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.

The documentary begins with a long shot into a little grassy area at a private members-only club where some older folk who are undoubtedly part of the moneyed elite are playing croquet. Jamie Johnson, the filmmaker, is chatting among them with a hidden microphone so the audience can hear the conversation, although the camera is several yards away behind some bushes just outside the croquet area. One of the women with a British accent chats about the croquet game and asks innocently what Johnson is doing. Then Johnson lets on he is making a documentary film about social and economic class issues. And suddenly there is an uncomfortable silence. Which speaks to an interesting unasked question about the documentary: why are the wealthy so afraid to talk about wealth and social class, lest something they don't want us to know be revealed?

Johnson begins the documentary with a basic question, the question that most wealthy people do not want to talk about. Will the growing polarization between Americans in regards to wealth, affluence, and ultimately political power, either strengthen the nation as a whole or weaken it? With camera in hand, Johnson confronts the wealthy, the poor, economists, and entrepreneurs. He also interviews members of his own family who seem strangely detached from the entire subject and are largely ambivalent about the project. The most vocal opponent of the project is not a Johnson family member per se but their family's wealth adviser. Jamie Johnson explains since this man's reason d'etre is to advise wealthy families on not only how to keep their wealth but to continually expand it, he has a self-interest in being fearful of anything questioning economic disparity, especially from one of his own clients! He essentially makes money by promoting disparity. His concern seemed almost absurd considering it's not like one documentary film will cost the 3000 to 4000 wealthiest families in American billions of dollars. But he is hired to protect that money, so by definition he must be against it.

Outside his own family, one of his first interviewees is the late Milton Friedman who advocated for lowering taxes on income and capital gains as a means to stimulate the economy under Ronald Reagan. Friedman fiercely defends his economic theories, claiming that even though the richest among the wealthy, the top 1%, has shot out of the stratosphere, it has helped the poor climb up slightly. Johnson goes on to interview other economists, such as Richard Reich, former economics adviser to Bill Clinton, who has a very different view. Reich believes the concentration of wealth at the very top could have dire consequences for ultimate instability, as manifested in Hurricane Katrina which made obvious the problems of the rich verses the poor. The rich pay less and the working middle class pays more.

Johnson goes on a tour of America. He gets into a wealth conference of the wealthiest elite of America, whose average worth is approximately $400 million. One of its directors inadvertently comes off as being quite elitist about wealth implying that redistributing any wealth through social policy, such as Medicare and social security, is inherently a bad thing. Johnson meets the founder of Kinkos and Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine. He manages interviews with two unlikely heirs who have essentially lost their inherited wealth, one the grand-daughter of Warren Buffet, and the other an heir to the Oscar Meyer company. During the course of production, the grand-daughter receives a letter from Buffet stating in no uncertain terms that she is being disinherited because of her participation in the film. (She actual works as a kind of servant to another wealthy family!) The great-grandson of Oscar Meyer actually decided to give away his inheritance, much to the astonishment of his family. He actually has the best line: "I still meet people who say it's hard to get by on $50 million."

Interestingly, a few among the wealthy, such as William Gates Senior (father of Bill Gates of Microsoft) share the view that the top 1% own too much of the assets of the entire country. But some of the most interesting interviews are with Johnson's family, whose father has reservations about the film, which did raise my eyebrow. Here's a man who has nearly never wanted in his entire life, and yet he is afraid of what might be revealed in the documentary. When he was young he helped finance a similar documentary about the poor in Africa and was reprimanded by the Johnson & Johnson CEO. It is so interesting to me that those who appear the most fearful are the ones who really have little to fear.

You have to give filmmaker and Johnson & Johnson heir Jamie Johnson a lot of credit for making a film questioning a system which has helped his family become enormously wealthy. This film, the One Percent, has created consternation inside the Johnson family, although both the father and mother seem to come to terms with it at the end. Johnson's first project, "Born Rich", was a project apparently designed as a means for the heir of one of the wealthiest corporate dynasties in America to come to terms with his own inheritance. Now, he has directed his camera more broadly toward the growing inequity of the American economic system and how it seems to unfairly favor the rich. His documentary is somewhat akin to Michael Moore's style, although he doesn't engage in the kind of publicity stunts that are the Moore trademark. The film doesn't exactly answer the self-imposed question since there are many different views about this issue, but I think the point is to open a dialog, a dialog the wealthy-elite want to avoid. Since Jamie Johnson is from this elite, he may be the only one who could facilitate this dialog. If there is one thing the documentary reveals it is this: the wealthy elite are much more fearful than I ever imagined.

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.

Many of the scenes in this docu are obviously staged and come off as facetious. I got a slight whiff of racism that's been swept under the carpet. The director refuses to show the white lower class,which is one way I believe the MSM use to frame wealth inequality. What about showing the white families poisoned by coal mining & fracking in PA,e obesity epidemic and the wage slavery that causes it,non-urban poor,the waste created by the amount the wealthiest 10% consume? The most pressing issue I believe he doesn't address: unemployment, which is a relatively new form of suffering. HG Wells wrote the Time Traveler in response to newly created overproduction which allowed huge masses of people to become unemployable. Mr.Johnson should read Nickle & Dimed to Death as well. I get the sense Mr.Johnson portrays wealthy people as simply the middle class with lots 'o money, the way he sets up some of the casual scenes with various advisers & family members. This is the most interesting part of the film because you get a sense of the conflict between the MSM created aesthetic portraying the wealthy as glamorous VS the film which goes out of it's way to portray individuals like Milton Friedman in casual settings. Mr. Johnson also address the media in showing the Italian count/media figure which seems to conclude that the American people demand the fetishism of wealth. It is subtle dig at Americans believe in egalitarianism by suggesting that secretly Americans dream of the old world aristocracy. In reality, the medias portrayal of wealth is a new form of propaganda,either to provide escapism,make excuses for the wealth gap, or spread the idea that eventually you too will be rich in America. I would say the biggest flaw in this docu is the refusal to address unemployment,which has largely been created by the actions of the wealthy 1%. I find the Kinkos founder mocking of Hollywoods portrayal of wealthy business to be funny because we continually see the people in this film saying that capitalism is the a flawed system but the only way to get things done, that realize people will be hurt by gentrification but they do it anyways, that the selfish drive to be wealthy is what make America successful. In doing so, they become real life caricature of the very same Hollywood villains. These people seem unmoved or oblivious to the real problems that hurt millions of people in this country like unemployment caused by cheap illegal immigrants,manufacturing bases moved to China, and the whole nations school system being stripped of funding. Their tactics to excuse the reality they play a major part in shaping is: 1. Look at those very very poor -black- people in Africs or inner-city America, 2. Well,capitalism is the only system this raises the wealth of all classes, and 3. Attempts to manipulate our common interest in providing for our families by attempting to show the hoarding of wealth by the 1% families as simply providing for their kids futures as opposed to what it truly is: the accumulation and holding of power, which by it's very nature nepotism and evil. Finally we see underlying racism in the film by it's subtitling of Jamican farmers whose accent is clearly audible(an insidious and underhanded tactic used by Mr.Johnson which would make Goebbels proud),the police officer pausing before describing the sugar can workers as "ethnic, very ethnic"(was really about to use the n word),the officers description of the poor worker community as being talented in spite of it as it has produced several football players(the subtext: all an AA is good for is sports), and the Kinkos founder's description of black and white to be a fitting color combo for a bum to be wearing. In light of the increasing xenophobia in America, I find the underlying racism,which maybe the filmmaker didn't even notice(though I doubt it as if he did and found it repulsive he would have commented on it in the narration) to be disturbing. It seems that racism could be a natural response to a class system which treats black workers & their kids like dirt,as to care for these people would undermine the entire structure of capitalism, To sum it up: Mr.Johnson has unintentionally made a film that helps portray the wealthy as similar to the fascist ghosts in The Shining....

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." Ronald Reagan