sails and forced them to readdress many of the issues they were challenged over. It's a great film - I recommend it.
First off, I love this movie. I think it has a great message and provides us inspiration to make change. The reason why I'm writing this review is in rebuttal towards an earlier comment who stated that he wished the movie was more balanced. With that, I can honestly say the guy didn't watch the movie.
First off, McDonald's has been in the media for 50+ years selling us junk. If you want to hear the other side of it, turn on your television to any channel and wait a few minutes. Or, go outside in any neighborhood in any state in any country and walk a block or two and you will run into a place where diabetics and future diabetics congregate under golden arches.
First off, McDonald's has been in the media for 50+ years selling us junk. If you want to hear the other side of it, turn on your television to any channel and wait a few minutes. Or, go outside in any neighborhood in any state in any country and walk a block or two and you will run into a place where diabetics and future diabetics congregate under golden arches.
To the previous poster, justsomeregularguy, who equivocates the producers of this film to multinational corporations, please explain to me how this documentary has made tens of billions of dollars per annum, like a multinational worth their salt does. Your whole argument, and your anger over a certain type of filmmaker or person fails with a fallacy of that caliber. Read Adorno's The Culture Industry and get over it.
I am SO sick and tired of people accusing any and all director or filmmaker of cashing-in by copying or riding on coattails of others just because they see the flood of remakes/ripoffs/plaigarisms bouncing between Hollywood, Bollywood and Asia (aka The 2006 Oscar winner) and apply that in all cases: Another baseless equivocation! Quite simply, a film like this will hardly make ANY money off direct sales. Most documentaries make their money back due to library acquisitions and television broadcast rights. I really have to question the mind that thinks that a documentary like this is made motivated by greed. Films like the Corporation and Super Size Me are exceptions, and frankly the whole "documentaries are the new blockbuster" paradigm is also way past its sell-by date, and to buy into that is to accept what amounted to hype in the first place. For every Incovenient Truth there are thousands of conventional narrative films. We notice those docs because of their exceptional nature in the film marketplace. Again, McLibel is not exactly Spider-man 3. Let's please keep things in perspective. If anything, you give this film you seem to be angry at way too much credit. You also indirectly insult filmgoers by assuming we're all suckers and wouldn't be able to see past a rip-off and you attempt to privilege yourself as if you know better, by proxy. If anything, it's whatever amount of attention the Palme D'Or has brought to Ken Loach's work that might get some more people to see this. Finally, films of the same subject and type have been made in close proximity to each other; it's called a zeitgeist, and more than one person can tap into it at the same time. The Illusionist/The Prestige for example. Superficially: Costume dramas with magic. On any other, non-reflexive level: Totally different narratives.
I am SO sick and tired of people accusing any and all director or filmmaker of cashing-in by copying or riding on coattails of others just because they see the flood of remakes/ripoffs/plaigarisms bouncing between Hollywood, Bollywood and Asia (aka The 2006 Oscar winner) and apply that in all cases: Another baseless equivocation! Quite simply, a film like this will hardly make ANY money off direct sales. Most documentaries make their money back due to library acquisitions and television broadcast rights. I really have to question the mind that thinks that a documentary like this is made motivated by greed. Films like the Corporation and Super Size Me are exceptions, and frankly the whole "documentaries are the new blockbuster" paradigm is also way past its sell-by date, and to buy into that is to accept what amounted to hype in the first place. For every Incovenient Truth there are thousands of conventional narrative films. We notice those docs because of their exceptional nature in the film marketplace. Again, McLibel is not exactly Spider-man 3. Let's please keep things in perspective. If anything, you give this film you seem to be angry at way too much credit. You also indirectly insult filmgoers by assuming we're all suckers and wouldn't be able to see past a rip-off and you attempt to privilege yourself as if you know better, by proxy. If anything, it's whatever amount of attention the Palme D'Or has brought to Ken Loach's work that might get some more people to see this. Finally, films of the same subject and type have been made in close proximity to each other; it's called a zeitgeist, and more than one person can tap into it at the same time. The Illusionist/The Prestige for example. Superficially: Costume dramas with magic. On any other, non-reflexive level: Totally different narratives.
I found it interest That the facts get turned around so the critics are so good. Never mind that McDonalds actually won their lawsuit against the libelous info the 2 put out and won a $40,000 lawsuit against them. Only suit they won was against British government not Mc Donald's, and seeing a side note Mc Donald's never did press the pair for the money. BTW, I am NOT a McDonalds fan or customer, just wanted to see what really happened.
McLibel is the story of a single father and a part time bar worker, who were taken to court by McDonalds. Thus causing the longest libel trial in British history and the biggest PR disaster in corporate history. All because two people refused to say sorry.
In the documentary Dave Morris comments that if there is a David vs. Goliath story then Goliath is the public, and David is the corporation.
So if anybody is worrying that this documentary provides a one sided view of events, they should relax as McDonalds has a million dollar marketing campaign, whilst Dave and Helen had nothing, not even legal aid.
And this is their story, of how they continued to fight against impossible odds, increasing court decisions against them and revelations that McDonalds had used private detectives to spy on them.
It is appropriate that this story be told in classic Low Budget style, as Franny Armstorng armed with her Dad's camera embarked to tell their story not knowing that it to would take years of her life.
The film contains re-enactments by Ken Loach and in this re-released version brings us up to present day as having finished the libel trial, Helen and Dave took on the British Government in the European Court of Human rights, challenging the governments libel laws. Laws that McDonalds had for years used against institutions like the BBC and the Guardian newspaper.
Finally available on DVD McLibel is a great addition to a growing library of material on the Globalisation debate, achieved by two people who believed in what they were doing and one filmmaker's dedication to their story.
In the documentary Dave Morris comments that if there is a David vs. Goliath story then Goliath is the public, and David is the corporation.
So if anybody is worrying that this documentary provides a one sided view of events, they should relax as McDonalds has a million dollar marketing campaign, whilst Dave and Helen had nothing, not even legal aid.
And this is their story, of how they continued to fight against impossible odds, increasing court decisions against them and revelations that McDonalds had used private detectives to spy on them.
It is appropriate that this story be told in classic Low Budget style, as Franny Armstorng armed with her Dad's camera embarked to tell their story not knowing that it to would take years of her life.
The film contains re-enactments by Ken Loach and in this re-released version brings us up to present day as having finished the libel trial, Helen and Dave took on the British Government in the European Court of Human rights, challenging the governments libel laws. Laws that McDonalds had for years used against institutions like the BBC and the Guardian newspaper.
Finally available on DVD McLibel is a great addition to a growing library of material on the Globalisation debate, achieved by two people who believed in what they were doing and one filmmaker's dedication to their story.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesOriginally released as a 52 minute film on TV and video in 1997; this extended 85 minute version came out in theaters in 2005 after the case had gone to the European Courts.
- Citations
Journalist: What about the finding that McDonalds targets children?
Lawyer: I don't recall that.
- ConnexionsEdited from McLibel: Two Worlds Collide (1998)
- Bandes originalesThe Ancient Mariner
Written, performed & produced by Johny Brown, Alfie Thomas (as Alf Thomas) and Chris Brierley
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Клевета МакДональдс
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 4 337 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 821 $US
- 12 juin 2005
- Montant brut mondial
- 7 234 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant