While this is a well done and interesting examination of the Enron debacle, it alludes to some of the company's downfall in sweeping statements that better documentaries actually explore. Enron: The Smartest Guys in The Room doesn't take it's point of view from the book: that it was hubris and arrogance that were at fault here, rather the director places the blame squarely on the feet of capitalism and deregulation. The answer isn't more regulation. Where was the SEC while all this deception was occurring??
The theater I went to (in Los Angeles) had some guy with a clip board gathering signatures to pull what little deregulation is left here. The California "deregulation" wasn't deregulation at all, in fact, it was the worst of both worlds. The rules (signed off by both a democrat and a republican: Davis and Wilson) forced the highest bidder of the day to set the price for all energy sales, and yet still provided no accountability for the power plants. That's why when Enron called and said shut down, they said "oh okay." FYI: that doesn't happen in a real marketplace. If a trader called Sony and told them not to release any movies next month, they'd tell them to stuff it. Like most "solutions," the partial deregulation in California was begging for someone to come in and manipulate pricing and supply--but it took a company comprised of individuals who seemed to have absolutely NO moral fiber to not only do it but to squeeze it dry. Gray Davis is portrayed as a victim, he wanted the Feds to sweep in and save him when someone like Arnold would have had a bevy of analysts look at what was happening, and then taken the first plane to Houston.
The other part of the movie that other commentaries here have completely missed is that it *does* suggest the Bush's turned a blind eye to both Enron and California's difficulties for political reasons. Now, by my math, at least eight of those fifteen years of raping and pillaging a Dem was in the White House. But no mention of the fact Enron contributed to Clinton's campaign, and/or there was probably a relationship with that administration also. Does this director really think things would have been different had Gore won in 2000?
The movie is good, definitely worth seeing, but needed more of what "regulators" around Enron failed to do: look at the details. I think by doing that, it would have been more balanced, ultimately truthful and pushed itself into the category of "great."
The theater I went to (in Los Angeles) had some guy with a clip board gathering signatures to pull what little deregulation is left here. The California "deregulation" wasn't deregulation at all, in fact, it was the worst of both worlds. The rules (signed off by both a democrat and a republican: Davis and Wilson) forced the highest bidder of the day to set the price for all energy sales, and yet still provided no accountability for the power plants. That's why when Enron called and said shut down, they said "oh okay." FYI: that doesn't happen in a real marketplace. If a trader called Sony and told them not to release any movies next month, they'd tell them to stuff it. Like most "solutions," the partial deregulation in California was begging for someone to come in and manipulate pricing and supply--but it took a company comprised of individuals who seemed to have absolutely NO moral fiber to not only do it but to squeeze it dry. Gray Davis is portrayed as a victim, he wanted the Feds to sweep in and save him when someone like Arnold would have had a bevy of analysts look at what was happening, and then taken the first plane to Houston.
The other part of the movie that other commentaries here have completely missed is that it *does* suggest the Bush's turned a blind eye to both Enron and California's difficulties for political reasons. Now, by my math, at least eight of those fifteen years of raping and pillaging a Dem was in the White House. But no mention of the fact Enron contributed to Clinton's campaign, and/or there was probably a relationship with that administration also. Does this director really think things would have been different had Gore won in 2000?
The movie is good, definitely worth seeing, but needed more of what "regulators" around Enron failed to do: look at the details. I think by doing that, it would have been more balanced, ultimately truthful and pushed itself into the category of "great."