Must see new documentary "American Factory" now playing on Netflix

[mnhtnbb]

I just finished watching it.

You can hear Michelle and Barack Obama talking about why they chose this documentary to support in their new relationship with Netflix.

Link to tweet

At the end of the film they put up some information about the profitability status of the Chinese glass company, Fuyao Glass of America, that opened an auto glass making plant in an abandoned factory in Dayton, Ohio. And they tell you where the starting wage stands at the end of the documentary.

You will hear the stories of the Chinese workers. You will hear the stories of American employees. You will hear the story of the effort to unionize the plant. You will hear the "Chairman" of Fuyao talking about his philosophy of life.

What you won't hear or see is the current Forbes estimate that Cho Tak Wong, the Chairman of Fuyao, is worth an estimated $2.0 Billion.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/cho-tak-wong/#669235e0416c

This is a must see documentary. I will go on record predicting it will be given the Academy Award next year for Best Documentary of 2019.

[virgogal]

1. Just curious,how long is it?

[mnhtnbb]

2. Running time is 1 hour 55 minutes.

Be prepared for a feature length film. You will be glued to your seat. It's extremely well done.

[virgogal]

4. Thanks,will check it out tonight.

[underthematrix]

3. ! hour and 50 minutes

[virgogal]

5. Thanks.

[mnhtnbb]

6. It will also play in select cities nationwide.

Keep an eye out. I saw something earlier today that listed the cities (the usual, NY, Los Angeles, DC...) and when, but I can't find the specifics now for where/when that will be.

[SoCalNative]

17. Currently showing

at the Landmark Theater in West Los Angeles and seems to be playing at theaters in the Landmark chain across the country.

[underthematrix]

7. I thought it's one of the most powerful documentaries I've seen in a long time.

You should watch it at least three times because you just can't get everything with one viewing.

I had so many thoughts and questions after my three viewings.

My first thoughts focus on the scene around the opening of Fuyao in Ohio. Sen Brown's remarks included support for unions which he described as the strength of American workers and American companies. It turns out Chairman Cao of Fuyao and his team were very upset by those remarks. As a matter of fact, they said Sen Brown was banned in the future from Fuyao sites IN OHIO.

This made me wonder about the power of foreign companies setting up businesses in America. are they subject to our laws? Will they work to elect people who will overturn U.S. laws that protect our citizens?

[mnhtnbb]

8. The movie really emphasizes the clash of work cultures between China and the US.

[bigbrother05]

9. Documentary remake of the '80s Michael Keaton movie?

[mnhtnbb]

11. Gung Ho from 1986?

That's so long ago I'd have to watch it again.

[bigbrother05]

15. Saw it again recently, the storyline tracks with the documentary ouline

Culture clashes, locals hope to rescue their town, etc.

Heard the NPR story this morning.

[mnhtnbb]

19. Gung Ho is available to watch on Netflix

and Amazon. Just checked. Might be fun to watch, too.

[LisaM]

10. I refuse to subscribe to Netflix to watch things.

I'm sorry, I already pay for enough things, to make my TV-watching based on subscriptions is one step too far for me.

I'm really disappointed the Obamas chose this venue instead of something like PBS. I get that for a lot of people this is not an issue, but I don't like it (and I'm guessing Netflix is huge on demographics and metrics, too). Enough.

[mnhtnbb]

12. Check for it in a local theater. It will have a limited release.

[Revanchist]

13. So sign up for a one week free trial

Cancel before the end and it won't cost you anything. Truthfully, this will probably get more exposure on Netflix than it would on PBS. I watch more PBS docs on Netflix than on the channel because I can watch on my schedule instead of theirs.

[LisaM]

16. Nope.

I think my larger point is being missed.

I already didn't like it when they switched from analog to digital - the public owns the airwaves, but when it's digital, there are no airwaves. Streaming is one step further.

It's the principle of the thing. I hate the concept of streaming.

[BannonsLiver]

23. The switch was made because the technology improved and the picture quality is better.

If you like sports as much as you say you do you should appreciate that.

[LisaM]

25. The switch was made because the telecommunications companies wanted it.

The public ownership of the airwaves is not something they liked. Yes, of course there are more choices, but now there are places you cannot get a free signal at all, even with an antenna - I know, because after the switch, I bought a small new TV and the biggest antenna Best Buy had and took it up to the an island we go to so that I could watch a game that Saturday. I could only get three channels, and two were Chinese shopping channels from British Columbia. I called the antenna company and they checked it out for me and told me essentially that I could not pick up a free digital signal due to the geology of the area (it's basically rock face). The only way to get games we could previously get on ABC was to get a satellite dish or cable TV. So something the public used to have for free is now not available. What if I was an elderly person on a fixed income who depended on that analog channel on their old TV for weather or emergencies? I was surprised at the time how many supposedly progressive people supported the change. I thought it was a terrible thing. It was possible to pick up both analog and digital before the switch anyway.

Maybe you count that as a good change; I don't.

[BannonsLiver]

26. Well I suppose that's the Luddite POV

Others aren’t offended by progress.

[LisaM]

27. You are missing my point entirely. The airwaves are supposed to be free.

They no longer are. I don't call that progress. Something the public owns that was available to them at no charge now costs money.

That also, like it or not, informs our political dialogue. Political coverage is now all for profit. That's why the outsized coverage of Trump. News is for ratings. It used to be far more of a public service, and now it is at the whim of programmers and advertisers.

This has nothing to do with the medium - the quality of the signal. It has everything to do with the fact that now the networks need to profit from news, and it's hurt us collectively.

If it makes you feel good to call me a Luddite because I don't think that's a positive change, go on with your name calling. I believe that essential broadcast services should be free. Clearly, you like a pay model better. We just don't agree.

[BannonsLiver]

29. I think what you want is free entertainment. Doesn't always work that way.

Television, even news programs, require funds to produce. They are not produced from Monopoly money.

And tv is free, or almost free, once you obtain a very inexpensive antenna which can sometimes be had for no cost. Then you can watch all the TV you want. It’s a pretty good deal, tbh.

Or, you can stare at a snowy screen and complain bitterly about the way things used to be. Your choice.

Also, in the good old days, when the airwaves were supposedly free, and belonged to the people, was a television set required to access said airwaves? And if a television set was required did the viewer purchase that equipment or was it handed out to them for free by some third party? I must have missed that, if there was some mass free television set giveaway so the entirety of the public could access the public airwaves.

Today you need a television to access those airwaves, just as you did in the good old days when said airwaves were supposedly owned by the people. So, in effect nothing has changed which makes the point you’re trying to make all the more ridiculous.

[UniteFightBack]

30. The airwaves are still free. My aunt uses them and she gets a lot of channels with just that

antennae. Plenty of free tv right on the internet, and I'll just leave it at that.

[LisaM]

33. Yes, but it's not available everywhere.

I just gave an example where the local news stations are not available for free - even with the antenna. The digital signal can't make it through the rockface. The local broadcast stations had previously been available. Now they are not, because digital and analog signals work differently.

[BannonsLiver]

32. Another ludicrous post

“I hate the concept of streaming.”

What does that even mean? Do you hate it because you think your internet service should be free? And Netflix shouldn’t charge for a service they provide, to cover costs of programs they produce?

I’ve seen some strange pretzel logic on DU but this takes the cake. Do you even know the point you’re attempting to make? Frankly it’s indecipherable.

BTW, the internet is not the public airwaves. The infrastructure build out that got us here was paid for. Good grief.

[hunter]

18. Netflix is the only television I pay for. It's $8.99 a month.

We don't watch any other television. No cable, no satellite, no broadcast.

A single channel of Netflix works fine on our inexpensive DSL internet service.

I also like to buy DVDs in thrift stores. We occasionally rent DVDs from Redbox. Overall we're probably paying less than $20 a month for Netflix and DVDs.

Netflix is the only television we have in common with our adult children. Our children don't have traditional television in their homes either. Our oldest child doesn't even have a DVD player or remote control. They turn on the television manually and do everything else from their phones.

One of our children set us up with Netflix. That's plenty of television in our lives. We don't run out of things to watch.

We quit traditional television over ten years ago.

I think once you quit traditional television you never go back. Now I find television intolerable, especially the commercials and news talk. What they call news on television isn't. On the internet it would be called "clickbait." I've also lost any patience I might have had figuring out what time a show was on so I might record it. Even with PBS.

In a perfect world maybe we'd have universal internet access and PBS programming would be available on that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

20. I haven't had regular TV in over 11 years now.

And I can't imagine every going back. The commercials are the single worst part.

I started watching that documentary about Patrick Swayze, but gave up after a bit because every so often it was interrupted by six minutes of commercials. No thank you.

I also do Hulu and I have Amazon Prime. PBS very inconsistently allows you to stream shows.

[LisaM]

21. I watch a lot of live sports. That makes a big difference.

Lots of people aren't tuned in to football, soccer, the Olympics, softball, etc.,; I get that, but in my world sports are important, so moving to a subscription platform is not for me, and I really don't like that you have to subscribe to multiple things now to keep up with what's current. The Emmys are almost unwatchable for me now, I have so little connection to any of the shows.

I will say that while I understand the convenience of watching shows on demand (which I do for classic movies at times), is that we've lost the real-time experience of watching things together. It crates schism. One of the few shared experiences we have left in this country is the Super Bowl, and to some extent, the Olympics, and I think that the dearth of these kind of "events" causes a huge rent in the social fabric. So many people watched "Seinfeld" and would come in and chat about it the next day, so many people watched the last episode of "Friends". The first thing I remember people watching and commenting on together in real time was "Roots" - each new episode was a huge deal. There was a lot of chatter recently on peoples' memory of watching the moon landing, and how it uplifted them, how it became a point of national unity.

Again, I wish the Obamas had chosen a different platform.

[OneGrassRoot]

28. This is why...

my husband won’t dump cable - live sports. I wish there were more options for that.

[llmart]

24. Same here.

I have an indoor antenna that cost me $7 at Salvation Army. I have a Roku and subscribe to Netflix for $8.99 a month. That's plenty of TV for me also. I use the antenna for local channels so I can get local news and weather in the morning. There's plenty of stuff to watch with just those two options. Many times I still don't have enough time to catch up on all that's available to me through those two options and it's only $8.99 a month.

I just can't believe people are stupid enough to part with hundreds of dollars a month for TV. I agree with you that once you quit traditional television you don't even miss it.

[UniteFightBack]

31. Some people LIKE tv and don't appreciate being called 'stupid' to pay for a service. I tire of

this elitist attitude toward tv watching. You are not better because you don't watch TV.

[BannonsLiver]

22. It's a service, not a non-profit.

I'm not sure why someone would find that offensive. It's odd.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

14. This is next on my list after KNIGHTFALL season 2

One of the reasons I have and LOVE Netflix...excellent Documentaries.

I also recommend Ken Burns' excellent film...The Mayo Clinic. I live 3 miles away from the Mayo Clinic. One of the Doctors, now retired, who did my eye surgery in 2017, is interviewed. Another, a Neurologist, is an Alterations customer of mine as is his Pullminary specialist brother.

[Zorro]

34. Just watched this on Netflix

It is an exceptional documentary, and is sympathetic to both Chinese and American workers and even Fuyao's chairman, who is quite hostile to unions.

The scenes at the Chinese factory and at their New Year celebration are fascinating and clearly show the cultural differences with American factory workers.

The film states that up to 375 million workers will be displaced by 2030 by automation. That is a sobering realization, and is an issue that governments need to prepare for.

See it if you can. It is quite revealing.