The advent of new digital technologies allows for documentaries to be shown theatrically on an economic model that until recently did not exist. Audiences are now more attuned to the language of documentaries, thanks in no small part to the proliferation of reality TV shows. Young adults, who provide the great majority of theater audiences, are now seeing feature documentaries as an entertaining choice in a contrast to standard Hollywood product.

Theatrical release gives a documentary producer financial legs that would not otherwise exist. And, as is the case with standard feature films, a theatrical release drives cable sales, DVD sales and international distribution like nothing else. For example, BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, with the impetus generated by its theatrical box office of approximately $25M, DVD sales and international distribution more than doubled that figure.

Recognizing this box office trend, Canada’s National Film Board allowed film maker Mark Achbar to take his project, that was originally commissioned as a three-part television series, to readapt and re-edit it as a theatrical release. THE CORPORATION is a huge box office success in Canada and has generated over $1M in box office, making it the most successful, all-Canadian, documentary of all time.

THE CORPORATION is a fiercely engaging documentary by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan. THE CORPORATION fires off from the screen initially as a lightening-paced product that soon modulates to a well-paced, highly stylized, two and half hour scintillating exposition on the North American economy and how it operates, dominated by the multi-national corporation.

As THE CORPORATION is scheduled for a wide summer release in the US, I took the opportunity, following a recent preview of THE CORPORATION at The Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA, to interview Mark Achbar at The Café Algiers – and then through email, asked him for further clarification of his viewpoints.

What was the initial reason, or personal motivations, that moved you to make THE CORPORATION

It was March, 1997, at a memorial service for the sister of a family friend, I met Joel Bakan, a law professor from the University of British Columbia. Joel knew my past work, MANUFACTURING CONSENT, NOAM CHOMSKY, and the MEDIA, made a decade ago with Peter Wintonick, but I didn't know he was a former Rhodes Scholar with degrees from Oxford and Harvard. In our brief conversation, his brilliance and dark sense of humor became evident. We commiserated about the death, which led us to discuss death and suffering elsewhere in the world, the impacts of globalization and how corporations were taking on the role of governments. I was ready to make a film and Joel wanted to write a book. We then decided to collaborate.

Why so much focus on the negative aspect of the corporate world, and relatively no standing for the positives?

The good things corporations do are not the problem the film is trying to address. The film is, in part, a response to the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of the corporate world in the mainstream media (recent scandals excepted, which were presented as "bad apples" in an otherwise healthy crop), a portrayal largely paid for by corporations themselves, in the form of advertising, or through the generally uncritical attitude which arises from the confluence of interests between the corporate-owned or supported media and the corporations they write about. Half of the 40 interview subjects in the film are corporate insiders or spokespersons for the corporate point of view. It's actually Michael Moore (of all people) in the film who says:

"There are companies that do good for the communities. They produce services and goods that are of value to all of us, that make our lives better, and that’s a good thing."

Do you believe that after the exposing of the corporate scandals of recent years, that North American audiences are more willing to view a documentary that presents such an unvarnished view of corporate values and priorities?

The implication of your question is bang on. The view of THE CORPORATION that people normally get is indeed "varnished", it's slick, shiny, and euphemized. People are fed up with being ripped off, lied to, and patronized. They want a fair and accurate presentation but they want it packaged with a point-of-view punch. THE CORPORATION has already been a hit in over 70 cities and towns across Canada and in festivals has won three top awards, and 6 Audience Awards, including at the Philadelphia International Film Festival and at Sundance. People are very ready for this film.

Movie-going audiences today are hip, media savvy, and won’t tolerate condescension. With THE CORPORATION, our goal was to engage, edify and, where appropriate, amuse our audience. To consciously ape the audio-visual rhetoric of the corporate world is to self-reflexively comment on that world. People get the message, and get a kick out of it. It would be a disservice to the issues and all the people adversely affected by corporate power to make a pedantic, boring film that no one wanted to see. The film captivates not just intellects but also emotions around some of the most important issues facing us today both individually and as a society.

There was a lot of focus on American corporations affecting other countries. Why did you zero in on these outside factors, but always come back to the American corporate landscape?

Although most of the world's largest and most powerful corporations are based in the United States, we did not confine the film to US-based corporations. The corporate world is global and the impacts of corporate activities are also global. Whether we're looking at the effects of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone in the USA, Bechtel’s water privatization scheme in Bolivia, Nike’s sweatshops in the Dominican Republic, pollution in a river in Maine, layoffs by Goodyear, or Royal Dutch Shell’s harmful gas flaring in Nigeria, the focus is not on the place of incorporation or location of corporate head office, but on the impacts of the institution of THE CORPORATION, wherever they occur.

What was the process for picking the people who were interviewed, and why did you specifically choose to include these people in the film?

We interviewed 70 people and 40 made it to the final cut. On the corporate side, people were invited to participate in the film if they had an authoritative, first hand knowledge of a particular company or story. We sought out top management: CEO's or VPs. We also welcomed authoritative analysts from other perspectives: from Michael Walker of the right wing, "market solutions" think tank, The Fraser Institute, to the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman; from bestselling author and activist Naomi Klein to veteran critic Noam Chomsky. We also found some unusual characters from the corporate world like Mark Barry, a corporate spy, and Johnathan Ressler, an undercover marketer. To make the cut, our interview subjects had to be articulate, engaging and totally candid.

Why didn't you allow any counterarguments for the corporation’s on which you focus?

In many ways, the film itself IS a counter-argument to the dominant corporate paradigm, containing many “counter-arguments” throughout. The Fraser Institute’s Michael Walker defends sweatshops. Monsanto's ads advocate for Posilac (their CEO declined to be interviewed). IBM's Irving Wladawsky Berger purports to discredit IBM and the Holocaust author Edwin Black. We show Shell's pro-environment, social responsibility ads and its former Chairman, Sir Mark Moody Stuart, justifies corporate social responsibility and the profit motive. Pfizer’s Tom Kline displays his employer's philanthropic efforts. Initiative Media’s Lucy Hughes proudly describes her Nag Factor marketing-to-children study. Burson Marsteller Worldwide CEO Chris Komisarjevsky extolls the virtues of his PR firm and its ethos while some of its most successful campaigns are displayed. On the occasions when corporate insiders were self-critical, well, I guess we didn’t feel the need for counter-arguments.

With over two hundred years of corporations activating in our cultures and societies, where do you see the future of the corporation heading, and do your own personal views differ from the completely negative portrayal in the film?

Again, I have to take exception with your premise that the portrayal of THE CORPORATION in the film is completely negative. It’s simply not true. One question the film asks is: where are we on the timeline of THE CORPORATION? All dominant institutions of the past have been crushed or belittled or absorbed into a new order. THE CORPORATION is unlikely to be the first to defy history. How it evolves is up to us to democratically decide. My intellect is pessimistic, my spirit, slightly more optimistic. Making this film and getting it out into the world is my way of being part of the solution and not part of the problem.

From your study of corporations, do you have any recommendations as to how corporations can adjust their values, attitudes and priorities so as to be more reflective of the societies that nurture them?

Employees and management can and should work toward creating a more humane and environmentally sustainable workplace. They can and should try to take into consideration all the external impacts of the actions of their corporation. But corporations’ priorities are defined by law. And the shareholder’s best financial interests are, by law, their topmost priority. It should not be up to the corporations themselves to change those laws. It’s up to citizens of democratic states to define the laws that govern them and their institutions. As presently structured, corporations have zero motivation to be sustainable, unless it is more profitable. Legislation such as that which Citizens For Corporate Responsibility has put forth might be a place to start. Stripping corporations of their rights associated with personhood would also help to re-establish an appropriate relationship of subordination of this institution to the popular will instead of the other way around. But these are only incremental steps toward a more complete vision of a democratic, participatory economy. We have to start talking about concrete alternatives to the status quo.

What is your expectation for audience acceptance of THE CORPORATION? Who do you believe is the prime audience targeted to receive its message?

There are those for whom THE CORPORATION will be like a comfy pair of slippers, and others for whom it will be a thorn in the behind, and still others for whom it will be like a new pair of glasses. I think THE CORPORATION has the potential to begin to bridge a perspective gap in a society, which is highly polarized on these issues.

What is your next project and why have you chosen it?

Coping with the success of THE CORPORATION and supporting its launches around the world is my first priority. Promotion and publicity is almost a full time job. Theatrical distribution deals are in place in Australia, South Korea, Japan, the UK, France, Italy, and Greece so far, with Spain and several more in the works. TV deals are gradually falling into place (nothing yet in the USA). In my “spare” time, I am producing both an educational version of the film, which will have study guides for a range of classroom uses from high school up to MBA programs, and a two-DVD home video with lots of special features. No matter how fast I run, the horizon keeps receding, and for now, THE CORPORATION is all I can see.