Skip to content 
Response to the Assertion on Wealth in "I am" Film
Need help with a film critique academic paper? Get high-quality, custom academic writing help from professional writers. Contact our movie review writing service.
Introduction: Reassessing Wealth Through Film
Various views on wealth acquisition evokes interests in how people treat the less endowed. This aspect is central to informing the film “I am” directed by Tom Shadyac. The film is an engaging documentary film exploring his experiences after a cycling accident in 2007 left him incapacitated. Upon recovering, Shadyac developed a new sense of approaching the world, a new sense of awakening that faulted his earlier life of excesses. The awakening prompted him to examine what ails the world and how this can be rectified.
The Director’s Awakening and the Core Message of I Am
In his quest for enlightenment, he poses two questions: “What’s wrong with our world?” and “What can we do to make it better?” A solution that the I Am film promotes is for humans to work together to assist others for greater social good as well as own health.
Idealism vs. Realism: The Flaws in Shadyac’s Anti-Wealth Stance
The ideals promoted by the film are idealistic. The director fails to recognize that the excesses in life result from success in the inherently competitive world and the positives that arise when the wealthy contributes to charity. Such gaps make it difficult to acknowledge the primary idea in the I Am film.
The Value of Wealth in a Competitive Capitalist System
The argument by the I Am film that there are those with too much fails to cover different perspectives. A primary dimension that the film fails to acknowledge is the positives that result from those having much. It is outright, even in the film, that wealth is not stuffed in dollar bills. Wealth circulates in the systems through spending and offerings by the wealthy. It is common for billionaires to run charities or offer donations to institutions, such as universities. Furthermore, it is only when people have much that they can generate jobs. Giving the wealth out, as the film does, would erode individuals’ potential to positively affect the world.
Furthermore, the pursuit to accumulate wealth results from human incentive to utilize their potential to win. The I Am film goes against such desire for success. Thus, any suggestion limiting how much one can make is highly objectionable as this would imply limiting what one can make from their sweat and brain power. The reality is that having too much is not the problem. The excess ends up either in the system or benefits the society through the job opportunities created.
Competition improves the society in general. In trying to paint an undesirable image of wealth creation in the I Am film, Shadyac tarnishes even the legal ways of wealth accumulation, which involve people providing their services and products to others in exchange for money. Limiting the wealth that an individual should pursue would equate to limiting the heights to which the entire society would be able to achieve. In aggregate, this would make the society poorer. The contribution of incentives cannot be discounted in wealth creation because it greatly matters.
Misconceptions About Wealth and Happiness
From a personal perspective, it is not possible for wealth to buy happiness. In fact, it is inherently inappropriate to link wealth with happiness. Unlike weight or height, happiness is a vague state with no relation to aspects such as wealth. Numerous concerns that hinder human happiness have no links to wealth. Even when one is wealthy, concerns are likely to exist. Even to the wealthy, happiness is not a guarantee because of uncertainty over the relationships that they develop, anxiety regarding their children, and fears of isolation.
Capitalism and Morality: Can They Coexist?
The philosophy advanced by Shadyac lobbies against capitalism, and this is contentious. The intrinsic message in the film is that people have become victims of a capitalistic society. The reality of the matter is that there are problems mentioned by the I Am film and which the modern society faces result from capitalism due to the never-ending pursuit of accumulating possessions. In the context of seeking happiness, capitalism has many flaws. Even though capitalism tends to be associated with better standards of living and education, the costs associated with it are not worth it. Capitalism fosters the illusion of greed that turns people into victims of the capitalist system. However, the flaws are solvable when morality is engrained in capitalism. This aspect is already gaining tract as the wealthy give more to charity.
The Psychology of Greed: Why Enough Is Never Enough
As Shadyac observes, it is rare for people to be aware that they have crossed over into greed. In fact, none realizes that they have more than enough. Whenever income increases, people expand their lifestyles. They inherently possess a drive that makes them think that, no matter the wealth that they amass, it is still not enough, and they need more and the cycle keeps repeating itself. This is a prerequisite for greed, but people do not recognize it because they compare themselves to individuals with more wealth than them.
Conclusion: A Balanced Perspective on Wealth and Social Responsibility
Shadyac provides an enlightening account of the underlying reasons behind the ills facing the world. It is true that having vast material wealth does not guarantee happiness, going by the manner the director was caught up in his success. He relied on this as a means to discredit the wealth accumulation tendencies common in the capitalist society.
While somewhat convincing, failure to acknowledge the reasons that have made capitalism dominant makes the message hollow and would be better if the I Am film advanced for integration of morals to the current setup rather than its overhaul to make the message more realistic.
Works Cited
‘I Am’. Dir. Tom Shadyac. Perf. Tom Shadyac. 2011. Film.
Need expert movie review writers for hire?
Need a film critique academic paper similar to the above?