Margin Call (2011)
Margin Call is a 2011 film that seeks to give viewers a deeper perspective of the financial crisis that hit the United States in 2008. The film was written and directed by J.C. Chandor. It s depiction of the happenings on Wall Street has been described as the closest to the actual happenings during the financial crisis. In this film, the main characters are faced with a moral challenge and they act according to their personal world views. Personal financial needs are put before the clients needs. The questionable manner in which the characters act put the employees on Wall Street on a cross road. It is a difficult balancing act between protecting oneself and protecting others. The decisions made by characters in this film create an opportunity for people to discuss the balancing act between self preservation and killing the dreams of the masses.
From the beginning, the film is filled with controversial decisions. First, the firm that is depicted in this film decides to lay off most of the employees in the firm leaving only 20% of the workers. However, the firm’s managers do not lay off the workers personally but hire another firm to do this. Without prior warning, the mass layoff takes place in a rather insensitive manner with employees expected to leave immediately. First, the decision by the company to lay off the people without warning is a questionable decision. Though they are offered a severance package, the employees are traumatized by the lay off. Having reported to work just like a normal day, none of the employees expect that they are going to lose their jobs on this particular day. Therefore, it is a surprise when the hired human resource team comes in and explains to the employees that they no long...
... middle of paper ...
...ce of money at whatever costs. At the end of the day, the managers watch as more people are laid off as the crisis continues.
In conclusion, I disagree with the decisions made by the main characters in this film. Their predicament is tough to say the least, but it does not warrant the decisions they make. They choose to follow a route with the full knowledge of the problems it will cause to other people. The decisions made are motivated purely by money and the need to self preserve and protect. The drive behind the sale of worthless assets is for the company to remain afloat even when clients suffer losses. It is dangerous to make decisions driven by money and selfishness. It leads to guilt as it causes endless pain to other people. Therefore, these characters could have chosen the alternative option of protecting their clients as opposed to protecting themselves.
While the book “Left to Tell” by Immaculée Ilibagiza and the movie “Hotel Rwanda” by Terry George shows its share of similarities, both portray the Rwandan Massacre of 1994 in diversified ways. First, while both characters share similarities portraying the perspective of the genocide, they also show some major differences in the point of view as the main character in the movie was a hotel manager while the other main character from the book was a young, Tutsi woman. Also, while they face similar conflicts and hardships, both have their own personal field of adversities to face.
The ethical issue in this situation is the willingness of the company’s director to prevent the employees from organizing in union. Among others, the company’s director try to use unfair tactic like diversion, intimidation, manipulation, termination of job contract and threat to shut down the company leading to massive loss of job. In an ethical standpoint, these tactics are wrong.
The leaders of big business didn’t give workers the rights they deserved. In the text, Captains of Industry or Robber Barons?, it states, “Workers were often forbidden to strike, paid very low wages, and forced to work very long hours.” This evidence is a perfect example of the dehumanization of workers. The employers treated their workers like interchangeable parts, which were easily replaced. The big business leaders started paying less attention to the working conditions, and more to the production rates, and money. They didn’t care about worker’s family or the worker’s wellbeing. Due to the horrible working conditions, the workers were more likely to be injured, and sometimes, die. The capitalists didn’t give their employees the rights and respect they deserved, because to them they were just unskilled, cheap labor. If the workers were unhappy, they would easily replace them with other unskilled workers. That’s why they were considered interchangeable parts. This evidence shows the big business leaders only cared about money, and didn’t treat their workers
History usually forces itself into the present in Juan Jose Campanella’s film “El Secreto De Sus Ojos” (The Secret in Their Eyes). Although it was filmed in 2009, the story is an attempted memorization of the violent reality in 1970-1980s Argentina, an era in which the country was rapidly sinking into military rule-ship. Campanella offers flashbacks into Argentina’s dark days, a period where violence homicide, rape and injustices ruled. Through memory, the film narrate a era in which it was impossible to be an innocent person as the innocents were falsely accused, tortured and even murdered for crimes they never committed, all these for the whims of those in power. Even though, the film is set in the 1970s, it does not call immediate attention to the animosity, the hopeless feeling and the constant struggle between the desire to forget vs. the attempts to remember the chaos and confusion of these years. However, through the use of memory Campanella allow the views to portray an almost perfect picture of what happened in Argentina.
against their employers, employees were able to go on strike and prove a point. Some
I have recently viewed the film ‘The Hurricane’, directed by Norman Jewison and starring Denzel Washington as Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter, the boxer jailed for crimes he did not commit. This emotional drama is a fantastic watch, with Rubin and his friends battling for his freedom after twenty years of unfair punishment. This film has been a hit all over the world and not only is it a great watch worth every penny but it sends out messages about believing in yourself and never giving up in what you believe. This action packed review will attempt to talk you through this roller-coaster of a story. Hold on tight!
Employees had to endure poor pay and unsafe working conditions. As described by Raynor (2009), the company J.P. Stevens paid poverty wages and provided deplorable working conditions in the mills; workers lost fingers, had to inhale cotton dust, and some lost hearing because of the constant drone of the deafening machines. Norma Rae knew that she, her family, and her coworkers deserved more out of their employer for the work they were doing (Raynor, 2009). As Fossum (2012) points out, “employees are more likely to unionize as job dissatisfaction increases” (p. 9). This becomes the case in the movie; dissatisfaction continues to grow, and with some leadership, the union finally gets voted in. The miserable working conditions, and leadership, were clearly portrayed in the movie. One worker said at point he had a window at his station but it was sealed off to have that feeling of being closed in. The biggest concern/example seemed to happen when Norma Rae’s father was having problems feeling his arm but was told by the floor supervisor to continue working; he subsequently passed out and died. An important part to remember about union representation is that “dissatisfaction alone does not automatically mean a union organizining campaign will result or a representation election will be won” (Fossum, 2012, p. 10). As
Frank Darabont (writer-director-producer) in 1999, returned to the director’s chair for the first time in five years. Darabont, who not only directed Shawshank Redemption, but adapted it from a Stephen King story, followed the exact same path with The Green Mile. The film was released by Warner Bros. Pictures, and Produced by Castle Rock Entertainment, Darkwoods Productions, and Warner Bros. David Valdes is the producer, David Tattersall, B.S.C. is the director of photography, Terence Marsh is the production designer, and Richard Francis-Bruce is the film editor.
Mackay, Tim. "The Ethics Of The Wolf Of Wall Street." Charter 85.2 (2014): 67.Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
In conclusion, both films discussed the implication of money and the moral questions that might arise from lack of it. It suggested that money is a great necessity in our society today and could lead people to do drastic things even after realizing the consequences that might arise. It is a push to discover our morality. Ultimately though, decisions are made, consequences are faced and humans learn from accepting that morality is subjective and we are solely responsible for upholding it.
Louis Borget, the president of Enron, stole $3M from the company and transferred into his personal offshore account. The men of this company never considered the consequences their actions would have on stakeholders, such as the employees. Step #3 tells us to consider all stakeholders involved in a decision, but we saw that Enron was clearly blinded ethics. The company encouraged all employees to put all of their money into stocks, even though they knew the company was collapsing. 4. List the points of the movie you agreed with and state why. a. Rappaport said, “ Ultimately, the fatal flaw with Enron was a sense that brains and wiliness could out think the way that system will eventually work.” I agreed with this assumption because throughout the movie this was a common theme. For example, Enron made a deal with Blockbuster to try and sell movies online. When a Canadian bank heard about this they gave Enron a loan of 115 million dollars, in exchange for the profits. When the plan tanked, they counted the loan as a profit from the venture. 5. List the points you disagreed with or found unhelpful. a. The whole was able to give me a general understanding of what happened to
The "Wall Street"(1987) profoundly reveals the hidden rules of the financial realm. It won several awards of Oscar. So many people who work on Wall Street are gained a lot of enlightenment from this amazing movie. Now "Wall Street 2" comes back. The Director still Oliver Stone, the difference is this movie links to the financial crisis of 2008. Just as the dominoes falling. Some people gained, but more people down with drain, even the live.
Margin Call depicts a realistic take on what happens inside a Wall Street firm. It is about a company that is downsizing their workers because of a firm’s crisis. One of the victims, Eric Dale, was working on a major analysis when he was laid off. He hands his coworker Peter Sullivan his USB, which contains the major analysis. Peter stays late and cracks the issues and calls his coworkers and bosses in about the financial disaster he had discovered. He had discovered that the company is about the crash. He tries to get ahold of Eric, no luck. He then calls his coworkers Seth Bregman and Will Emerson, who are at a bar and tells them that they need to come back to the office for an emergency situation. After showing the situation to Will, John Tuld, the Chief Executive Officer, quickly hears about it. They all have a conference meeting and decide that the company will sell all of the mortgages, which have little to no value. Once the sale is completed, the company tries to save their reputation by saying that this issue was nonpreventable.
Kaye also convinces some of her friends to invest in this business as well. Edgar or Egay was always quiet as he watches from a distance. Later on, it is revealed that her dad's business is a scam. Kaye and Edgar didn't just lose their own money, but lost their friends' money as well. After that, the whole film basically just shows how Edgar tries to keep his family safe from those swindled investors that threatened to do 'what is necessary' to get their money back. Edgar did whatever it takes to keep his family safe; he shows that he is willing to give up his morality in order for him to defend the one thing that matters most to him. In my opinion, the film shows cruds and hypocrites in almost all kinds. It focuses on how crisis removes societal projections and reveal the primality of who we are. In the first part of the movie, people were saying "Yeshua will provide. Alleluia!" but when the wallets of these same people were threatened, they suddenly turn into greedy, bloodthirsty, merciless animals. Even the preacher or minister was greedy and manipulative as heck. He brainwashed those believers into getting him richer and richer.That is why I believe he deserved to be strangled by Edgar as I’ve mentioned