A Response to Ron Galloway
I posted this in response to a comment left on my last post. Ron Galloway, the director of the upcoming documentary "Why WalMart Works," had problems with my preliminary assessment of his film. Here it is:
Ron - Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your position that one should not judge something before one is able to actually experience it, however in this case the documentary you are directing seems to be fairly straightforward. Your documentary, as it is described by the New York Times, praises WalMart. I am quite eager to see exactly what it was that you found so praiseworthy about WalMart, the company that has prospered for years at the expense of their employees and, for that matter, the larger social good. The mega-chain has effectively lowered retail and manufacturing wages in order to bring you those “every-day-low-prices.” Employees suffer benefit cut-backs in order for WalMart to offer identical or comparable products at prices that are lower than its competition. In short, I believe – let me rephrase – I am convinced, that Wal-Mart’s successes have come at the expense of others (see Fast Company’s 2003 story “The WalMart You Don’t Know” for just a few examples of the companies profound negative impact on commercial business). But alas, this is a blog (no quotations necessary) that focuses on the arts. Documentaries were originally created to examine a subject matter or topic without bias, distortion or personal opinions. They were non-fiction, objective films designed to inform and educate. We know that from films like “Super Size Me,” “Bowling for Columbine,” and “Grizzly Man” that documentaries have come to include films that are something of a hybrid of information and reality-tv. Ultimately what makes these, and many other films interesting, is that there is a focus on a particular issue (be it fast food, gun control or our understanding of animal behavior) and a criticism of the prevailing perceptions on that issue. A pro-McDonalds documentary that attempted to explain, rationalize or in any way excuse the unhealthy food they produce should sound absurd to most people. Spurlock’s film was successful because he confirmed our suspicions about the negative effects of a fast food diet by sacrificing his own health. If people wanted to see a pro-hand gun film they would join the NRA and an ordinary documentary on grizzly bears can be found on the National Geographic channel. People enjoy documentaries because they offer a critical examination of a subject, often revealing sordid truths or harsh realities that we are normally protected from. They are aggressive, proactive and information seeking. By contrast, your film, by its very nature, sounds to be a reaction to criticisms of WalMart that sugar-coats the reality of the company’s horrible practices. For anyone still wondering: WalMart works because big business trumps humanity and compassion, because money matters not people.
Ron - Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your position that one should not judge something before one is able to actually experience it, however in this case the documentary you are directing seems to be fairly straightforward. Your documentary, as it is described by the New York Times, praises WalMart. I am quite eager to see exactly what it was that you found so praiseworthy about WalMart, the company that has prospered for years at the expense of their employees and, for that matter, the larger social good. The mega-chain has effectively lowered retail and manufacturing wages in order to bring you those “every-day-low-prices.” Employees suffer benefit cut-backs in order for WalMart to offer identical or comparable products at prices that are lower than its competition. In short, I believe – let me rephrase – I am convinced, that Wal-Mart’s successes have come at the expense of others (see Fast Company’s 2003 story “The WalMart You Don’t Know” for just a few examples of the companies profound negative impact on commercial business). But alas, this is a blog (no quotations necessary) that focuses on the arts. Documentaries were originally created to examine a subject matter or topic without bias, distortion or personal opinions. They were non-fiction, objective films designed to inform and educate. We know that from films like “Super Size Me,” “Bowling for Columbine,” and “Grizzly Man” that documentaries have come to include films that are something of a hybrid of information and reality-tv. Ultimately what makes these, and many other films interesting, is that there is a focus on a particular issue (be it fast food, gun control or our understanding of animal behavior) and a criticism of the prevailing perceptions on that issue. A pro-McDonalds documentary that attempted to explain, rationalize or in any way excuse the unhealthy food they produce should sound absurd to most people. Spurlock’s film was successful because he confirmed our suspicions about the negative effects of a fast food diet by sacrificing his own health. If people wanted to see a pro-hand gun film they would join the NRA and an ordinary documentary on grizzly bears can be found on the National Geographic channel. People enjoy documentaries because they offer a critical examination of a subject, often revealing sordid truths or harsh realities that we are normally protected from. They are aggressive, proactive and information seeking. By contrast, your film, by its very nature, sounds to be a reaction to criticisms of WalMart that sugar-coats the reality of the company’s horrible practices. For anyone still wondering: WalMart works because big business trumps humanity and compassion, because money matters not people.
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 10:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home