User reviews

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.

The documentary begins with a long shot into a little grassy area at a private members-only club where some older folk who are undoubtedly part of the moneyed elite are playing croquet. Jamie Johnson, the filmmaker, is chatting among them with a hidden microphone so the audience can hear the conversation, although the camera is several yards away behind some bushes just outside the croquet area. One of the women with a British accent chats about the croquet game and asks innocently what Johnson is doing. Then Johnson lets on he is making a documentary film about social and economic class issues. And suddenly there is an uncomfortable silence. Which speaks to an interesting unasked question about the documentary: why are the wealthy so afraid to talk about wealth and social class, lest something they don't want us to know be revealed?

Johnson begins the documentary with a basic question, the question that most wealthy people do not want to talk about. Will the growing polarization between Americans in regards to wealth, affluence, and ultimately political power, either strengthen the nation as a whole or weaken it? With camera in hand, Johnson confronts the wealthy, the poor, economists, and entrepreneurs. He also interviews members of his own family who seem strangely detached from the entire subject and are largely ambivalent about the project. The most vocal opponent of the project is not a Johnson family member per se but their family's wealth adviser. Jamie Johnson explains since this man's reason d'etre is to advise wealthy families on not only how to keep their wealth but to continually expand it, he has a self-interest in being fearful of anything questioning economic disparity, especially from one of his own clients! He essentially makes money by promoting disparity. His concern seemed almost absurd considering it's not like one documentary film will cost the 3000 to 4000 wealthiest families in American billions of dollars. But he is hired to protect that money, so by definition he must be against it.

Outside his own family, one of his first interviewees is the late Milton Friedman who advocated for lowering taxes on income and capital gains as a means to stimulate the economy under Ronald Reagan. Friedman fiercely defends his economic theories, claiming that even though the richest among the wealthy, the top 1%, has shot out of the stratosphere, it has helped the poor climb up slightly. Johnson goes on to interview other economists, such as Richard Reich, former economics adviser to Bill Clinton, who has a very different view. Reich believes the concentration of wealth at the very top could have dire consequences for ultimate instability, as manifested in Hurricane Katrina which made obvious the problems of the rich verses the poor. The rich pay less and the working middle class pays more.

Johnson goes on a tour of America. He gets into a wealth conference of the wealthiest elite of America, whose average worth is approximately $400 million. One of its directors inadvertently comes off as being quite elitist about wealth implying that redistributing any wealth through social policy, such as Medicare and social security, is inherently a bad thing. Johnson meets the founder of Kinkos and Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine. He manages interviews with two unlikely heirs who have essentially lost their inherited wealth, one the grand-daughter of Warren Buffet, and the other an heir to the Oscar Meyer company. During the course of production, the grand-daughter receives a letter from Buffet stating in no uncertain terms that she is being disinherited because of her participation in the film. (She actual works as a kind of servant to another wealthy family!) The great-grandson of Oscar Meyer actually decided to give away his inheritance, much to the astonishment of his family. He actually has the best line: "I still meet people who say it's hard to get by on $50 million."

Interestingly, a few among the wealthy, such as William Gates Senior (father of Bill Gates of Microsoft) share the view that the top 1% own too much of the assets of the entire country. But some of the most interesting interviews are with Johnson's family, whose father has reservations about the film, which did raise my eyebrow. Here's a man who has nearly never wanted in his entire life, and yet he is afraid of what might be revealed in the documentary. When he was young he helped finance a similar documentary about the poor in Africa and was reprimanded by the Johnson & Johnson CEO. It is so interesting to me that those who appear the most fearful are the ones who really have little to fear.

You have to give filmmaker and Johnson & Johnson heir Jamie Johnson a lot of credit for making a film questioning a system which has helped his family become enormously wealthy. This film, the One Percent, has created consternation inside the Johnson family, although both the father and mother seem to come to terms with it at the end. Johnson's first project, "Born Rich", was a project apparently designed as a means for the heir of one of the wealthiest corporate dynasties in America to come to terms with his own inheritance. Now, he has directed his camera more broadly toward the growing inequity of the American economic system and how it seems to unfairly favor the rich. His documentary is somewhat akin to Michael Moore's style, although he doesn't engage in the kind of publicity stunts that are the Moore trademark. The film doesn't exactly answer the self-imposed question since there are many different views about this issue, but I think the point is to open a dialog, a dialog the wealthy-elite want to avoid. Since Jamie Johnson is from this elite, he may be the only one who could facilitate this dialog. If there is one thing the documentary reveals it is this: the wealthy elite are much more fearful than I ever imagined.

I believe Jamie achieved his goal in bringing to the forefront, for the 99%, a look into the psyche of the unbelievably wealthy.

This documentary is not so much about the lifestyles of the 1% but is a look into their thought process. We see how they see themselves blessed or chosen by God to be wealthy. We see how they avoid the world outside their highly insulated circle of peers. We see how they intend to keep their empire of wealth within their families thus creating a privileged gentrified caste.

Jamie steps outside this caste and sees what his world is doing to the 99% and experiences the resentment and rejection of his own class because of his 'asking questions' and showing the wealthy for what they are. Even Warren Buffet - who Wall St prays too - is shown to be a hard shell to crack when his grand daughter talks with Jamie.

Jamie has shown us what an ivory tower the 1% has created for themselves and it's only going to get worse for the 99%.

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

I am an admirer of "Born Rich," where Mr. Johnson looked at himself and those like him from a critical perspective – unimaginably wealthy without having earned it.

The One Percent is a remarkable effort since it attempts to show how the larger community of extreme-wealth-Americans seek to both maintain and grow personal wealth and sustain their status for future generations – a De facto aristocracy. It's clear that aiming his camera at the adults is more complicated – they know how complex the issues are which surround wealth inequality. There are few easy answers.

What I love about the film is that it takes a very simple approach - Jamie Johnson doesn't question business success at all. His interest is how wealth, once acquired, is maintained within the wealthy community. This question is at the heart of the public debate about wealth inequality – why the wealthy are NOT always the so-called, "job creators." He shows that that many are in fact merely interested in maintaining their position within this informal aristocrat class.

It's not an easy job and to be frank, I wish he'd been more aggressive. But he is looking at this topic from the inside. Even with his naïveté, he still gets Milton Friedman to expose an epic flaw in reasoning – Friedman states that the social needs of ordinary Americans are perfectly represented in Washington by their elected representatives – apparently he was either oblivious or cynically ignoring the fact that the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay enormous sums for political influence on behalf of their priorities, very often at the expense of the other ninety nine percent of Americans.

I was thinking about this film for days after watching it. Highly recommended.

This was one of the films I was most looking forward to at the last Tribeca Film Festival and was sorely disappointed. Jamie Johnson's first film, "Born Rich" was an excellent documentary. That film dealt with the issue of children born into mass amounts of wealth and how they deal with it. HBO picked it up and I highly recommend it.

This film apparently attempts to deal with the disparity of wealth between the poor and the richest 1% of America and the ramifications it has on society. Johnson has a tough task, and he clearly misses the mark. To his credit, Johnson gets a great deal of access and interviews the likes of Milton Friedman, Robert Reich, Steve Forbes and Ralph Nader. Although, the star of the film is a random taxi driver from Louisiana.

Johnson certainly has a definite viewpoint on economics that lies somewhere between Nader and Marx. Now, I have no problem if he wants to make a film extolling the views of socialism (which he calls progressiveness), but his style of editing was dreadfully unfair, especially in the case of Milton Friedman. Watching Johnson argue with a Nobel Prize winner like Friedman was just awkward. Johnson comes off looking like some arrogant snot-nosed kid who just took a college course in economics and is "educating" Milton Friedman as to the reasons why trickle-down economics is wrong. Eventually, Friedman gets up and ends the interview out of exasperation. Even if you don't agree with him, Friedman deserve a level of respect.

As for other flaws, he clearly needs an editor who knows how to make a cohesive film. While, he is very good at capturing footage revealing extreme wealth and extreme poverty, the viewer is left without figuring out what his point is. It appears one of his positions is to oppose efforts to repeal the inheritance (i.e. death) tax. He also argues for campaign finance reform and higher taxes on dividend income. Again, these are all legitimate positions to have, but the film is all over the place and he comes across that he's just personally guilty to receive all this wealth by way of inheritance.

As a filmmaker, Johnson's best skill appears to be making his interview subjects (always the rich people) look inarticulate, foolish and crass: even his own father. Considering how badly the father looked in "Born Rich", I'm surprised he agreed to be filmed in the second movie. Here's a warning to his family: If he is filming anywhere near you, do NOT sign the release.)

I truly hope this film is merely a sophomore slump and his future films are better.

First of all I am not going to critique how well I think this film was made. It was an independent film and low budget, but the content was very interesting to me.

How one views this film will depend on, for one, what financial bracket they fall into and how they view money. I love the reviewer that basically said the film maker was a socialist, just like the Nobel prize winner in this film does.

I'm sorry but no matter how intelligent the Nobel prize winner is (I don't remember his name and it doesn't really matter to me) in this film, he did not seem to possess what I consider to be much more important than some great ideas. He did not seem to possess much compassion or caring for humanity in general. He seemed to be very proud of his own theories and of capitalism that is so obviously failing in America.

So perhaps I speak to the middle class or poor when I write this review, if IMDb even allows it to be posted. This is the kind of film whose time has come. Today is April 4th 2011. There is a huge gap between the rich and more importantly decision makers and the fading middle class and poor in this country. This is happening in other countries as well and of course has been happening all throughout history.

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.

The fear that the rich seem to have and the need to have more. It is crazy. It is repulsive to me. A kind of thinking I cannot understand.

All I will say is this. It is just a matter of time, in America, before enough people get fed up, and yep I am talking about the fading middle class and the poor. And if the rich think they are scared now, they have no clue what is about to come. This isn't a threat. It is just what I am pretty sure about to happen, yep, I'll say it, revolution.

The government did not respond quickly enough in LA, and creates subsidies and tariffs where none are needed - but let's give them more money?

The film maker interviews inheritors of wealth and not wealth creators and the guilt of his own inheritance is the only concrete/coherent idea in the film.

Milton Friedman asks the film maker what he has read of Milton's; the interviewer/film maker states - "the required excerpts in school"...

The filmmaker misses what may be his true goal: an understanding of why wealth creation is and should be encouraged and why disparity in wealth is a function of many economic systems - but capitalism/free markets is the only to raise the standard of living for all even with the large gaps between rich and poor.

Unfortunately - like his first film - this film comes across as an apology for inheriting wealth and the inheritor having no purpose. At least this dude made a film - but he should have heeded the family advisor's advice to "read, research, do your homework"... He did not.

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!

I have to love this documentary that is brutally honest from a capitalist point of view in what every over taxed poor person should watch and study to fully understand: As the royalty which once had their asses wiped by servants today capitalists have their lackeys who like Milton Friedman cater to their every whim whether or not those children of wealth want or desire that wealth.

The shame is that those lackeys is the rich expanse of their deceit lies and schemes on behalf of their masters as the basis of an insane society of greed not based on capitalism but based on the sophistry of sycophants and privileges for which some would sell their children and parents into slavery.

Rich slacker talking about being born rich = something he knows about.

Rich slacker talking about economics and changing the world = clueless.

Badly structured, no clear goal and boring.

He wasn't even able to ask one intelligent question to Milton Friedman because he had no clue of what liberalism is all about. He didn't have to read a book he could just have watched a couple of "Free to Choose" episodes and would understand enough to be able to have a discussion with a Nobel prize winner and one of the most important economics thinker of the 20th century.

Its sad since there is a big void for economics & wealth gap documentary.

I would like to say the Director wasn't objective, but I can't. Mostly because it's unclear as to what the Director's point is.

There are some interviews with some poor people complaining, some rich people whom have financial advisers. The Director states that the wealth gap is bad, there's an inference that perhaps rich people should pay more in taxes and that the system is corrupt. Nothing empirical is presented. There are no suggestions to solve anything. The Director sacrifices intelligent interviews with interesting people for reasons unknown.

Simply uninformative.

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 appreciate the sentiment behind making this documentary and most of the content is interesting. Props to Jamie Johnson for trying to do something about what he believes is wrong. But as a documentary, it's quite horrible: from the writing, to shooting and editing, it looks like a bad high school movie project.