The One Percent

The One Percent greatly illustrates of the effects of wealth inequality in America and how it can damage the American economy.

Unfortunately, it doesn't do this by exploring the issues in-depth and crafting a well-made film. It simply serves as an illustration of what you can do just because you were born into wealth.

Jamie Johnson behaves like a smug, entitled, self-righteous, self-centered trust fund baby. Because of his wealth and influence, he is able to get interviews with influential scholars, entrepreneurs, and advocates that may not be available to other filmmakers. Instead of being knowledgeable, doing research, and asking engaging questions, he squanders these opportunities by engaging his interviewees with the investigative fervor of a 7 year old doing a class project. Seriously, he has one go-to followup question/remark, and hardly ever explores or follows up with anything that isn't incredibly vague. If a monkey would have conducted these interviews, the film wouldn't have been markedly different.

The other half of the film is him pestering his family and personal wealth adviser and their reactions to his immature entitled behavior. Picture Jamie as a 15 year old actress barging in the room to show off her princess outfit and the amazing dance moves that she was going to do for her school play, and you get a basic idea of the family dynamic portrayed in the film.

Jamie Johnson was able to make this film through his wealth and connections to wealth, not because he could make the best documentary on the subject, but because he had the means to do so. What this unintentionally illustrates is that wealth gives you the power to do things that others can't do, or, at the very least, have to work extremely hard for.

Despite the gross incompetence, the film does deserve credit for making the point, even though it didn't make it in the way it intended to make it.

Many of the scenes in this docu are obviously staged and come off as facetious. I got a slight whiff of racism that's been swept under the carpet. The director refuses to show the white lower class,which is one way I believe the MSM use to frame wealth inequality. What about showing the white families poisoned by coal mining & fracking in PA,e obesity epidemic and the wage slavery that causes it,non-urban poor,the waste created by the amount the wealthiest 10% consume? The most pressing issue I believe he doesn't address: unemployment, which is a relatively new form of suffering. HG Wells wrote the Time Traveler in response to newly created overproduction which allowed huge masses of people to become unemployable. Mr.Johnson should read Nickle & Dimed to Death as well. I get the sense Mr.Johnson portrays wealthy people as simply the middle class with lots 'o money, the way he sets up some of the casual scenes with various advisers & family members. This is the most interesting part of the film because you get a sense of the conflict between the MSM created aesthetic portraying the wealthy as glamorous VS the film which goes out of it's way to portray individuals like Milton Friedman in casual settings. Mr. Johnson also address the media in showing the Italian count/media figure which seems to conclude that the American people demand the fetishism of wealth. It is subtle dig at Americans believe in egalitarianism by suggesting that secretly Americans dream of the old world aristocracy. In reality, the medias portrayal of wealth is a new form of propaganda,either to provide escapism,make excuses for the wealth gap, or spread the idea that eventually you too will be rich in America. I would say the biggest flaw in this docu is the refusal to address unemployment,which has largely been created by the actions of the wealthy 1%. I find the Kinkos founder mocking of Hollywoods portrayal of wealthy business to be funny because we continually see the people in this film saying that capitalism is the a flawed system but the only way to get things done, that realize people will be hurt by gentrification but they do it anyways, that the selfish drive to be wealthy is what make America successful. In doing so, they become real life caricature of the very same Hollywood villains. These people seem unmoved or oblivious to the real problems that hurt millions of people in this country like unemployment caused by cheap illegal immigrants,manufacturing bases moved to China, and the whole nations school system being stripped of funding. Their tactics to excuse the reality they play a major part in shaping is: 1. Look at those very very poor -black- people in Africs or inner-city America, 2. Well,capitalism is the only system this raises the wealth of all classes, and 3. Attempts to manipulate our common interest in providing for our families by attempting to show the hoarding of wealth by the 1% families as simply providing for their kids futures as opposed to what it truly is: the accumulation and holding of power, which by it's very nature nepotism and evil. Finally we see underlying racism in the film by it's subtitling of Jamican farmers whose accent is clearly audible(an insidious and underhanded tactic used by Mr.Johnson which would make Goebbels proud),the police officer pausing before describing the sugar can workers as "ethnic, very ethnic"(was really about to use the n word),the officers description of the poor worker community as being talented in spite of it as it has produced several football players(the subtext: all an AA is good for is sports), and the Kinkos founder's description of black and white to be a fitting color combo for a bum to be wearing. In light of the increasing xenophobia in America, I find the underlying racism,which maybe the filmmaker didn't even notice(though I doubt it as if he did and found it repulsive he would have commented on it in the narration) to be disturbing. It seems that racism could be a natural response to a class system which treats black workers & their kids like dirt,as to care for these people would undermine the entire structure of capitalism, To sum it up: Mr.Johnson has unintentionally made a film that helps portray the wealthy as similar to the fascist ghosts in The Shining....

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." Ronald Reagan

Interesting sidelight on the wealth-gap, but no fresh insights.

Young Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune is clearly feeling uncomfortable in his skin, and the film mostly reflects his own strongly-personalised reaction in the form of unfocused goodwill towards the massed ranks that he sees as victims of the system.

We may remember Scott Fitzgerald noting that 'the rich are different from you and me'. Some of them certainly are. With his highly-placed contacts, Jamie is able to gatecrash an exclusive wealth-management conference whose host actually brags about his skill at keeping out gatecrashers!

Oddest of all is Jamie's father, who had once made an anti-apartheid film about the firm's employment practices in South Africa - a bit too close to home for some of the family, who silenced him, and apparently neutered him, he has so little to say for himself.

Another tycoon's grandson has decided to give away half his fortune to charity, and I can only think of a thousand chuckling villains hiding behind the dazzling raiment of non-profit and pro bono. (More surprisingly, Warren Buffett, who ought to know better, is planning the same thing.) And Nobel-Prizewinning economist Milton Friedman gets so incensed at Jamie's ludicrous claim that he "certainly wouldn't advocate socialism" that he throws him out.

Quite a few blacks, representing the underclass, are asked for their views, but no great nuggets of wisdom are forthcoming. A jolly cab-driver declares that his family is rich in kindness, if not money. An appealing philosophy, but cab-drivers' wisdom is not something you can re-build the world on. South Chicagoans don't like the new gentrification that may drive them out. But at that rate, Wall Street would still be an Indian settlement. However, the Hurricane Katrina story could be interpreted as a trigger for revolution, with New Orleans' poorest being left to their own devices, though it was only the staggering inadequacy of Bush Junior, rather than any genocidal policy, that led to this outrage.

One interesting theme is fear. Buffett's grand-daughter believes that the more obsessive cases of greed are often rooted in fear of losing it all and sliding back to one's humble beginnings. To me that sounds more like the old self-made tycoons, who hated to part with a dime, than with the fourth or fifth generationers we see here.

"Have a little bit of guilt. And a little bit of pride." says one big inheritor, probably trying to make himself feel better.

I'd say adopt the second statement, and ditch the first.

I think this should be shown in every school in America. The People need to take back control of our country. If our country right now was a Corporation The President would be the CEO (Spokesperson, Public Figure, Not much Control) The Bankers are the "Board of Directors" And the top 1% are the shareholders. This is not what our founding fathers intended. In the original structure of America, the President was the CEO, Congress was the board of directors, and the PEOPLE were the shareholders. I only hope our next generation can put a stop to this oligarchy! And Milton Friedman was an ignorant S.O.B. and I hope he's burning in Hell!

Well, Jamie Johnson might not come across as a great intellect in the film ... but you have to respect his efforts. His confrontational perseverance in discussing uncomfortable topics with wealthy Americans is both informative and thought-provoking.

Basically Johnson, a member of the wealthy family of Johnson & Johnson fame, uses his knowledge and connections to interview some of the wealthiest members of society ... and their advisers. The results are sometimes embarrassing to watch!

The basic essence of his questions relate to a comment he makes early on:

"I'm a lucky guy ... we're part of a small number of American families that own most of the country's wealth. But, having so much in the hands of so few can't be good for America."

Most of the people interviewed clearly aren't skilled at answering these types of questions. They don't come across as "bad" or unlikeable - but more as average people who are simply looking to protect the great wealth they've inherited.

For giving viewers a frank glimpse of who these people are ... and are not, I applaud Johnson. I'm pretty sure that none of the people he interviewed will ever forget how inept they seemed at the issues he confronted them with.

As for Johnson ... well, he really needs to fix that strong lisp he has if he wants to add credibility as a narrator. He also flounders a bit here and there on film ... but so what? It's clear he is focused in what he's trying to do and is thinking deeply about the issues - far more so than those he interviews.

If you want a peek at how the wealthiest Americans think about their situations - this is a must-see. It's a great opportunity to see things from an insider's perspective.