After having seen the film then reading some of the reviews here then I think that most reviewers are completely missing the point.
Which is: How do you go about making a film/documentary funded purely by product placement without sacrificing your artistic integrity, and how far would YOU go if your idea had to be compromised by the demands of your sponsors.
(By the way, I worked in marketing for a multi-billion dollar corporation for 18 years, so I do actually know what I'm talking about) In the scene where MS is consulting his lawyer about the various demands that are being made by the sponsors, then you can see that nearly all of them are demanding the final cut (The permission to edit out what they don't like) of the film.
Another scene shows an interview with the guy who "invented" product placement and the ways that he could influence the story to exclude a scene that featured Alka-Seltzer.
So ask yourself this: Was this documentary influenced at all by the sponsors having the final cut? In the end titles it states that it wasn't, but was that just a get-out clause to protect the sponsors? Did we really see the documentary that MS meant to make or was it heavily influenced by the sponsors? So when you watch another film, then how much of that film was what the writer/director originally intended to make and how many scenes were influenced/changed/cut out completely to please the sponsors? That's the point I got from this, and to miss it is far worse than condemning the film for pointing out the obvious.
Think about it.
Cheers, Will
Which is: How do you go about making a film/documentary funded purely by product placement without sacrificing your artistic integrity, and how far would YOU go if your idea had to be compromised by the demands of your sponsors.
(By the way, I worked in marketing for a multi-billion dollar corporation for 18 years, so I do actually know what I'm talking about) In the scene where MS is consulting his lawyer about the various demands that are being made by the sponsors, then you can see that nearly all of them are demanding the final cut (The permission to edit out what they don't like) of the film.
Another scene shows an interview with the guy who "invented" product placement and the ways that he could influence the story to exclude a scene that featured Alka-Seltzer.
So ask yourself this: Was this documentary influenced at all by the sponsors having the final cut? In the end titles it states that it wasn't, but was that just a get-out clause to protect the sponsors? Did we really see the documentary that MS meant to make or was it heavily influenced by the sponsors? So when you watch another film, then how much of that film was what the writer/director originally intended to make and how many scenes were influenced/changed/cut out completely to please the sponsors? That's the point I got from this, and to miss it is far worse than condemning the film for pointing out the obvious.
Think about it.
Cheers, Will