® 2019 HelpMyEssay.com
Total Length: 2170 words ( 7 double-spaced pages)
Total Sources: 5
Page 1 of 7
The way that it uses John Alpert, a therapist who consulted a great deal of important Wall Street figures, with the purpose of showing how these people were basically no different from ordinary criminals (seeing prostitutes and using cocaine) when considering the way they spent money further contributes to increasing the terror of the thought that they were in charge of the world's finances. More precisely, it provided very clear and documented information that would be easily verifiable. Martin Feldstein's interview is especially intriguing when considering verifiable data as it makes it possible for viewers to understand that the financial crisis was anticipated by a great deal of influential individuals in the financial industry. At the same time, the way in which the film was directed triggered a sense of further inquiry (especially in cases in which the interviewee requests that, upon answering a difficult question, to turn off the camera). This technique incites even more the public and places the respondent in a poor negative light.
The main idea that the film is meant to put across is that Wall Street firms practically gambled with the money they came in control of. The government supported such behavior and provided them with the chance to reap the benefits whenever their gambling generated profits. However, they happened to lose in a series of occasions and the 2008 financial crisis is the best example concerning this issue. Congress used taxpayer's money to bail them out and the masses virtually paid for mistakes committed by these respective companies.
The shortcoming of a conspiracy theory is that the truth is never revealed and proven without any shed of a doubt. This is all the more the case with subjects that include people that still occupy high ranked positions or are not out of the public spotlight. Therefore, it is rather difficult to identify logical fallacies in such new and closed subjects. Even with the fact that there are numerous imposing individuals involved in producing evidence supporting claims made throughout the film, the fact that the individuals who were actually responsible for the financial crisis are not shown in the film makes things confusing. Jeffrey Lane's presence in the motion picture somewhat makes the film less confusing. However, the absence of top figures who were part of the director boards of companies involved in the financial crisis makes it difficult and almost impossible for someone to use the motion picture as proof that the economic crisis could be prevented.
Overall, the documentary film was an extremely appreciated and well-prepared insight on possible reason for the recent financial crisis. Even so, one must see this film as a possible explanation for the events in those years and, given that there is still limited information on what exactly happened then, and not expect that all the events presented are the absolute truth on the matter.
What is even more concerning is that the film is likely to enable many viewers to acknowledge their limited power in society. Large financial companies gamble people's money with no regard to the effects that their actions have on the world. Moreover, these entities' top management generally manages to receive little to no penalties as a result of its involvement in the disaster. This actually proves that power is everything in the contemporary society and that governments are largely powerless when considering their authority to prosecute some of the most imposing individuals in the financial system.
Works Cited
Donovan, Barna William. Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. McFarland, 2011.
Ebert, Roger. "Inside Job." Oct 13, 2010 Rogerebert blog. 16 June 2013