Reflections on Wal-Mart

I must begin by admitting that I approached the video “Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price” with a critical, analytical eye. The day before watching this movie in class, I’d watched Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and, quite contrary to my first viewing of the movie in 7th grade, come out disappointed and saddened. I drew many connections between the Wal-Mart video and Fahrenheit 9/11, they are both stellar examples of polished persuasion. I cannot be as scathing about the subject of the Wal-Mart video as I am about Fahrenheit 9/11, the Wal-Mart video is definitely an improvement on Moore’s manipulation of facts and down-right lying, the Wal-Mart video does not make grandiose claims, as did Michael Moore, it is simply a collection of various interviews and video clips. I did, however, think that prior to the section on environmental hazards, the Wal-Mart video could aptly be described as a propaganda movie. The interviews were specifically selected to present a single side of the story, I have trouble believing that there was not a single good thing to say about Wal-Mart prior to the section about environmental ramifications of Wal-Mart’s products. I also noticed an abundance of American flags during the section preceding the environmental issues part, perhaps to tug at the heartstrings of patriotic Americans in defense of home-grown businesses (flowing flags outside home-businesses were in stark contrast to a twisted, tangled American flag captured in a video clip outside a Wal-Mart shop). I feel that this movie had the potential to be so much more powerful than it actually was, if the movie had included some positive aspects of Wal-Mart, anything to provide a short break from the constant barrage of dissatisfied workers and upset locals, it would give the viewer a sense that another side was at the very least presented. The style of the movie, where the viewer is constantly showed clips of complaining workers, leaves the viewer wondering whether or not there is another side to the story, for it is very hard to believe that a corporation such as wal-mart, a global economical super-power has absolutely nothing good about it (yet no such positive side was shown in the movie). One aspect of the movie that I felt really damaged the credulity of the movie was the ad hominem attacks on the family of the Wal-Mart owners. What they choose to do with their money is their business, implying that they should donate to charity is all good and well, but it is opinion-driven argument, again designed to play on emotions and tug at heartstrings. I felt that this really damaged the believability of the movie, the personal attacks on the owners of the Wal-Mart corporation. You may disagree with a person’s utilization of their finances, but ultimately what they do with their money is their choice, they are not legally obliged to donate to charity, and to include allegations of a family’s selfishness and capitalism is a very low blow, one the ultimately damages the integrity of the film-maker. There was also a section devoted to tying crime rates to Wal-Mart parking lots. I think that this section was based on rather tortuous grounds, are the owners of Wal-Mart truly to blame for this? Is a dimly lit car park not an inviting scene for criminals and thieves? If we are to blame Wal-Mart for crime rates within their parking lots, I feel that we should begin to blame city councils for crime rates within government-owned parks, surely the crime rates within parks would also drop to a very low percentile. I think that this is based on rather shaky ground, the video was blaming Wal-Mart for the criminal actions that took place within parking lots, instead of blaming the criminals and perpetrators themselves. During a sequence where the movie-maker showed us a scrolling list of crimes in Wal-Mart car parks, I noticed that some of them were not nearly as violent as the film had lead the viewer to believe, with cases such as petty theft and indecent exposure. Having said all this, I think that one part of the movie was far more effective than the rest: the environmental ramifications. This is where the movie dealt with cold, hard facts, and this is where the film was most persuasive to a logical viewer. Overall, I felt that the movie could have been far more powerful had it been changed slightly to stop it from feeling like a propaganda movie.