Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de)
"No Logo" is an American 42-minute documentary short film from 2003, so this one has its 15th anniversary next year. It was made by Sut Jhally, Erin Donovan and Naomi Klein. The title already gives away what the focus is on in here, namely logos and global brands. But while it tries to be insightful and relevant, the film rarely achieves this feat. The insight it gives into the subject feels extremely basic and the simpler part like the ways in which brands and logos are used in popular television programs like Friends adds almost nothing. This is not a film that will get you interested in the subject at all. It is also not a failure like some other stuff by Jhally I've seen like the depiction of females in media, but still. As a whole, this would have needed better editing especially as there were more than just a few moments when this one felt all over the place. But this is just one of several production values where I felt this one came rather short. So overall, I give the watch and the subject the way it was presented here a thumbs-down and it is really a pity as the scene at the end with the depiction of how global companies profit from the abuse (yes you can call it that) of minimum-wage workers abroad makes clear how it is an important subject that would have deserved way better execution. It is not getting such here. Watch something else instead.
ironhorse_iv
In the social media age, branding has become just a part of life. You can't step out of your door for one day without seeing some type of logo out there. Seeing these company logos can be a bit annoying, and some of the world's best-known brand find themselves being targets of anti-corporate campaigns by activists. No Logo is a 40 minute documentary by based on the best-selling book by Canadian journalist and activist Naomi Klein, explaining the reasons behind the backlash against the increasing economic and cultural reach of multinational companies. The film analyzing how brands like Gap, Nike, and Tommy Hilfiger has became revered symbols worldwide, and became symbols of globalization. Klein argues that globalization is a process whereby corporations discovered that profits lay not in making products, but in creating branded identities people adopt in their lifestyles. The documentary seem badly cheaply made and dated, with most of the camera work film off a television set. At less, my copy was. I can barely see what is going on the screen because it was so blurry. Most of the film is just commercials or vintage news reels that the film always eat up screen time, and then cut back to an badly green screen interview with Naomi Klein. While, I agree and disagree with some of the issues, Klein does bring up some really importation information. Using many media examples, the film shows how the commercial takeover of public space, destruction of consumer choice, and replacement of real jobs with temporary work, the dynamics of corporate globalization bearing everyone, everywhere. It also draws attention to the democratic confrontation arising globally to encounter the power of brands. She brings up issues such as sweatshops in the Americas and Asia, culture jamming, corporate censorship, and reclaim the streets. Like the book, it's told in four parts, ("No Space", "No Choice", "No Jobs", and "No Logo"). One thing, I wish the movie does more is explain globalization itself. She would discuss globalization in much greater detail in her 2002 book, Fences and Windows. She does tell the goods and bad things about branding, rather than a one sided complain. I do like that she gives examples of how to reclaim democratic rights as well. Given examples of action, rather than ranting about it makes a good documentary message. Still, some of her solutions she's suggesting seem like an afterthought. Having said that, this part is the best part of the film. Is anti-market ideology wrong? Does globalism lead to some new, tough issues for global labor markets? Yes, but on the other hand there is a reason that citizens of these 3rd world countries line up to get into these awful factories. The alternative is an even lower standard of living. I do dislike WTO and IMF organizations who manipulate governments of third world countries into submission. When IMF lends money to poor countries, they make it impossible for the borrowing country to pay back the debt. They want the poor countries to remain poor. So the governments in those countries are desperate to make money. They have little or no choice when it comes to enforcing good working conditions and human rights of its own working people. Either that or the governments and politicians are bought out by IMF. Look at China as the prime example. Labor conditions there are terrible by US standards and have been for a long time. But wages are increasing and there was recently a wave of worker protests that ultimately resulted in concessions and incremental improvement in conditions. Compare the life of the average Joe in China in 1970 to present. China is booming. The Chinese worker is still getting treated better than other workers. The rest of the world is going through what we did 50-125 years ago. For our grandparents working in crappy factory jobs was the norm. Eventually, they were able to improve the conditions of their workplace and raise the general standard of living for the nation. Social prosperity without work (i.e. the economic production of goods of services of value to society) is a fairy tale. Our comfortable standard of living today is built on the sweat of our grandparents' work. It could be argued that globalization has been around for centuries in one form or another, it is just more pronounced now. The British Empire had it. The Roman Empire had it even the Egyptians. Globalization is an evolving process it is neither good nor is it evil, its effects which are a result of man's greed which is evil. This is nothing new. I agree with having fair trade but don't blame advertising for ruining the quality of our products. This is just so cynical. If you want to change the quality of products, buy fair trade goods. Yes fair trade sellers are corporations too! Even farmer's markets are turning into corporations, and if you happen to be a small business, you might find yourself turning to a bigger company. It's capitalism at its best and worst. The problem with docs like this is they paint the corporations as owning and manipulating us. We own them, and the fact that they do all this stuff just shows how desperate they are for our approval. Nobody is forcing you to buy off them. Yes, maybe they trying to manipulated subconsciously, but we still have brains. We're not brainwash. I don't even buy Nike, and I saw many commercials of it. I can care less about Nike. Yes, some people fall for the commercials and logos, but some people need to think before shopping. Get as much information about the product, then decide if it's willing to buy. This film is a bit dated, and I found it to be a bit hypocrite. Everybody has recreated themselves as their own brand. A minimalized self-brand. She's making money off of this book with a 'logo' and this film. Still, it's worth watching and worth thinking about.
Alfabeta
Now that's a sexy summary... :)If you wanted to know what's the deal with all the complaints about corporations and with the way they create global economy, this is a good place to get your basics. Famous author Naomi Klein introduces the audience to various seductive ways corporations use to sell their products and various unseductive ways they use to produce their goods as cheaply as possible. Even if you already know all this, you'll still probably learn something new during the 40 minutes of this interview.This documentary is not perfect, though. Some of her complaints are not really relevant and the solutions she's suggesting seem like an afterthought (as if she put all of her effort solely in explaining the way the business works and problems it creates). Having said that, this explanation is excellent, understandable to a common man and the best part of the documentary.If you want a quick course in big business economy, this film and Michael Moore's excellent documentary Roger & Me (1989), where he shows an example of the damage to (his) local economy that a corporation can leave once it exports its factories (and jobs) out of US, will do the job nicely.
