Strong Response: Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a documentary based on the bestselling book, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron. The book was written by Bethany Mclean and Peter Elkind, and they both provide insight into the figures behind the scandal and the events that took place around the rise and fall of Enron. Additionally, they provide a sense of narration and continuity to the film filling in between interviews with Enron insiders. The movie is organized around a series of sections much like a novel with titles such as the first and last sections: “Kenny Boy” and “It Was a Wonderful Life.” Only two of the section titles were actually taken from the book: “Guys with Spikes” and “Ask Why, Asshole.” The documentary begins by establishing that it will focus on the people of the company rather than just the numbers. This approach is expressed by one of the authors of the book, Mclean. They argue that behind the scandal these were “just people.” The first two sections of the documentary focus on the two key figures behind the scandal: Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. The documentary also presents information about other executives in the third section particularly Lou Pai, CEO for Enron Energy Services (EES). However, the majority of the film focuses on Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andy Fastow, CFO of Enron. Sections four through six focus on how the stock analysts and the bull market contributed to the rise of Enron. Section seven is about the CFO, Andy Fastow, and his fraudulent business dealings between Enron and the company he was a partner of, LJM to cover up the massive debt that Enron had accrued. This section leads into the eighth section addressing the fact that part of the reason the Enron scandal was allowed to occur was because there were no checks and balances on them. The accountants, Arthur Andersen, lawyers, Vincent & Elkins, and financial institutions, which included J.P Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Merill Lynch were all basically knowing participants in fraud. Section nine kicks off the fall of Enron with the failure of their broadband venture and the rolling blackouts that occurred during deregulation in California. The last three sections chronicle the fall of Enron. Finally, the documentary ends with comments from several people interviewed in the film about the greed and lack of questioning methods and fraud that contributed to Enron.

The approach to covering this scandal is unique and definitely helpful when appealing to a mass audience. Alex Gibney opens the scandal up to people without knowledge of business and stock trading. It provides enough information and history about the company and executives to give the audience a basis to understand the scandal. Additionally, the structure kept the film interesting and also easy for the audience to follow and comprehend events while they placed them within a larger framework. Interviews with former Enron employees provided firsthand experience that included both factual information but also the emotional and personal experiences that they saw as the company progressed. They begin very early in the film promoting a look beyond just the numbers of the corporation and scandal to the people involved, because they claim that “they were just people.” Although the limited scope of the film and concentration on a few key figures inside Enron can be criticized, this documentary was accessible and provided additional information about the history of the company and business practices that the general public would typically not have access to. This film provides a more complicated and also enlightening approach to the topic than most of the audience probably would have considered before. It also provides a useful lesson and warning about the ease with which a corporation can slide into illegal and unethical practices in their quest for increasing profits.

Most criticism of this film is mostly due to time constraints and the limited knowledge that a mass audience can bring to the film. The book was probably able to provide more information and insight as well as look at more figures and events surrounding Enron due to the nature of the media. The filmmakers made excellent choices choosing topics and figures to focus on in the film especially to reach the widest audience possible and provide the most information and richest view. However, there were some topics left unexplored that perhaps would have explained many of the questions surrounding the scandal. Gibney provided a greater context outside of Enron and its executives that helped contribute to the scandal, which many people would probably not consider. Blame is not strictly limited to the company and the fraud that was committed on the inside; however, the film mostly just begins to lay blame on outside financial institutions and stock analysts. Although, many of the analysts admit in the film to realizing how Enron was able to rise without any actual evidence of profits and then suddenly fall, I think the film would have benefited by focusing on this message more. The film mentions the involvement of banks in fraudulent business dealings, but they lack the elaboration on this point that they demonstrate with the analysts. Perhaps it was easier to gain access to stock analysts and traders, but the actual actions of the banks seemed to be downplayed. Additionally, the focus on the three main figures, Lay, Skilling, and Fastow, seemed to detract from the message that this event occurred within a larger economic and political system. The film seems to demonize these men as unethical people that did not care about the law or their own employees. However, the audience does not get the same sense of evil with the banks and other figures involved with the scandal even though it seems that their actions and motivations were quite similar.

The biggest criticism of the film would be that it does not provide many solutions to the problems. It falls short by focusing on laying the framework and history of illegal and unethical practices. The audience is left asking: how can we keep from allowing this to happen again? Many of the people blamed in the film are still working and probably acting in the same way they did when they were involved in Enron. Obviously, the major players in Enron and Arthur Andersen have been disciplined. However, many of the traders that worked for Enron were featured in what could be described as horrifying audio involving the blackouts in California. It seems as though perhaps the biggest message of the film is almost a useless one. They seem to be attack the basic system of business and free markets in America, but they do not provide a lot of answers about how the situation can be remedied.

The film does take a moralistic view and at times it seems to preach against the greed and lack of protection that exists in free market systems. However, this view may be justified, because as this film points out, Enron was not an isolated incident involving a few greedy corporate executives. People outside of the company had to be involved for Enron to be allowed to act as they did. This documentary in the end does more than document the rise and fall of Enron. It exposes the flaws in the economic and political system that need to be remedied to prevent a future tragedy.

Strong Response (Rough Draft): Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a documentary based on the bestselling book, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron. The book was written by Bethany Mclean, who basically started asking questions about Enron, and she is also featured in the movie giving commentary and discussing her own involvement in uncovering the scandal. The movie begins by chronicling the rise of Enron as a corporation, and it provides the audience with a look into the beginning of unethical and illegal business practices from the very beginning. It also begins by establishing that the documentary will focus on the people of the company rather than just the numbers behind the fraud and downfall of the company. They argue that behind the scandal these were “just people.”

The approach to covering this scandal is unique and definitely helpful when appealing to a mass audience. Alex Gibney opens the scandal up to people without knowledge of business and stock trading. It provides enough information and history about the company and executives to give the audience a basis to understand the scandal that followed. The audience is provided with background information about Ken Lay, and his influence pushing for deregulation of the natural gas industry. Much of the film focuses on the build up and groundwork that leads up to Enron’s fall, and their desperate attempts to salvage bad business deals, poor risk taking, and portray a company with big profits to encourage their stock to continue to climb. It provides the audience with a rich and complex blend of information about basically what Enron did that many outside of the natural gas industries would most likely not have available to them or be able to understand.

A criticism that I would raise about the documentary would be about their basic theme that they begin the movie on: “They were just people.” It is advantageous in appealing to a mass audience, and even perhaps a unique and interesting perspective to focus on the people behind the scandal rather than the finances and numbers. However, I think they limit their perspective and at times take a silly direction. I also believe that they take the easy route and much of what we have heard before in the mass media by demonizing the executives of Enron. I agree that what they did was unethical and illegal, but it’s a story we have already heard play out in the media. Portions of the initial parts of the film just sort of seem like a silly attack on the executives like Lou Pai’s love of strippers. It just seems sort of like the sensational media coverage that typically distracts the public from the facts.

I think a more interesting perspective, and something that has not been previously approached would be to look outside of the hand full of Enron executives. Ken Lay is even feature in the documentary saying that at Enron they are encouraged to always ask why, but the blame is taken off of the lower level workers, and the attack on the executives is continued from the basic media. I think it would be much more interesting and enlightening to examine the circumstances under which all of this happened. Gibney attempts to depict a company that was slowly and continually allowed to take risks and commit fraud before eventually it became so enormous that everything came crumbling down around them. However, it always comes back to the key figures that I think have already been overexposed in previous articles.

Movie Review: Man of the Year

Man of the Year is about a TV talk-show host, Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams), who decides to run as an independent candidate for president after an audience member suggests this to him. Another sub-plot develops, which involves the electronic voting system approved for the election. Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) works for the company that has the contract to develop these machines, Delacroy Systems. She realizes there is a glitch in the system just weeks away from the election. She attempts to warn the company; however, the company head and his legal advisor drug her and fire her in an attempt to keep her quiet about the problem. Dobbs hits the campaign trail with an open and no-nonsense campaign, and eventually, gains popularity and coverage after he steals the show at the presidential candidate debate. He is aided on the campaign trail by his manager Jack Menken (Christopher Walken) and the head writer from his talk-show, Eddie Langston (Lewis Black). Dobbs takes the election and becomes the president elect. This is when Green goes to Washington to try to get in contact with Dobbs so that she can tell him he won through a glitch in the system. Green gets close to Dobbs, and eventually she tells him that he should not have actually won the presidential election. Delacroy releases information to the media to discredit her story, and they also send men to kill her. Eventually, Dobbs tells America the truth: that the election was a fraud, and he is stepping down to return to his show.

The strength of this movie lies in the independent perspective it takes to the American political system. The filmmakers decide not to take a strictly conservative or liberal position, and during the movie, Dobbs does not take a strong stance on any specific political issues. Instead, this movie examines the corruption and apathy that surrounds American politics today. It is refreshing to see a movie that does not hold back from attacking both sides, Republicans and Democrats. A message that Williams’ character, Dobbs, tries to get across during his campaign is just that people are sick of the options they have in politics today, and that they just want another option or something fresh. Another strength of this movie was the occasional political rant or joke by Williams, and the endearing but oddball manager played by Walken.

Unfortunately as this movie progressed, it seemed as though the filmmakers simply took on more ideas and messages than could be clearly conveyed. The idea of election fraud and malfunctioning electronic voting systems distracted and confused the audience. That sub-plot is even more unbearable, because of the character of Eleanor Green. Honestly, all I can say about Eleanor Green is just that she was too much. If they were going for a woman, who had just gone through too much and was at her wit’s end, then I think Laura Linney did an excellent job of portraying her. However, the scenes between Dobbs and Green where she was trying to reveal the truth to him were painful to watch, and I believe it detracted from both humor in the movie and any seriousness the film could contain. They went too far with the corporate corruption and one woman’s mission to reveal the truth in the sub-plot to make it very credible, and I think they lost the audience when they went off on that tangent.

Man of the Year seems like a movie that started with the best of intentions, but eventually progresses into a mess of messages about political corruption and election fraud with elements of a comedy, political thriller, and romance. It would have been best if the filmmaker could have stuck with one topic or issue and focused on that rather than throwing the whole mess at the audience to sort out. The audience is left confused with a mess of genre expectations to sort out with occasional comic relief. For those expecting a comedy, this movie delivers a few minutes interrupted by large sections of an unbelievable and confused plot. The few laughs you can get out of this movie are not worth the nearly two hour mess you have to sit through to get to them.

Letter to the Editor: “The fight for The Woodlands”

The article, “The fight for the Woodlands,” presented the impending issue of annexation of the Woodlands into Houston that is a possibility by 2011. Some basic information about the Woodlands was given. The Woodlands is approximately 25 miles away from Houston with a population of 84,850 people. The annexation of Clear Lake in 1977 and Kingwood in 1996 are also discussed. Basically, the Woodlands has several options for fighting the possible annexation but much of the final decision rests either in the state legislature, or by Houston itself. The two most realistic options are: incorporate as a city, or form a public service district. Houston cannot begin the annexation of the Woodlands until 2011 due to a deal they made with their municipal utility district, and then they would be required under Texas law to provide the Woodlands with a plan that the services they would provide would be equal to their current services. The entire process would take about three years. This requirement was added to Texas law with other legislation after Kingwood residents appealed to the state legislature about the laws that allowed cities to annex surrounding areas without their own say in the matter.

This article seems to paint the Woodlands and other annexed areas as victims that were engulfed by the city of Houston. At one point in the article, one of the members of the Woodlands community association offers a dissenting opinion. He believes that annexation would be good for the Woodlands and provide them with opportunities and greater public services than they already have. He also suggests that residents will have a greater opportunity to participate in politics, and they will gain infrastructure like courts and other government buildings and departments. Even in the issue of annexation it seems that just a few people on the community association and the developers are deciding how the community will proceed. It seems as that this article paints the picture that residents need to fight against the city, and that annexation will only bring a decline in the services and way the city is run.

Additionally, the Woodlands has already and will continue to benefit from infrastructure and services the city of Houston provides regardless of whether they are annexed or not. The article points out that the Woodlands has grown and businesses their have been successful due to the airports, highways, and the Port of Houston. The Woodlands is a suburban community of Houston and many of the residents there commute in and out of the city for work. Basically, the Woodlands would not exist of the city of Houston was not here and did not contribute to the survival and economic success of the community.

The biggest issue that concerns me is the actual Texas law. It is difficult to change the laws or appeal to the legislature about these issues, because they only meet once every two years, and annexation usually occurs fairly quickly. Also, the Woodlands currently lies close enough to Houston’s borders that they actually require the city’s approval in order to be able to incorporate into their own city. It seems as if basically the community is not able to make an individual choice to provide their own government, infrastructure, and utilities. Even if they come up with their own plan, and they pass a vote to incorporate into their own city, this can still be rejected, and they can be annexed into the city of Houston. Texas law does not restrict cities enough, and it also does not leave outside communities with many options outside of being annexed. The only thing that has restricted other cities in Texas from expanding as much as Houston through annexation has been surrounding communities racing toward their own incorporation. I believe that communities in Texas would benefit from laws that added additional restrictions to the process cities must go through to expand through annexation. The Woodlands is large enough and also far enough away from Houston that it would probably be best if they were allowed to incorporate into their own city.

Reading Rhetorically: “On Teenagers and Tattoos”

“With the Grain”

Martin introduces the concept of tattoos and suggests that they are widely accepted across American society. He also discusses the permanence of tattoos, and he asserts that this permanence can help adolescents gain a sense of identity that might explain their appeal to them. Martin then gives greater insight into his motivation for writing this article by suggesting that adolescents and their parents often have conflicting ideas about tattoos, and that it is important for psychiatrists to be able to understand some of the motivation behind why teenagers get tattoos. His first suggestion is that tattoos give teenagers a way to develop their own identity and convey it to outsiders. He also suggests that tattoos are a way for them to memorialize events or people in their lives, and it allows them to incorporate these events into their identity as a whole. Finally he suggests that in our society people are looking for something that is more permanent and will stay with them even as they move about and things change. Martin reiterates his main point and purpose in the article by suggesting that tattoos can be understood as something that contributes to the identity of adolescents rather than just something to argue over with authority figures or following a fad.

“Against the Grain”

When Martin begins by discussing the sense of identity that tattoos can give teenagers, it brings up the subject of changing identities and roles that teenagers often go through. How could tattoos possibly fit into these changing identities both positively and negatively? The permanence of these tattoos at such a young age may not just have a grounding effect or give the teenagers a sense of identity. Negative psychological and emotional consequences may result later in life. Perhaps parents are justified in having some conflict with their teenagers over tattoos. Trying to be disagreeable with their parents may not be the primary motivator behind a teenager getting a tattoo, and Martin helps to explain other reasons that may have not been previously considered by psychiatrists when seeing teenage clients with tattoos. However, perhaps it is reasonable for parents to disagree with what their children are doing to their bodies. It may be true in some cases that teenagers do not fully think about or understand what they are doing, and they may in fact be engaging in dangerous self-mutilation with some of the self-made tattoos. Martin suggests that tattoos are a way for teenagers to gain a sense of identity; however it seems that there are other ways that identity could be explored and expressed. I would like to see a discussion of other perhaps less permanent ways teenagers can express themselves. Martin portrays teenagers as if they are constantly being influenced by forces outside of their control, but I think that perhaps this is an exaggeration of what the typical teenage experience. It seems that Martin’s three arguments about the benefits teenagers can gain from tattoos could be bolstered by empirical evidence. As they stand now, it seems that other suggestions for additional activities outside tattoos could be suggested except perhaps the permanence that tattoos provide. However, there are negative consequences to the permanence that he does not discuss.