
The Wall Street Journal today raises interesting issues in revealing that documentary filmmaker Ric Burns has been quietly getting paid by Goldman Sachs to make a film about the brokerage house — with Goldman Sachs reportedly maintaining editorial control. This might well have seemed like a harmless industrial film and a way for a journalist to make some freelance income when the project began in 2007, long before the financial meltdown. Given a recent fraud investigation, the scrutiny on Goldman Sachs’ derivatives operations and the hypersensitivity to Wall Street in general, it’s a tough situation to be for a journalist to be in. Even though the film was never meant for public consumption. Burns, who with brother Ken is created the PBS series The Civil War and many other important works, was recently outspoken when Crude documentary director Joe Berlinger was ordered to turn over outtake footage to Chevron, telling The New York Times that it “contributes to a general culture of contempt for investigative journalism,” and if upheld, would amount to a “killer blow to the trust a filmmaker cultivated, deeply, over a very long period of time.” Though they never get paid enough for the hours they put in, documentary directors need to be cautious about alliances that put them in that very position.


Ric Burns is the new Leni Riefenstahl.
Sorry Ric but you’re tainted now.
Uhhh….yeah, when I read about this, my respect for Burns went out the door.
I don’t care if someone has an opinion if they’re a documentarian; but if you’re getting paid by a corporation to make a documentary about that corporation – and that corporation is Goldman Sachs – you’re officially a corporate propagandist.
I had to look up Ric’s credits on imdb just to make sure that he is someone who has something to lose. Congrats on mortgaging your integrity. Sell out.
Ric Burns the new Leni Riefenstahl??? Uh… really? Has anyone SEEN Mr. Burns’ Goldman Sachs film? Was it an in-house project for Goldman Sachs or a promotional film to be aired in public or a PBS-style history of the company? Is he even working as a ‘journalist’ in this capacity? How can anyone judge a film they haven’t seen? How do we know it isn’t critical of Goldman Sachs?
Is this different than Errol Morris doing a commercial for Citibank or Barbara Kopple directing Target commercials? Filmmakers need to pay their rent, or they can’t get their projects made. Does working for a corporation like Citibank or Target invalidate the other work these filmmakers have done or make them sellouts, too?
A whore is a whore is a whore.
Whether for Target or Goldman.
If you are a DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER then as soon as someone tells you what your editorial focus is, YOU’RE DONE.
Rick or Barbara or anyone else like this is now just a commercial whore and don’t expect me or anyone else to listen or respect your tainted “independent” viewpoint again.
I disagree.
Although most of Ric’s work has fallen into the “documentary” category, this article does not say that the film he was making for Goldman was a documentary. The “rules” would then be different. It also notes that the work was not for public consumption, therefore more of an in-house job to be used by Goldman as they saw fit, not a journalistic project in any sense at all. If Goldman was commissioning such a project, it is not out of line for them to have control of its content, just as how any company would control the “commercials” that they air on TV.
Goldman is currently held in contempt due to recent events, but this project was started prior to those recent events. In light of this, it might be that Ric would prefer not to continue work on the project, but is contractually obligated to do so.
Until you have personally viewed the content of the finished product and keep all other variables in their proper context, it is not appropriate to negatively judge this man for his work on this particular project.
First. Ric Burn’s is not a journalist. He’s a filmmaker.
Second. It’s very, very common for filmmakers to accept a commission from a corporation. Chris Guest did it for Kellogg’s (Tony the Tiger spots circa 1999/2000 – one of many examples).
Third. His comments regarding the Chevron case are not in anyway hypocritical. “Crude” is an independent documentary film. Everything he said about the case is absolutely true and absolutely unrelated to producing an in-house, commissioned promo piece.
Lastly, to the pompous commenters who proclaim to be outraged by Ric’s association with GS (especially Lytton Strachey); we’re all whores, you, me and your mother. Unfortunately everything we do lines the pockets of some pretty unlikable people. You were a whore when you went to bed last night, you were a whore when you woke up this morning, and you were a whore when you sat down at Starbuck’s to type out your self righteous drivel. Working for a living doesn’t mean you’re a sellout.
Ric has produced some of the most beautiful non-fiction, historical films that have ever been made and he will continue to that; beautifully and on his own terms with 100% of his integrity intact. If we see this thing on American Experience, then we have a problem and I’ll be the first guy to apologize to you all and then open up my veins in a warm bath. I’m confident that will never happen.
I agree with Mockumentor’s point.
How can anyone with any self respect possibly form any sort of opinion based on heresay?
This article softly implies Ric’s integrity as a journalist may be called into question due to the situation he’s found himself in. That’s it.
Since when does working for a shitty company automatically make someone guilty of their employer’s actions?
Until Ric’s work shows itself to be nothing but a glorification of everything that is Goldman Sachs, there’s no intelligent way to base a solid opinion on this man’s integrity.
Will this be entitled: “Goldman Sachs: Doing God’s Work” ?
This whole business is about selling stuff weather it’s toys, image, or popcorn, cell phones. I mean really? Who expects Ric Burns or Michael Bay, or any of us that aren’t working for 60 minutes or PBS to say no to work? Hopefully this is just some in house promo film–they’re made all the time and allow people like ric to make more of the films you’d like to see from him which by the way are paid for by companies like Philip Morris, GM, and Exxon to name a few. Does that make him guilty of contributing to Lung Cancer, Carbon pollution or exploitation of the world’s natural resources?
If we lived in a perfect world artists would be insulated from the trivial problems of paying their rent or food and could be expected to turn down support but unless Lytton Strachey wants to start cutting checks he should keep his vitriol to himself.
Is Michael Moore working on anything at the moment?, hint,hint.