Inside Job

Documentaries are always going to provoke extreme opinions. A least with me, anyway. Whether exposing an unacceptable evil like Taxi to the Dark Side or showing an eye-opening, seldom-seen world like The Blue Planet, they will usually provoke debate. And the Oscar-winning Inside Job certainly did that. I just wasn’t sure whether it was always the right sort of talk.

Directed by Charles H. Ferguson and narrated by Matt Damon, the documentary sets out to tell the story behind the western banking crisis of 2007 and the global recession that followed. Through interviews conducted with leading American financial figures, academics and other notables, it gives a first-hand account of first the Icelandic banks collapse and the domino effect that followed. The fall-out and effects are well-known, the causes ­– not so much.

Let’s get some things straight: I have never studied economics, nor do I know very much about economics, banking or even finance. And although I know that hating bankers and Wall Street or The City is very much in vogue at the moment, I tried to approach the movie with an open mind. Even so, despite not have fully comprehended every technical detail, Ferguson’s argument – his whining and irreverent, geek-Paxman questioning style aside – does seem very persuasive. You can certainly not take fault with the clarity of expression. The argument that in the past nations manufactured things to get money rather than making it from nothing (or money itself) is especially true for countries like the U.K.

However, what really prompts incredulity throughout Inside Job is not just the recklessness of banking practice, but also the seeming impunity that everyone implicated in the crash was given after the event. As of yet, there have been no criminal convictions, even though there is evidence of foul play, hookers and coke. Indeed, given the evidence that Ferguson presents, it is as much an academic problem as anything else in the U.S. For the inside job of the title refers to the Harvard and Columbia academics paid to write papers condoning the banks actions and sit on their boards, as much as it does Obama’s shameful re-appoint of leading figures such as Larry Summers.

Where the documentary does fall down somewhat is in the number of people whom are interviewed. Because the no-show of many leading figures is as hurtful to the doc as it is their already-tarnished reputations. Also, as I have said, the interviewer’s style is both annoying and unnecessary, though he is really only saying what we are thinking.

So, despite an occasionally unbearable amount of I-told-you-so self-satisfaction, the documentary is an enlightening and well-crafted one, on a necessary theme. Incidentally, I don’t think it should have won the Oscar (Restrepo should have), but I would recommend it to anyone. You will finish it indignant; and that’s a good thing.