Student1

Student at Cleveland State Fall 2015

Ms. Spagnuolo
English 101
October 28 2015
The One Percent Critic
According to recent article on Huffington post, the 80 wealthiest people in the world
possess $1.9 trillion, which is almost the same amount shared by some 3.5 billion people at the
bottom half of the world's income scale.. Back in 2006, Jamie Johnson, the heir and family
member of the billion dollar corporation Johnson & Johnson, directed in a documentary called,
The One Percent that called out the extreme rich from an inside perspective. Using his family
name, Johnson was able to talk to successful economists and the very wealthy about the
tremendous wealth gap and the dangers associated with this. Throughout the film, viewers
experienced the taboo feeling associated with Johnson questioning the rich about their extreme
wealth and the contrasting opinions with that of the poor. It also made clear that the families of
those interviewed in the film were not pleased with these questions being asked, and that the rich
choose to outright ignore or justify their wealth with Johnson in different ways such as the
trickle-down method.
Johnson argues throughout the film that the amount of wealth in the hands of so few people
is dangerous, is used to control politics, and does not stimulate commerce in the poor. Through
interviews with people such as Milton Friedman, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic
Sciences recipient, viewers are able to see the logic behind the views of the extremely wealthy
and the methods they believe to be correct in running a free-market society. In contrast, Johnson
speaks with outcasts of society, the very poor, that were and are still being displaced by the

Student2
wealthy through a variety of legal actions and economic strategies. The final point of the film is
based on Jaime Johnsons immediate family, in order to show that the wealthy who do work for
these companies may be bullied into conforming to societys economic wealth gap through fear.
The documentary uses a variety of rhetorical methods to get the main points across, such as
emotion, logic, and credibility. Johnsons style and the informal tone of the documentary also
play a large role in the effectiveness of getting his main points across. Imbd, the highly credible
online movie review website gave the film a 6.9 out of 10. Although some may not have agreed
with all the points Johnson argued in the film, the excellent way in which the documentary was
done backed up and proved Johnsons point and made it difficult to argue with. Through his use
of personal interviews, showing the extreme contrast of rich and poor, and backing up his
argument through various rhetorical methods, Johnson executed a very well done documentary
on the dangers of the wealth gap.
Being born to one of richest families in the United States, Johnson was able to meet with
very influential people, this is important for the success of the documentary because it allowed
not only the viewer to see an inside perspective from the poor but also questioned the rich on
their beliefs. He spoke with Milton Friedman, who is associated with the theory of trickle down
economics, which some consider to be a leading cause of the increasing wealth gap. The trickle
down method is a system in which money is pumped into the higher wealth class that will later
produce commerce in the classes below it. Johnson uses the rhetorical strategy of logic to
denounce Friedmans long-standing credibility. By challenging the ideals of Friedman with facts
on the increasing wealth gap, Johnson is able to efficiently prove to the viewer that Friedmans
views may be incorrect. By also showing Friedmans annoyance with Johnsons questions, he
emphasizes his point that the wealthy choose to ignore the poor and deny responsibility.

Student3
Johnson uses his family name to talk to many other people throughout the film,
including Steve Forbes, Greg Schell, and Roy Martin, and to ask them questions based on their
careers. I believe he argued his point without portraying these people as something that they are
not. However, In a critique by Paula Pant in March of 2012, She believes differently and states,
The movie is pure punditry. The quotes are cherry-picked to cast the wealthy in the
worst possible light. Johnson seems to be more interested in reinforcing his audiences
ideas than he is in authentically exploring a complex issue. Punditry, of course, exists
on

both sides of the fence. Regardless of which side it supports (as if complex

economic

theories could be boiled down to two sides.) (affordanything.com)

The documentary is obviously one sided but is based on the perspective of someone from the one
percent and that is why this film is so thought-provoking. No, Johnson did not ask the most
provoking questions he could have, but he did manage to get 2.6 million people to watch the
documentary on Youtube, which is a large accomplishment in itself. As username eveu stated on
IMBd, This movie is more than a rich kids guilt trip. It is his acknowledgement that something
is wrong. He doesn't feel right about it and is trying to do something about it despite how much it
might shake things up. The family image. The images of other families. (IMDd) Nicole Buffet,
the granddaughter of investor Warren Buffett, was one of the many interviewed. She lives her
life as a painter and nannies for a wealthy family. After her first appearance on the film, her
grandfather that she was once very close with, cut ties with her. I see this as an example of how
Pant is wrong in her critique; Johnson didn't portray the rich as heartless and insensitive to the
poor. They did that themselves.
Roy Martin, the president of Martin Lumber Co., I believe is perhaps the most thoughtprovoking out of the people interviewed. This man, humble and rich, preached to Johnson

Student4
about how he provides good work and religion to his workers. Not only does he provide
televisions that broadcast only bible quotes, but he portrays to Johnson that religion is the basis
of his company. However, this is a cult action by not allowing the freedom of religion in his
company. Martin violates the government dogma of separation of church and state and then
backs up his thoughts on his excessive wealth by stating that he is doing Gods work by being
rich, which is again another flimsy excuse for the increasingly large wealth gap.
Later on in the movie, Johnson calls out the city of Chicago and contrasts the slums and
pent houses to emphasize the effect that progress has on the poor in a city. In the slums of
Chicago, the city is getting a facelift with new and expensive condos opening up and multimillion dollar businesses opening up shop right in the middle of the poorest sections. Although
most may assume this is good for the people of the city and this new growth will provide
opportunities for growth and expansion, it does not provide this for the people that are being
forced out of the disappearing slums and forced to be outcasts of society. Johnson shows the
two extremes in the ghettos of Chicago, one being the rich condo owner who recently purchased
his building on a whim, and the other being a poor African-American man whos apartment
doesnt even have working mail boxes. Johnson not only uses emotion to successfully get his
point across of the dangers of gentrification, but also logic by pointing out the methods that
companies use to prey on the poor and discard them because it is easier than helping the poor.
Although the government of the United States has grown tremendously from the 1950s,
there are still discrepancies that have helped create tremendous wealth for few and many
hardships for thousands. Johnson explains the governments policy on sugar and why sugar in
the United States is so much higher than from around the world. He also inserts clips talking
about how the United States illegally brings in cheap laborers and that safety standards are not

Student5
met on these plantations and factories. There are also massive minimum mage violations
including paying under the minimum wage and not paying their workers at all. When Johnson
speaks to these workers, it is obvious they are uneducated and after various lawsuits the owners
mechanized their sugar production. This caused the illegally immigrated workers to be out of a
job and to have very little opportunity due to their low levels of education. The officer that drove
Johnson to this town stated that their was plenty of potential there, and yet he only named
athletic opportunities. By seeing this disparity and the causality that the rich are having one
cannot watch without wondering if the rich have a heart or if they truly understand what they are
inflicting onto the less fortunate. This portion of the movie is thought provoking and emotionally
stirring as one watches the extreme poor that happens to be next to one of the richest cities in
America, Palm Beach.
In conclusion, Johnson is able to effectively get his point across of the dangers that putting
so much power in the hands of so few through various rhetorical strategies and through his use of
style and tone. Through his use of personal interviews, showing extreme contrast of rich and
poor, and backing up his argument through various rhetorical methods, Johnson executed a very
well done documentary on the dangers of the wealth gap. The rich shown throughout the film
including Friedman and Martin show how skewed the views of wealth are in the ones that are
holding it and how change needs to occur. If change does not occur, the poor will become
outcasts of society because it is the easiest method of disposing of the poor for the one percent.
Although some may not have agreed with the ways in which Johnson has argued in the film, the
way in which the documentary was done to grab the audiences attention excellently backed up
and proved Johnsons point and made it difficult to argue with.

Student6
work cited

"Movie Review: The One Percent, a Documentary." Afford Anything. N.p.,

09 Mar. 2012.

Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

"The One Percent." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Walker, Jade. "Richest 1 Percent To Own More Than Half Of The World's
Wealth By

2016, Oxfam Finds." The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 06 Nov.

2015.