This is a FEEDBACK discussion and will count towards your PARTICIPATION mark.
This blog discussion is devoted to the film "Roger and Me" by Michael Moore.
Please read and respond to my first comment. I will add more questions as the discussion progresses. Please interact as much as possible with your classmates.
To participate, add a comment to this post.
The discussion is open from Friday, 14th March to Friday, 18th April. You may use it to help you prepare to write your Essay 2 draft.
Happy discussing!
This blog discussion is devoted to the film "Roger and Me" by Michael Moore.
Please read and respond to my first comment. I will add more questions as the discussion progresses. Please interact as much as possible with your classmates.
To participate, add a comment to this post.
The discussion is open from Friday, 14th March to Friday, 18th April. You may use it to help you prepare to write your Essay 2 draft.
Happy discussing!
115 comments:
Can you give us your first impressions of/reactions to the film "Roger and Me"? (for example, how it made you feel, favourite scenes, parts you found funny, anything you liked or disliked, what you think of Michael Moore, and so on...)
I am sad for people in Flint, because in Flint General Motors closed and thousands of people lost their jobs. People couldn't pay rent and they were evicted from their houses. There is not that I like something because it is very sad. I hate Roger Smith. I think he could talk to Micheal. Although Michael Moore tried to talk to him patiently, he refused him at every turn.
I think it is not satisfactory. Because Micheal Moore only showed the problem, he did not suggest a solution. I accepted that it is a big problem. However, for Turkish watchers it is usual, many events like that happen in Turkey.
i think b/w videos were pretty interesting and funny at the same time.about the whole subject; in my opinion,a city shouldnt be dependent just on a single factory.or if it is,new investigations should be done right.for example theme park was a teribble idea,it was totally useless and unneccecary.that money could be spent on something more accurate.and about roger smith; its true that great power comes whit great responsibility but at the same time,business sector sometimes requires risk taking,but he was greedy,he tried to arrange a whole new order,he took a big risk and he failed also caused a city to collapse.
ın my opinion this film is very realistic but ı am sad for flint people.And Roger and Me is criticize roger smith who causes30.000 people to be unemployment. I think in this film Michael Moore critisized capitalism with funy and thought-provoking style. In this film,My favourite scene was people who knew that they were going to be unemployment also who were happy while they were producting the and of the last car. And ı think Michael Moore is a hero who doesn't like Americans capital administration like me.
My reaction to Roger Smith is the same as yours, Ayşegül. His hypocrisy and greed really disgust me. His empty Christmas speech in particular really infuriates me.
Deniz, your comments are interesting and some context might help. You're right, he didn't offer any solutions; his focus is on what kinds of values we as humans should be embracing. But if we remember that this was the first film ever to document this sort of tragedy, we can see its importance. You mention that these things happen in Turkey; indeed, they are happening everywhere, so Flint comes to be a symbol for all industrial towns affected by corporations and globalisation.
Doruk, I agree with you about the theme park, and even more than that, the idea was demeaning and even insulting to the residents in my view. Who wants to see their destroyed city rebuilt in a theme park for tourists? Ludicrous!
Burak, actually the film showed more than 30,000 job losses. I share your feelings about that scene in the factory. The workers still felt pride in their work despite the fact that they were losing their jobs. I feel this personally as I come from this type of family and community background, and I also believe these values built our country.
I feel sad, too. Flint lived bad times because of Roger Smith. He did not think anytime his employees or his employees' family. He was a very bad chairman.
Also the ideas to develop Flint's economy such as theme park or Autoworld or 5-storey prison, were wrong and blindness.
I think this documentary is very nice, successful, and didactic. Some of scenes are funny like Miss Michigan's saying about Flint's unemployment. Some of scenes are disgusting like killing a rabbit, too. But I like this documentary. Nobody should not surprise about it being so successful.
Surely everyone have to congratulate Michael Moore for his awareness and successful documentary.
I think,although film is documentary,it is good. Micheal Moore tried to show problem.I think,he may focus only bad things.Okay,I accepted there is not good thing.When GM that was big company was closed,Flint would be ruin.To believe this is hardly.Yes,people evicted their homes,they didn't work and earn money.But I didn't see anybody who do something really for these people.GM caused all of this.But GM was big corperation.All companies thinks earning more money not what will happen people who work them?
while I watch the film, I was very sad and was horrified when I see torture which do rabbits. This is their job,they have to do this for meat and earn money. However, I think that, this is wrong anyway.In addition, when GM was build, were done propaganda films, songs,advertisements and they made a promise of a good future. However, many of people lost their job because of GM and so people could not pay their rent. Micheal Moore want to talk to Rager Smith but he could not find. In my opinion, If he can talk to Rager and can offer solutions for problem, film can be more meaningful.
According to me, Michael Moore is a patriot. While watching the film I felt that. Because he tries to demonstrate the negative economic impact of the General Motors CEO Roger Smith in Flint, Michigan. At the end of 1980’s, General Motors Companies were moving to Mexico because of GM wanted to operate cheaper labor. Michael Moore had explained to Mexico moving process in Roger& me. After that event, the city was upset dramatically in the economy. More factories had been closed in Flint. So workers lost their jobs. More people were homeless in order to they could not pay rent. Workers think GM must get rid of Roger Smith. I think like them. My first reaction was that. In addition, I agree with Melike. Since nobody helps these people and Flint to develop them. Nobody was not interested in their terrible situation. This problem has been all around the world but nobody has not any solutions, unfortunately. DAMN Roger Smith and like him! GO to HELL!
DAMN Roger Smith and everybody who is like him.
Film reflects a very sensitive impact of Flint's people. Rgoer Smith behaves and talks so selfish. If it is to tell the truth, I hated that man during the film and I felt so cureless when I thought myself as Michael Moore.
First things first it's too bad for those people who were fired from their jobs. People didn't know what to do next because job opportunities in Flint were very limited. The most interesting thing for me is that working as a prison guard in a prison brings less money that GM. It's a lot more risky working in a prison and more further you get less money...
Roger and Me is an attractive documentary which shows the realities of Flint with its population from both poor and rich sides. Michael Moore is a sensitive man who tries to attract people’s attention for the collapse of Flint that is called unemployment capital of the USA.
I felt confused about the reaction of many rich people such as Bob Eubanks, Anita Bryant, guests at Great Gatsby party because they were really insensitive about the dark side of Flint and they were not actually making an effort to help unemployed. Also, when I saw the insensitivity of Roger Smith, I have always wanted him to introduce with people who were evicted from their houses during the film as Michael Moore tried to do.
On the other hand, I gave a right some opinions of Tom Kay because he was defending that companies are established with the aim of making big profits in free market so according to him it was a correct act of R. Smith to close GM in Flint. In some points he can be right but it does not mean that R. Smith should brush aside the realities of Flint after GM closing. He had the enough power to help unemployed but he did not condescend just an interview with M. Moore.
ı don't know.. ı think M.Moore make documants formality if he succed to seem solutions ı maybe belive him.he just research secret events ı mean he atrract attention he just is obsinate to showing their imagane.ı read headline whıch about msr.Moore that make new documant ''patient''this time he maybe succed to explain clearly health insurance in USA. there is a aphorism such as speech keep to under statement every time
The scenes, which took my attention more are about evicted people by their friend. I thought after the film what a bad thing to evict your friends from their homes and a person whose job is that, seems don't feel anything while emptying their houses. He may shake downed in his job and may not be sad anymore but not having that feeling anymore is a huge lost.
There is also something, which sounds me interesting: I think, Michael Moore had already known Roger wouldn't talk to Michael or he wouldn't go to Flint. Put yourself in his position just a second. You are a reason of some bad cases like people lost their job, they are evicted from their houses, Flint is well-known criminality area in the US and so on. Would you go to Flint? Would you try to explain why you closed that corporation to make more profit or how could you explain that unemployment? I wouldn't go or I wouldn't talk. I think Michael thought like that so he was so patient while trying to contact. He just wanted us to see this case. Therefore, this documentary get our attention with knife-edge, Michael can contact with Roger or cannot. Of course, Michael’s gripping, funny expression also got attention and made his documentary made different from other documentaries.
I think the situation is very depressing because thousands of people became unemployed and Flint's economy took the knock because of closing the GM that's why thousands of people had to leave their homes.However ı thınk He showed to us the all bed sides of Flınt economy unilateral and he did not show to us any solution. But of course when ı watching the film ı felt bad.
Funda, you mentioned the songs and advertisements and promises of a good future. When many US corporations were founded, their owners believed strongly in sharing their wealth with their people. There was a community spirit that benefitted everyone. This is why you see so many GM parades in the film. My hometown was the birthplace of Kellogg's (breakfast cereal). This family built research foundations, sports arenas, parks and so on in our town. I do not think our town would exist without them.
Of course, eventually all these original owners died and the businesses passed into other hands, sometimes into the hands of family members. But this ideal of sharing has largely been destroyed. For me this is actually the saddest part of the film, the lost ideals and the growing selfishness and greed of the new economic order. Is this a result of globalisation? I think it is a result of an incorrect response to globalisation. If we do not look after each other, we are actually worth nothing, no matter how many billions we might have. The current system of globalisation cannot sustain itself; eventually, large corporations will run out of cheaper and cheaper labour markets to exploit.
Merve Ç. and Ezgi S., I totally agree with you about Roger Smith. But he is really a symbol, the face of modern corporations. Their ideology focusses only on profits.
Unfortunately, over the years, GM neglected to make proper investments in its own operations - for example, they did not set fuel efficiency standards which are common in Europe, Japan and even China (these would reduce emissions and help to slow global warming). The result is that the company is now quite non-competitive against companies like Toyota. When the USA, which created the auto industry, has lower standards than China, we can see the negative results - from a business perspective - of looking only at profits.
Yes, Uğur, your comment is very perceptive: it is extremely ironic that American prison guards are paid so poorly, especially since there are now more than 1.2 million Americans in prison, a figure higher than that of any other industrialised country.
It is just another example of one of the many low-paid, low-skilled, low-worth jobs available in the new economic order.
Well, let's think about what Tom McKay said and the idea of "free markets" - corporations receive huge subsidies to set up their operations - they are given land, electricity and so on - and very few corporations actually pay tax. Is this a free market? It seems to me that corporations use government when it suits them, but if government tries to regulate their greed and excesses, they start shouting about "free markets".
They cannot have it both ways!
Elvan, your comment was very perceptive. Michael Moore is certainly not naive and all the scenes in his film are no doubt chosen carefully to show the most insensitive sides of Roger Smith and others. Of course Roger Smith will not come to Flint; as you pointed out, what can he possibly say? People will be out for his blood. Moore is making a rhetorical point in the film.
But also remember that he spent several years capturing all the footage and probably only decided afterwards how the film would be structured. It would be interesting to see the outtakes (the material he edited from the film).
I think, corporations focus on profit making and they behave selfish to get profit at all time. The issue about shouting to government when they face a situation that they dislike summarizes their selfishness. They even do anything to make profit. This is incredible...!!!!
Michael Moore made a good job to tell us this reality. When GM which the biggest automobile company dediced to move their factory from flint, they looked only more profit. However in recent years, GM gived their throne to Toyota, they are the biggest automobile company now. One of cause for fall, making wasteful engine which has more and more cylinder to exchaust more fuel. In recent crisis (petrol prices) many people can not afford these cars' cost of petrol. In addition decreasing quality of auto parts because of without highclass workmanship. Because workers who lived in flint had more experience than mexican workers, because workers who lived in flint worked on autos many years. This job handed down for flint's workers. As a result GM face problems about more profit!!!
Michael Moore has a different style of critique. He put pressure on somebody or something on his films and go on pushing his luck like at Roger and Me to force Roger Smith and General Motors. But some of the scenes and dialogues were not convincing enough. Especially in dialogues, I perceive that he would make speakers talk. Anyway, the film was a good example for criticism and film showed us Flint's situation completely. These are the cases that makes the film very realistic.
When I was watching the film,I was sad and also I laughed. I was sad because Flint's people are helpless because they laid off their job for making much more profit by company,they don't do anything wrong but they laid off and then they don't have job,they don't have enough money to make a job and last they were evicted from their house. I laughed because some suggestions for poor people were very funny and I think rich people should helped the poor people but they didn't do it. Michael Moore is ambitious and he always tried to speak Roger Smith but he didn't speak to him. I think companies don't do like Roger Smith because they have to think their employees and they shouldn't lay off their employees for making much more profits because employees have their labour in this company.
Advertisement, songs were not done directly for GM but these were said within the GM dream. For instance,some people talked to veyr optimistic. Yes,desires are good but Gm behaved selfishly.
I think the film was good.Michael Moore completely told problem of Flint's people.Because of GM, they lost their job.They could not pay their rent and evicted from their house.Probably, Roger's thought about factories was wrong and sadly for GM workers.They almost lost their job oppotunuities. But But according to Roger , it was just a work and he probably thought about just for profit.
In the film, the security men of GM headquarter was very brash to Michael.They did not care Michael. It disturbed me so much. I liked womens dress. They are so funny and art crafty. Also the scene of prison made me so angry and I thought that these people were stupid.
Also I want to ask smething about Michael. Did he do something for Flint? I just wonder it.
the film reflects rather realistic. while I watch film , I was sad hugely. Because in Flint General motors closed. Roger Smith endanger the life of a substantial number of persons .Thousand of people lost their job. They can not earn money. So goverment evicts from their house.Some of scenes are disgusting like killing a rabbit.I think This documentry is very didactic. ıf we do not watch this film. people in Flint can not come under the cognizance.
I think that the film was quite ironic and Michael Moore tries to point out how different people in the society react to the closure of the Flint GM factory. Therefore, I think that his satire begins with showing all famous people who aim to cheer up the people in Flint and seems to agree for saying teh same thing "don't worry, be happy". I think that the most irritating part was the speech of the beauty peagant who only considers her own contest for being the Miss America and wants everybody crossing their fingers for her even Michael Moore asks her feelings about the Flint factory. Other part was the Chrismas speech of Roger Smith which was full of gratitude and best wishes. However, it is ironic and totally magnificent director of Michael Moore to show the home evictions parallel with the speech of Roger Smith. At this point, it helps to the watchers feeling hatred towards Roger Smith.
İ think Roger Moore who is ambitious ,his aim is showing to us all of the truth of Flint.General Motors which factory in Flint closed and many people lost their jobs.Their lifestyles changed and many worker who get the sacked by GM , has been bankrupted.When Gm which is the big company in Flint city would be ruin.Workers don't lead a normal life. They couldn't pay rent and they were evicted from their houses.Roger and Me shows us the dramatic truth of the society of Flint.Roger Moore who is the researcher for preparing the documentary film, will be successful in his job.Because of this effective portrait make Roger Moore sad . His political view's main point is equality.
Şeyda asked a very important question: Did Michael Moore do anything for Flint?
I decided to do some research to find out. So far, all I know is that with some of the film's proceeds, he set up a Film Institute to help other new directors.
I also found out that the film made over $7 million in worldwide profits. That's really unbelievable for a documentary! Of course, his later documentaries made much much more than this.
I will keep researching and let you know what I find. All of you can also try to find out...
I also found a lot of useful resources which you can use for your essays. I will post them soon...
From an article/interview about Michael Moore:
"To get the film going, Moore had to sell his house and use all the money he had won in a lawsuit against Mother Jones. By the time the $260,000 film was completed, Moore was deeply in debt. The happy ending to his risk-taking was that Roger & Me, an unconventional satire by a novice filmmaker, became the highest-grossing nonconcert documentary film in American history. From that time on, Moore has constantly been accused of being a hypocrite who has made a fortune by exposing the economic desperation of his neighbors in Flint. Moore's response has been that a considerable portion of his profits have gone into the Center for Alternative Media, a foundation he created following the unprecedented success of his first film."
http://documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/moorecin.html
Michael Moore talks about the film:
“In the film, I point out that we live in a democracy. We can pass any law we want. We can control those companies. We can pass laws to prevent them moving their profits from Detroit to Mexico City. We're so beat up we think only they can pass laws for their economic interests. For a lot of people on the left this just turns into cynicism and defeatism. You have to remember that our politics were not defined by going to Ann Arbor, Berkeley, or Madison. They were defined by living in the hometown of the world's largest corporation and living in an environment created by the corporate culture that dominated that town. All of our feelings and politics result from that experience. We are not the only ones to feel this way. Millions of people have that kind of experience but they do not have access to media.”
Interviewer: So are you aiming to agitate a mass audience?
Moore: Absolutely, This is not an art-house film. We want people to be entertained by the comedy and perhaps get some cathartic pleasure in feeling that this is one for our side, that this sticks it to the man. But I hope it's an audience that will want to do something when it leaves the theater, whatever that something might be.
“In order to survive its situation, the working class must develop a sense of humor. To laugh alleviates part of the pain. When people get upset about laughter, I think it indicates that they don't have any pain to alleviate. If you are not way down the toilet, you may not feel much need to laugh and you may not understand why others treat weighty events in a trivial manner, by making comedy of it.”
http://documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/moorecin.html
Some of the filmmakers supported by Michael Moore’s Centre for Alternative Media made huge donations ($100,000) to community organisations in Flint.
So my idea of what Michael Moore did for Flint is this: he gave the laid off workers the REAL hope they needed to survive – to organise, to demand help, to support one another – as opposed to the fake and meaningless hope given to them by celebrity visits and ridiculous government projects. He offered them SOLIDARITY and the knowledge that people worldwide supported them. This has a tremendously positive effect on people's psychology.
What are your thoughts on Moore's words and actions?
p.s. apparently Moore's foundation also supports many community projects in Flint.
Here are some useful Internet resources on the film, Flint and GM (Flint government site, newspaper articles, criticism and so on):
http://www.ci.flint.mi.us/
http://www.flinthistory.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/business/02auto.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/auto-j02.shtml
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DB1238F931A35750C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/r/roger-and-me-script-transcript.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-11-22-gm-flint-usat_x.htm
Can you find more?
When I watch the film, I feel really upset for people in Flint. Roger Smith's decision abaut move the GM is really indiscretion. He has already got profit in Flint, but he is insatiate to get more money. People who is working for GM have no other job opportunities. Naturally all corparations' only aim is getting more profit. However corparation managers should care their workers because they make a profit thanks to their workers. I think Roger Smith's attitude is not ethic.
While i was watching the movie, i felt really bad for people in Flint. I think GM motors did a terrible thing to the people of Flint. Because of GM, people were evicted from their houses and they were trying to find a job to survive but there weren't any jobs. So now the Michigan has the worst economy in America. And it is only because of one man, Roger Smith. I think Michael Moore did a good job by making this movie and show everyone the realities of the world. Because this movie isn't just about Flint and GM, i think this movie should give us a lesson about the world and nowadays everything is about money. My favourite part from the movie is the rabbit lady. It is not my favourite but i couldn't forget it for a few days. I think it is very cruel to kill rabbits. No matter what the situation is, you can not kill rabbits.
http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/aug1998/gm-a11.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS172906+05-Dec-2007+PRN20071205
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6DD133BF931A15752C1A961958260
These sources are the one that I found about GM and Flint
I confess that this documentary is striking and Micheal Moore is very brave man. He touches on a delicate matter for U.S in this film. Certainly, this situation occurs anywhere in the world, including Turkey. Big corporations can sacrifice their workers for the sake of high profits. This event almost has been an ordinary thing in the global and competitive world.
I accept that these giant corporations have to balance their turnover figures and raise profit rates, shares in the market. Also, sustainability of profits is so important but on the other hand there are social responsibilities of the corporations for public. They have to consider benefits of other people who contribute to their success in society. Micheal Moore brings into sharp relief consequences of greedy attitudes of companies like GM. In the past GM had a big place in economic development of Flint and it provided a large employment for Flint public. However, after the GM that was impulsive force of Flint’s economy closed its factories in there, this situation causes a destructive effect on people who live in Flint. M.Moore talks about what happened in Flint after GM factory closed in an ironic way. Especially, my favourite part in film is the christmas speech of Roger Smith. I think it is so direful and absurd to wish merry christmas after he destroyed people’s lives. In that point, ı believe that this new world form makes people more primitive and anti-humanistic instead of more advanced
I am really sorry for that people. The system has a way to beat powerless. It's obvious that it's unfair that this situation manipulated workers that way. But for the factory it's the logical choosing because a company always needs to grow and raise its profit. I think it's ruda but it's the way also.
By the way it's very important to see Michael Moore shows some problems of America to American citizens and to the World, that bravely. Because it is a problem which doesnt affect only 30000 people there, it also affects more than thousand around the world everyday. And it's impressing because as a result of his work, in a university in Turkey, we are talking, arguing and maybe trying to fins some solutions in our mind for the system, for that 30000 workers and for the owner of the company.
I believe Michael would easily find so many examples like this..
As some celebrities and some unnecessary people advicing Flint's unemployed people to thank God for sunshine or to get up and do something, Moore tried to help them and encourage them in other ways. He told them to cooporate instead of all bad conditions. His actions were the ones that Flint's people seriously needed. I support each words of Micheal Moore.
In my opinion, the fact that Michael Moore pointed out in his film "Roger and Me" is a very crucial one which should necessarily be taken into consideration for the well-being and prosperity of the societies.
Obviously, the situation in Flint after the closure of General Motors is very sad. However, Michael Moore blames only GM on the dreadful situation of Flint and ignores other factors. There were other flaws in the economic system of Flint. For instance, I think a city or a town should not be dependent on a single factory or an organisation. If it is so, there are some flaws in the regulations. But, Michael Moore does not mention this point but makes an exaggerated argument. His approach seems a bit sentimental.
I think that Michael Moore should have approached the problem with a broader perspective and considered other factors responsible for the sad situation in Flint.
MY first impression of the film “Roger and Me” is so distressful. The film was so interesting and realistic with Michael Moore’s shots and comments. The Film shows up to what degree the capitalism is important than social rights because as you know General Motors closed its factory in Flint, Michigan and carried it to Mexico for getting much profit in there. The governor of GM Roger Smith ignores his employees’ right, thus people in Flint were dismissed from their jobs and Flints became an unemployed country in a one day with Roger Smith’s decision.
This is not acceptable situation for human who lost their jobs and in this way who were evicted from their house . Michael Moore investigated this situation and looked for Roger Smith to make a conversation. But he couldn’t research his aim many times because the security didn’t allow him. This is the realistic way of the film. In addition to kill rabbits for eat and meat is the dramatic scene of the film.
First of all, I want to say how much I loved the film. It is another wonderful Micheal Moore movie. I have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine before. Now that I've seen Roger and Me, I know how it all started. It seems as though his language and technique is becoming more and more unique as he makes more movies. I love the picture of little Micheal Moore with the huge birthday cake in front of him. And I love the part where the manager at the club says something like "You were not welcome in the GM building, you are not welcome here" That sentences shows so much. This film shows how much capitalism effects the societies we live in.
I think the film is an example for people who encountering the same situation in the world. It is very distressful, Michael Moore thinks too that he made this film where he was born.
People the closure of GM plant at Flint, which resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs and unfortunatelly nobody do something and Flint live crucial time from Roger Smith. Maybe Michael wanted to help people that he made this film but he only showed people who is joblessness and he endeavor to talk with Roger Smith.İt is not enough to solute the problem.
PETS OR MEAT: THE RETURN TO FLINT
As I mentioned to you in class last week, I recently watched the sequel to ROGER & ME, a hilarious (yet sad) 22-minute documentary called PETS OR MEAT: THE RETURN TO FLINT. Michael Moore went back to Flint after 2 years and re-interviewed many of the same people to see if they had managed to find work and if their situations had improved.
FILM HIGHLIGHTS
--Flint lost 10,000 more jobs (please note that the USA as a whole suffered an economic recession from 1990-91).The official unemployment rate in Flint was 17.3%. Michael Moore visits a soup kitchen (a place where volunteers feed poor people), which is crowded with laid off workers.
--Roger Smith apparently didn’t see ROGER & ME. He said, “I’m not much for sick humour. I don’t like things that take advantage of poor people’s problems.” He retired as GM’s chairman. His successor then cut his pension by $100,000 a year, forcing him to take a part-time job. Michael Moore calls Roger Smith’s secretary to offer him a cheque for $100,000! But he tears up the cheque at the end of the film…
--9 new Taco Bells have opened in Flint.
--The Sheriff’s Deputy, on top of continuing to evict people from their homes, is now repossessing cars when people can no longer pay for them. When ROGER & ME was made, Michael Moore gave each of the families who was evicted enough money to pay their rent for two years. One of the women who was evicted was later murdered by her boyfriend.
--Many companies are profiting from the high crime rate, selling products such as house alarms and guns. Travel agents came to Flint to try to sell holidays to laid off workers! “They have a lot of time on their hands.”
--Miss America is now doing television ads for a dermatology institute.
--And guess what happened to the Bunny Lady? (“You want pets or meat?”) SHE HAD A BABY!!! The neighbours calls the baby “Little Bunny Lady.” The Bunny Lady went bankrupt and is now working part-time at a shop. However, she does not actually receive any money; her wages go directly to the court each week to pay off her debts. She survives by selling rats, mice and rabbits as snake food. Michael Moore films a 2 metre python eating a huge rabbit…
Please post your reactions to this second Flint film...
Michael Moore is a patriotic. The most of people do not pay attention to problems of their own country. However, he behaved so courageous and he tried to help people in Flint. I think that his actions were a big virtue.I support his actions and words, if only everybody can be this much sensitive about problems.
I understand that many thing didn't change in Flint. The number of taco bell increased. Flint residents were building a car before, but now they have to work in taco bell to wash dishes. At least, there is job opportunities. People's life did not change, too. Miss Michigan is still insensitive, Roger Smith is still a bad man, Bunny Lady is selling rabbit. However, of course she have to do it (but I want that rabbits aren't killed), because she have to pay her debts.
Maybe,two years is not long time. People shouldn't expect that something change in this time. But I think,for Flint resident is not done something.Number of taco bells increase. This shows that still there is not new jobs. People must work them.Many companies make profit crime rates.This is bad thing.We can see taht anything is not change in Flint.
Second film reflects almost the same with Roger&Me. As I read the summary, there is nothing so much changed. I see that some agents and some people try to get benefit of poor situation of Flint's residents, such as trying to sell them holidays- it is bullshit for laid-off workers. On the other hand, Micheal Moore's actions for people of his country seemed so humanistic to me. There are so few people who will try to help those people with heart and soul. I wish I could congratulate him.Finally, crazy bunny lady made me surprised. I never thought that a woman who kills a rabbit by hitting its head with stone would have a baby...
Ezgi S., I laughed so hard when I read your comments. It is indeed bullshit for workers!!! :-=)
You CAN congratulate Michael Moore. You can write to him! He usually responds. You can also visit his web site - www.michaelmoore.com
FROM HIS WEB SITE:
Contacting Michael
If you have something you want to tell Michael directly, contact him at:
mike@michaelmoore.com
Michael gets thousands of emails and does his best to personally answer as many of them as possible. Occasionally his email box "overflows" and you may get an error when trying to contact him. Please be patient and try sending your message to Michael again at a later date.
In fact, I was thinking of emailing him and telling him about our department and sending the link to the class blog - what do you think?
Sonja, as you said I should try patiently if I want to reach him to congratulate. But, it is a better idea to send him our blog link. I think you are the most suitable person to do this as you are a lecturer in economics department, but I will also try to congratulate him. In addition, I want to say something about those stupid holiday agents. They should be really crazy to try to sell holiday to those poor people. It sounds like a dirty joke!!!!
Ezgi, why don't I write an email introducing our class work to him, then students can add their congratulations to my email? I will ask the other students if they'd like to send him a short message.
You're so right about those travel agents. I really wanted to smack the woman in the film!
TO ALL STUDENTS:
I am thinking of writing an email to Michael Moore telling him about our good class work on his film.
Some students would like to add a person message of congratulations (or otherwise) to the email.
Is anyone interested? Do you have a short message for Michael Moore?
What Melike says is true - two years is not a long time for an economically devastated city to recover.
However, the increase in new Taco Bells reflects the trend in rich, industrialised countries for the service sector to increase as the manufacturing sector decreases.
Have you ever seen the film "The Full Monty"? It's set in the north of England, a region that has seen the lost of thousands of manufacturing jobs. It's a really good and funny film, I recommend it.
Flint faced to a new laying off, and it is very bad for Flint. There were already a lot of unemployed, and its rate increased. So people who needed money or food help grew up. This means Flint still had a very important cause in that years.
9 new Taco Bells opened, but this was not openly enough for Flint’s unemployed.
What travel agents did is really like a comedy. They offered holidays to people who needed money or food. They were very silly, I think.
We can see that everything went on after 2 years from Roger and Me. Also Flint’s situation got worse than before.
Sending email to Michael Moore about us is very good idea. You should do this, and i am sure that you already write everything which is necessary.
When I watched Roger and Me, I was very sad and now, I read the summary as well, I am very sad since nothing changed in Flint. People who live in Flint are still in a fix; also, I cannot believe trying to sell holidays to laid off workers of some travel agents. Can people behave blindfold this much? I say regretfully, some people try to make still profit,even if in which case. As a result, I wet the baby's head:) also I wish, Bunny Lady who kills rabbit can take care of her baby!
Sending email to Michael Moore is not a good idea. I do not think he will interest our blog discussion. He is just dissenter to everything in his country. He likes showing and he use it in his films. I agree he is realist but also he is very one sided person, so a person like that does not care us.
Hakan, for your information, my friends write regularly to Michael Moore and he always responds. He is known for his interest in what "people like us" think - as we could clearly see in the film. Thus, I don't quite understand where your cynical attitude comes from.
What does "just a dissenter" even mean? Do you think it's incorrect to protest against policies that punish ordinary people in favour of a rich elite? Don't you think this is a fundamental responsibility of all democractic citizens? What about all the "dissenters" we see on Turkish news every night, people who protest against Erdoğan's policies? What about all the demonstrations in favour of secularism? These are of course extremely important to preserve the fragility of personal freedom in this country, or do you think it's somehow "different" in the USA? Does dissenting against an insensitive government make a person less patriotic? Is it wrong to stand up for labour rights? Should people just shut up and accept the values of the ruling party, even when they completely conflict with their own? Who are the real troublemakers, the very few people like Michael Moore who speak out (at risk to themselves), or the huge corporate apparatus that owns most of the media, strongly influences the government and constantly narrows the alternatives available to people?
I'd be really interested to know your answers to any of these questions...and what do the rest of you think? Since this essay asks you to explore your values, let's explore them!
I do not agree with Hakan at this issue; because I see that Micheal Moore does not make this effort for only his benefit. He takes care of other people who are in trouble because of some selfish people. He does what many others are not enough couraged to do. Labour rights can not be ignored. People should not be faint-hearted.
I think it is a really interesting and also good idea to send an e-mail to Michael Moore. As Sonja mentioned above, he responds to e-mails. So we can write something to him..
My first reaction of the summary is,nothing really changed in Flint. I am really sorry for the baby of the Bunny Lady. I rally wonder that how can she look after her baby...
If I had a power to make a documentary for showing inequity, of course I show a place which I was born; therefore, I can understand wyh Michael Moore talked about the bad days of Flint and I don't understand why Michael is criticised due to his criticism against big compainies in his country. Is it important to give an example from the U.S.A., Turkey or another place? I think, the important thing is that there is someone who tries to get people's attention with a very exciting documentary and showing his country isn't so important.
Besides, sending an email to Michael Moore is a very good act to show our reactions
Sonja, i see that you are a big fan of Michael Moore but he just looks one sided to causes. He is not objective enough to present this kind of issues. Of course his works are very important, and I do not humiliate him.
Hakan, I think you missed the point. Whether I am a "fan" of Michael Moore or not is irrelevant. The point is that you have said he is one-sided. Fine; now prove your point. Just saying it does not further our understanding. You may have very good reasons for saying this (many other people agree with you, in fact); however, we don't know what your reasons are. So tell us! That's what critical thinking is all about. If you simply say he's one-sided and offer no evidence, aren't you just contributing your own one-sided view? There is no need for you to agree with anyone's view, least of all mine, but you are required to support your own assertions.
So I look forward to knowing your thoughts.
Mike gives me the feeling he would never stop or be satisfied.I'd agree Hakan on some certain points.But as in the view from a different angle,i think the things he does,are not something we are used to.So thats why sometimes it seems awkward and weird.Cos mostly he only shows the current situation and doesnt give an opinion on about how it should be.He leaves that point to us.If its something good or bad,is it professional? It depends on the person.Sending an email is a good idea tho.we can pass our congrats and tell him about what we have done so far.we may even kindly invite him to our school (if he will come some day,i think some of us wouldnt come that day) :]
I would agree with Doruk that Michael Moore leaves the final interpretation of the film up to us.
Let's examine the issue of one-sidedness/balance in the film. Who does Michael Moore interview/show?
1. Two GM spokespeople
2. Laid off workers and people who were being evicted; the Sheriff's Deputy
3. Local government officials, including two people who are promoting tourism
4. Former GM workers who have found other jobs
5. Middle and upper class Flint residents, all of whom said Flint was a great city
6. He repeatedly tried to interview Roger Smith, but...
Not to mention, he returned to Flint two years later to re-interview these people to see if things had improved.
So what can we conclude from this? Did he try to show more than just his own view of the issue? Did he allow these people to speak for themselves? Was GM's view made clear by its spokespeople?
Sonja, your last blog shows all objectivism of Michael Moore. If he was a one sided person, he would only have met with helpless people in Flint. Why did he meet with Flint’s elite to mention about their opinions and suggestions? Why did he try a lot to meet Roger Smith? It is possible to see Tom McKay frequently who defends that making profit is the mature of corporations and more important rather than considering their responsibilities to the society. And the important thing is why didn’t Roger Smith accept to meet with Michael Moore? If R. Smith was right, he would have not escape to meet and he would have defend his decisions about closing all plants of GM in Flint.
I think it is a good idea to invite him to our discussion if he accepts. But to me, this one is quite long for him to read all comments so maybe we can start new one in the direction of one of his own question for us and then he can participate with a few comments if he have enough time.
The sequel of Roger&Me shows that troubles and collapse of the city are continuing unfortunately. It is easily seems that the silly act of travel agents-offering holidays to people who have not any job to earn money! - Roger Smith is insensitive again while saying “I don’t like things that take advantage of poor people’s problems.” I also affected by the fact that Michael Moore gave each of families who had been evicted enough money to pay their rent for 2 years. To me, it is the best example of the responsible person to his society which corporations should take a sample this act.
Michael Moore is one-sided because he used people's arguments to rebuttal them in the film. He just showed us bad ideas of upper level people. I am sure that some people give valid ideas to him ti use in the film, but he did not use it.
What do you think about Tom McKay’s opinions in the film? Did he agree with Michael Moore? Of course, he wasn’t but Michael Moore use them frequently as you saw. Some of his opinions can be called as ‘valid’ for the mature of free corporations but it does not mean that plants should ignore their responsibilities to the community. You said that he just used bad ideas of upper level people because it was the real fact. Could you see any beneficial projects that applied by elite for helping poor and unemployed people in Flint?
Roger and me...
I must admit that the film was awful and the worst film I have ever wacthed. Firstly the film was very boring and it only mentions that the workers of the Flint. I don’t claim that a film can’t do that but the film was displayed all around the world and only mentions about a little more than 30 000 workers and their family in Flint.
General Motors did the best I thing. Some people can think moving the company is a terrible idea because if people don’t work they can’t pay their rent and evicted from their houses; but no one doesn’t think the people in Mexico. If big companies don’t do that how can they survive. What I try to tell is the globalization is not bad; counter to it is a good think. With the help of the globalization some small countries became a big country for example China, they were close to investment and they were in a very bad situation until big companies come to China. Imagine that any big company doesn’t invest China how can 1.5 billion people survive?
Roger Smith is the one who I like him now the Roger and Me teach me it. I think he is the starter of the globalization. And lastly the worst part of the film was the death of the rabbit but If Micheal wants to show a interesting think, he must go to Africa. They don’t hunt rabbit there, they hunt each other to find to eat something that is the my last sentence of about the film sorry for being late..
I am sure that if a beneficial suggestion was suggested from that kind of people, Michael Moore would not publish because he thinks all rich people are idiot and selfish.
Hakan, you have now said "I am sure" twice. But you (still) have not provided any evidence. What makes you sure? Remember that in academic thinking, informed opinions (not just opinions) are what's important.
Michael Moore is himself a multimillionaire...I wonder if he thinks of himself as "idiotic and selfish"...certainly he doesn't refuse to publish his own work! Therefore, there would seem to be a hole in the second part of your argument as well.
Does anyone want to respond to Ramazan's comments...?
Micheal Moore aim that people should pay attention these social economics problem like GM and other campany layed off workers irresponsibility but there are poınt at issues like to make profite for a company.if company have to lay off 30.000 workers they should do step to step with available goverments.company cant give this decision like workers go home collectivelly thats tragicomedy event
Roger and Me is not just a kind of film, it is a documentary so it has a specified subject. The documentary’s aim is showing the collapse of Flint and unemployed people’s situations after GM’s closing. Also, there is no rule like that a film can not display all around the world which attracts attention to the problem of an area in the world.
Ramazan said that if GM was not being moved to Mexico, how could Mexican people survive? Was it logical to close ‘all’ corporations in Flint by leaving 30.000 unemployed people there? Moreover Roger Smith had not the aim of helping Mexican; he had just wanted to make more money while moving to Mexico. If he was such an insensitive man, he would have recognized his responsibilities to his own society before close all the plants.
Lastly, the documentary is about Flint and it shows Flint’s facts naturally so, he had not need to go Africa to find interesting things to point out!
First of all, sending an email to Micheal moore is a good idea so he will recognize that if he make a documentaries like that students are be attached and our comments will be guru for him if he spare him time for reading our interesting discussion.:)
Sonja's comment on proves that Micheal Moore was a one-sided person, he did not meet the except of the helpless people. I agree Burcu's thoughts. We had an opportunity to meet the elite's and he would give two sides opinions on the documentary.Also ı think that he focused on the poor people who expellee the Gm company and he focused to investigate why Roger Smith did not ignore the people who live in the Flint.
In documentary there is no act about elite's help for unemployeed people, it is very different subject ı think Burcu.On the other hand, ı do not exactly agree with the Ramazan's thoughts. First of all it was not film it was documentary so it was boring because it was teaching and showing us the why Flint's economy was bad and affects of the globalization.I do not hink General Motors did not do the best. Their aim was benefit for themselves and they did not ignore the people. Okey, ı accept that if companies want to be the best corporaiton in the world, they do anything to think that benefit forthemselves. But they also justice their employees if they want to develop. Gm wanted to move to Mexico to gain the supply them the low cost labour force. So, theyb would a chance to realize a profit. Secondly,if Roger Smith think that he done the right think, why he escaped to talk with Micheal Moore? It's a conflict in there:)
And also some my friend said that why anybody ignore the people in Mexico.We think that but this documentary had showen us the Flint. It was not about the Mexico's development.
Roger&Me can be a documentary; but it is a film whatever you think; because it was made for watching and displayed in the cinemas.
Moreover; I want to say that I don’t agree with Ramazan. He said that “General Motors did the best I thing.” “No one think the people in Mexico. If big companies don’t do that how can they survive?” Okey it is a good idea to think Mexican; but If you aid to some people how could you destroy another people’s lives. GM damage 30.000 people’s lives and cause a terrible economic recession in Flint, Michigan. Also I don’t think the governor of GM (Roger Smith) move his factories to Mexico in order to help Mexican! His aim was make more profit, noting else. It was an irony of Ramazan to us which make us laugh. Furthermore, companies could survive with another way with developing their works and take an objective decision to survive and from not to ignore the people’s rights.
I don't agree with Ramazan. I think being the cause of unemployment is worse than not helping to Mexican. Movement of GM could benefit to Mexico; however, it destroyed life of employees in Flint.
Can you say what Michael Moore could do to make that documentary more attractive? He used scenes, which was from his childhood, he interviewed with people who were affected from GM's movement negatively, who tried to find new jobs and who were celebrities in Flint. He talked to Tom McKay who supported the opposite side of Michael's opinion (Therefore, I don't agree with people who think Michael is one-sided). He even tried to find his color by putting his hea a polyester bag :). Because of these, I don't think that documentary was boring.
If Michael Moore curious about this kind of subjects, he should go and shoot a real "documentary" not a "documentary film".
Wow, now I'm really curious: Can anyone explain to me the difference between a "documentary" and a "documentary film"???
???
Furthermore, I think Hakan is just evading the very pointed questions that are being put to him.
Ramazan, would you like to respond to your classmates?
Yes of course,
Serdar timicin says, company cant give this decision like workers go home collectively that tragicomedy event. Firstly I must say that a company is not a government. Why? If a company helps a county one day it becomes a social thing and the company becomes a government. You must think twice this because, think about small countries. Its more dangerous to help people by the hand of companies. They are not UNICEF or like that they always their profit.
Burcu guney says, Roger Smith had not the aim of helping Mexican; he had just wanted to make money while moving to Mexico. What I try to say is that. But I must say that if Michael wants to make a big and good thing he may go to Africa and he probably would see much more examples of it. I mean helping the people not to help somewhere in a small town in America.(Its big but you cant compare it whit Mexico) He must think the whole world, if he want to show the effect of the globalization and impress all the world.
Gaye says, its not a film, it’s a documentary film. I can only say I agree whit hakan gursen, Roger could make a ”documentary” not a documentary film. Gaye also claim that, the film shows us the bad effects of the globalization. But if we think deeply, which one is better 30 000 people in America or the whole Mexico? At that time Mexico was looking for help and GM gave this chance to Mexico but not for goodness for their profit.
Also ferhat says, companies could survive with another way whit developing their works and take an objective decision to survive and from not to ignore the people’s rights. GM made an objective decision to move Mexico and your thoughts much more subjective than me
The aim of a documentary is to show some realistic conditions and there is no differences aim between "a documentary" and "a documentary film". Making that documentary funnier, more attractive provides accessing more people. If you mean is that he shouldn't make an attractive documentary, how could that documentary attract people's attention as good as these days.
If you think that there is a difference between "a documentary" and "a documentary film", you should read my search my friend,ı found it on wikipedia...:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality. Although "documentary film" originally referred to movies shot on film stock, it has subsequently expanded to include video and digital productions that can be either direct-to-video or made for a television series. Documentary, as it applies here, works to identify a "filmmaking practice, a cinematic tradition, and mode of audience reception" that is continually evolving and is without clear boundaries.
I don't say they are the same things my friend:) I just wanted to say their AIM is the same; to be able to show some real situations to people. As I mention before and as written in a website which you found, documentary film is just done to make it more attractive.
I feel the need to counter some of the rather extreme misconceptions that are now populating this blog.
First of all, a company IS a social institution: it is made up of people. Two definitions of the word "social": 1. relating to society or its organisation 2. needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities (Oxford Dictionary of English). Ramazan seems to suggest that a company is some sort of disembodied machine. That is not the case.
Secondly, there is no substantial semantic difference between the words "documentary" and "documentary film". Furthermore, documentary filmmakers are free to structure their work as they see fit. I guess I can only find it funny at this point that some of you are so offended with the presentation in Roger&Me. Could that be because on some level you see something wrong with unfettered capitalism that you simply cannot bring yourselves to admit? According to Ramazan, Michael Moore should have made a documentary about globalisation "all over the world"! Wow, that would have been a pretty long documentary! And if you were already bored with this one...
Anyway, the whole point of this essay is for you to examine the VALUE CONFLICTS in the film. If you are upset with the film, it is probably because it conflicts with your deeply-held values. So explore them - by explore, I do not mean trash or dismiss the film with no real explanation.
Some of you seem to miss the symbolic meaning of the film. You ask: Who cares about 30,000 workers in Flint? As I mentioned, this film was the first to document the effects of downsizing and outsourcing. That does NOT mean ROGER SMITH STARTED GLOBALISATION!! That is a rather serious mistake. Millions of manufacturing sector jobs have been lost; this film symbolises all other industrial towns.
The idea that GM moved to Mexico to HELP the Mexican economy just makes me laugh - and shake my head in wonder. I cannot even begin to take that seriously.
The comment I cannot allow to pass is the one about Africans hunting and eating each other - Really, Ramazan. This is an academic blog and I expect you to treat it as such. Do your research before posting!
If you read more widely, you will find mountains of evidence to suggest the great amounts of damage globalisation is doing to developing countries - including Mexico. So let me repeat my previous point: academic thought is based on INFORMED opinion - opinion that is based on sound sources - not just whatever you would like to be true. That's the harsh reality of the academic world.
I would be HAPPY to recommended a long, long list of resources to anyone who is willing to do the hard work in constructing a sound position on this issue. You simply CANNOT develop a credible opinion without DEEP reading. You may think so at this moment, but you will soon find it's not so...
I hope this helps to clarify the purpose of an academic discussion...I encourage debate and disagreement, but let's stick to assertions we can actually prove...and let's be rational!
I wanted to add a bit more to help you with your essay arguments:
- Recognise that Michael Moore never says that companies do not have a right to make profit. Instead, he QUESTIONS whether it was necessary/ethical for GM, which was the richest company in the world at that time, making profits in BILLIONS of US dollars, to close almost all Flint plants AT THE SAME TIME and move to Mexico, where they could take advantage of cheap labour. Remember that Flint is the birthplace of GM, and that for several generations it supported the town economically, socially and culturally (remember the parades in the film, and the theatre actor?)
There are at least 4 parts to consider:
1. When a company is making record profits, does it have a right to suddenly close in one place because it wants more profit? What could be the justification for this?
2. Was it necessary for GM to close most Flint plants at the same time? Couldn't they have done something more gradual? Why did they lie to workers and tell them they would not lose their jobs? Could the government/unions have done more to support laid-off workers? What did GM do to fill the economic, cultural and social hole left by their move?
3. Do a bit of research and find out if GM was actually paying Mexicans a living wage according to their economy. Was this "helping" Mexicans? What were their working conditions like? Compare the wages and conditions of American and Mexican workers.
4. If you want to support the right of businesses to make profit in your essays, consider this: do you have any real evidence that GM NEEDED to move to Mexico in order to remain competitive? You will have to show something concrete; otherwise, your argument will not be accepted as valid.
I hope this helps. An answer that does not consider these points is unlikely to be convincing.
Good luck!
I think that if a company wants to make more profit, it shouldn't have a right to suddenly close in one place because its managers should think their workers.
I know that Roger Smith didn't started globalisation but in this film he seems like one of the main actors of this evil system!
By the way, I wish Michael Moore come our school for a conference.
"pets or meat: the return to Flint" didn't actually suprise me with the changes in the town. the only thing that is interesting was the bunny lady's having a baby, because she was looking so miserable and hartless while killing the rabbits, so I'm happy about her baby, hope she will not be like his mother when she grows up.
Michael Moore, shows an impressive truth about big corporations conditions and the results when they be irresponsible to their workers. And what makes it interesting is the fact that he films GM's closure with funny stories and gripping people that makes you startle when you watch them. so both of his documentaries about Flint are succesful with the proof of being nominated for an Academy Award.
I also don't think that Moore is just leaving the final interpratation to us, cause if he did support GM's attitude,he would not even try to make this movie. He just wanted to show the results of it and prove that being responsible is something necessary for companies, because it may cause a disaster like Flint, ending up with being America's worst city to live.
When all these were happening, Why did not US government try to find permanent solutions for Flint? I mean that the government could open new working area in Flint. Although Mayor of Flint tried to find jobs for Flints, these are absulately useless. I think that governments have also responsibilities about their citizens. They should protect their citizens results of Globalizations...
Sonja what was the president attitude about Flint?
The government of Flint financed Hyatt Regency Hotel, Autoworld and 5-storey prison in order to boost the Flint economy! But of course all of them were very inessential and wrong decisions to spend a huge amount of money!
Corporations, of course, can make profits. Actually, this is what makes them differ from governmental institutions. However,
since the entreprises and investments of a corporation cannot be restricted by any state in a globalised world, other resolutions should be examined to maintain the social welfare and protect workers suffer from the actions of a corporation. My opinion is that, the corporations and the states in which they were born or are located should work together in some situations such as the social needs of the workers and their families or environmental issues. However, as we watched in the film, the government of Flint acts really passive (I mean helping or supporting the people and their families who lost their jobs) after GM moves its operations to Mexico. At this point, Semih's question is very appropriate: Why the government of Flint did not try to find permanent and long lasting solutiuons?
I agree you Tuğçe. They spent huge amount of money but it did not work. Maybe they wanted to show that we cared about people in Filnt. However it does not make any sense.
It is certain that profit-making is one of the important rules in business world and competition is unavoidable today; however, there should also a place for some values like collective responsibility. People in Flint worked for GM and its development but the administration of GM decided to take advatage of outsourcing. Closing all plants suddenly is only explained greed. In addition, closing the plant which is in the hometown of company should be the last thing to do if you will be bankrupt. In my opinion, GM could take some steps in order to make more profit and some plants can be closed for this but closing all plants is not accepted. If you have a huge company, you should already think your community and you cannot say that I do not care anything except making-profit.
The common point most of people agree that if a corporation has to be closed for any reason, it should provide a solution to its workers even the new job is not the best as old one. Nobody has right to make workers cureless immediately. Globalization should not require this!!!...
Micheal Moore wanted to show us truth of Flint. About 30.000 people lost their job so somebody must show that to people. Micheal Moore showed us this and we are sad for people who lost their job in Flint. GM moved to Mexico for only more profit. But they didn't care about their workers. Their workers lost their job, lost their house and they has been bankrupted. These things are upset people but in Iraq, in Palestine, in Afghanistan, etc. there are more upsetting things. People always hungry, people don't have a job and innocent people are killed for no apperent reason and BIG countries start a war to get democracy. Who can believe that?
My first impression of the film was sad for the Flint's residents because they had to face with lots of problems due to the closing corporations. However, the film is too realistic because it is showed clearly effects of the corporations. I think that the corporations should be aware of theır workers' rights and their communities because if they do this, the workers can be more motivated and so the corporations can make more profit even they do not move their operations to another places.
It is so normal to be sad for those people (actually I know worse situations) but government and GM did nothing for them. I think corporations must have some social responsibilities because subject is 30,000 people and there are millions of workers all around the world. They should pay compensation to workers when they stop production. It was not only guilt of Roger Smith. The other administrators and risk takers were responsible too. But laws were not qualified too as it seems because GM stopped producing without doing nothing. In addition M. Moore did not offer any solution for solving the problems. He is from Flint and of course he is upset for them but it is not enough for an activist.
On the other hand General Motors was right as a capitalist and worldwide corporation. Workers, who are members of United Auto Workers, were the top paid workers and if they continued their productions in Flint, prices of Buick’s would increase and may be Buick would be closed till forever like happened to Oldsmobile and Plymouth. So nothing would be changed.
Laws are not qualified and labor unions too. That is the main reason of those problems. In addition like Sonja said M. Moore is a multimillionaire and he is described as a leftist. Leftist ideas bases equality. If he is a so sensitive guy he should share his millions with them.
''Roger and Me''documentary film by Michael Moore shows Flint and General Motors with tragicomical point of view. Ceo of General Motors Roger SMİTH made a shocking decision and he forced people out of their jobs becuse of more profit because of cheap labour but the problem is here. Corporation was still making billions of dollars profit and there is no need to sack people for more profit. This is really cruelty. How can a person envisage sacking people for more profit? Thousands of people lost their jobs because of his terrible decision. Roger smith is such a disgusting person that he could make a christmas speech with sociably and very happily. On account of Michale Moore thinks like me, he made a documentary film about ''ROGER's Decision.Actually In the film there very funny parts. Especially Roger Smith'S Christmas speech part was vey funny. Because there is nothing to be happy but Roger Smith was very happy. I believe that according to him there was no problem in Flint. Workers who lost their jobs could find different jobs easily. Of course the reality is totally different form this. Lastly I think that there must be a law to limit corporations decisions especially in order to block collective redudancy.
Globalization has some advantages and disadvantages. It is up to power balance. Some people have been influenced from the process as a badly. On the other hand, some people, especially corporations, have been making profit as a result of globalization. Moreover, all over the world has been informed from each other because of globalization. As I said and emphasized as special that corporations in particular are interested in globalization as it serves the interests of wealthy nations and corporations! As Milton Friedman argues that there is no place for social responsibility as a business function in business world and worldwide investment area and in the capital markets. Globalization is not only a process as I said. In addition, it is a shape of exploitation for the capitalist system and countries like the USA, Japan, and EU. Strong capitalist countries struggle towards poor countries which are underdeveloped and have not rich raw material and then the capitalist countries use them as their own market. Recently, we have been witness to the events like that in wars of Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. At this time, globalization had caused to divide to the world as poverty and wealthy. It means globalization causes countries to make trade agreements; for example, Mafta and a trading bloc were signed as a result of globalization. It is such a bad situation. Hence, everybody has been influenced a little or so much from this situation. Michael Moore made a documentary film about Flint and General Motors. The reason of making the film is that General Motors closed all of their companies in Flint. Because of this, people of Flint lost their jobs and were homeless as the companies were closed by GM. He is criticizing the situation. I agree with him. It is the face of modern corporations. The world has many corporations like GM. . I would like to focus on globalization’s potential influence on capitalism, profit, and colonialism and corporate social responsibility. Although some people argues who opponent of capitalism and free enterprise that corporations should make increasing profit in cheaper market wherever, I believe that corporations should reduce their profits, and invest in their hometown decreases the opportunity to increase social welfare. Shortly, they must make socially responsible investing
Erdi, I also mentioned that Michael Moore gave away considerable amounts of money to help the people of Flint. He has consistently given away his millions to help disadvantaged people to to campaign for leftist causes. And remember that he made that money in the first place from making films and writing books that show the negative impact of greedy politics and economics on people - he was just a small town journalist prior to the success of Roger and Me. The fact that his works are wildly popular just reflects the degree to which his values resonate with those of other people around the world. People love to identify with the little guy (and they like to be entertained).
It's not Michael Moore's responsibilty to provide The Solution for Flint, is it? To my mind, he has done a lot for them, but how can a filmmaker replace an auto industry? However, without the film, how would millions of people find out about what GM was doing? I also wonder about the answer to Semih's question: why didn't the government do something? Didn't they have responsibility as well?
This has been a very interesting - and occasionally contentious - blog discussion. There have been some really excellent points made; some points needed more support, but they showed the spirit of debate, which is very important to critical thinking. Many of you participated regularly in this discussion and really took it forward. This film was intended to be controversial, and to challenge your value assumptions. I hope you will have a look at Michael Moore's other work. After the break, I am going to send him an email describing the amazing work you've done based on his film. Whether you love it or hate it, you have to admit it inspires you to think about globalisation and corporate social responsibility.
Thanks to everyone who took part!
Globalization has some advantages and disadvantages. It is up to power balance. Some people have been influenced from the process as a badly. On the other hand, some people, especially corporations, have been making profit as a result of globalization. Moreover, all over the world has been informed from each other because of globalization. As I said and emphasized as special that corporations in particular are interested in globalization as it serves the interests of wealthy nations and corporations! As Milton Friedman argues that there is no place for social responsibility as a business function in business world and worldwide investment area and in the capital markets. Globalization is not only a process as I said. In addition, it is a shape of exploitation for the capitalist system and countries like the USA, Japan, and EU. Strong capitalist countries struggle towards poor countries which are underdeveloped and have not rich raw material and then the capitalist countries use them as their own market. Recently, we have been witness to the events like that in wars of Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. At this time, globalization had caused to divide to the world as poverty and wealthy. It means globalization causes countries to make trade agreements; for example, Mafta and a trading bloc were signed as a result of globalization. It is such a bad situation. Hence, everybody has been influenced a little or so much from this situation. Michael Moore made a documentary film about Flint and General Motors. The reason of making the film is that General Motors closed all of their companies in Flint. Because of this, people of Flint lost their jobs and were homeless as the companies were closed by GM. He is criticizing the situation. I agree with him. It is the face of modern corporations. The world has many corporations like GM. . I would like to focus on globalization’s potential influence on capitalism, profit, and colonialism and corporate social responsibility. Although some people argues who opponent of capitalism and free enterprise that corporations should make increasing profit in cheaper market wherever, I believe that corporations should reduce their profits, and invest in their hometown decreases the opportunity to increase social welfare. Shortly, they must make socially responsible investing. But corporations prefer the increasing profits instead of the social responsible. Because of the capital market, corporations benefit, in multiple ways, for cheaper labour. Hence, they are powerful multinational corporations. As a result, they participate in the fundamental economic role of business. Corporations’ purpose is to maximize returns to their shareholders. Everything is perfect for them. But, on the other hand, local communities and society at large are in financial straits because of them.
I agree with Semih.Governments should have responsibilites on their citizens.For example; there can be laws for company owners to avoid the causeless factory closings. High indemnities towards employers can be dissuasive application for coporations.Working for only their own profit is not ethic in business life.We watced the results of unemployment in Flint. The most important solution can be the governments' solutions...
The film " ROGER AND ME " is a good job to understand the uneployments effects on citizens. To be embarrassed by lack of money make people to work on different departments which they wouldn't work ever if they didin't have any difficulties.So; these economical situations change employers life in deeply. Because of all;this film made me feel upset about the Flint citizens...
I felt sad for those people who lost their jobs. How come that GM can turn it's back to those thousands of workers. Workers are the people who help corporations to make profits. It is pitty that they lost their jobs and in Flint there weren't a lot of job oppurtunities which makes life harder for who lost their jobs. I like the way that Micheal expalains things because he does that with humour. I didn't like the part which the woman killed the rabbits. We all eat meat but not everybody has the stomach to see that.
I think that the scene of killing the rabbits was an ironic way to criticise the unemployment in Flint. So we shouldn't take seriously about it.It was just an example of some kind of job in Flint.
Post a Comment