McLibel

A long time ago there was a company that made lots of money by selling bits of meat between two bits of bread. Many people were employed to put the meat between the bread and many animals were killed to be the meat. A friendly clown persuaded children to love the company. Some decades passed and all was well. The company became very, very rich. Richer even than many countries. And then some people wrote in their newspapers than eating lots of the meat and bread could make people ill. Other people said on television that too many trees had been cut down and that the workers were unhappy. This made the company very angry. The company looked around the world and saw that in England there was a special law that could stop people saying things the company didn't like. And make them say sorry.

It is with the above text (delivered in a Star Wars fashion) that this film starts with – pretty much immediately helping you work out if your politics and sense of humour are in the right place to be part of the target audience for this documentary. The story of the film is famous now; basically in the early 1990's McDonalds took libel cases against many people who had spoken out against them – papers, television channels, pressure groups, generally media groups and the like. Drawing retractions from the majority of them, McD's was very happy with the UK system and set about going after other targets. David Morris and Helen Steel were volunteering with Greenpeace as part of their belief in environmental activism, part of which was handing out a pamphlet "what's wrong with McDonalds" outside the outlets and telling the "truth" about the company. When they got served with a libel writ from the company, some of their group apologised and retracted but Helen and David said no and started to defend themselves against a team of very expensive lawyers retained by McD's. The film documents their case and then the action that they took in the European Court of Justice years later.

Having been made over the whole ten year period (rather than looking back) the film is gripping and really involves you in the story. The case is boiled down to the essence and it is made surprisingly fluid and exciting as a result. The dramatisation of the courtroom scenes feels a bit cheap but still works – although it doesn't help that Morris, despite being natural and himself across the rest of the film, comes across as wooden and "acting" in these bits. The bias in the presentation is there of course and if you disagree with them then this isn't the film for you. However, I saw them both as rather pretentious hippy sorts but yet I was still able to get behind them, learn the lessons and be inspired by them. And really "inspiration" is the film's main strength because their story is amazing and it totally flies in the face of those who say "what difference does it make if I etc etc"; I still think that individuals are limited in day to day life but when the chips are down, if you can stand your ground it is possible to make a difference.

Alongside this, the target audience will love the anti-Corporation thing. I'm not a protester or anti-Capitalist but it is satisfying to watch McD be taken down a peg – even more so now that we have spent the last year or so watch them start to lose ground, lose profits and many of the McLibel accusations be backed up over and over by many sources, to the point that most viewers will totally agree with the "lies" that Morris and Steel were telling. Ideal viewing alongside the equally important (but a lot less serious) Super Size Me, this is a great documentary that makes up for the low budget feel by being gripping, entertaining and inspiring.

One of the things that the protagonists had to explain was that how come their leaflets didn't have McDonald's views on it? They countered that by asking if any McDonald's adverts also talk about how several organizations and many research papers talk about the dangers of consuming McDonald's food.. they insisted that in a world flooded with McDonald's propaganda, their leaflet *was* the balance. So it is with this film. There's a lot of films that favour corporations and show them in a positive light. If you want a balance, go watch those films after you've watched this one.. but please stop harping about balance and being one-sided etc.. this is not a film that seeks to be kind to McD's.. it's a film that seeks to tell the story from the protagonists point of view and they do so extraordinarily well and on a shoestring budget. Anyone who's not talking about that and instead crying about how one sided the film is, is probably not the most unbiased reviewer (if you know what I mean..)

That's the point. They won - despite the odds. And when that is no longer the basis for an interesting film then we might as well all give up. Whether you agree with their politics or not, the stand they took, the obstacles they faced and the dirty tricks pulled by Maccas make this the perfect subject for a documentary. What bugs me most about the people who are on here criticizing this movie is the line that these "do-gooders" are profiting from this movie's release. Unlike people like you, making money is not the only motivation in this world and if you saw this film, you'd realise it is way down the list of priorities for these two people. Sometimes just getting the message out is the most important part. But I guess that wouldn't even occur to some people.

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.

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.