I saw Hot Coffee at the San Francisco Film Festival last night (4/22/2011). Trial lawyer Saladoff has done well with this debut documentary feature and the case studies were presented well.
That being said, I think it needs greater balance in order to work as a serious statement. The subjects of tort reform and mandatory arbitration are her targets in directing this film. 4 cases are presented supporting her thesis that they are damaging to democracy and not supportive to the masses who are looking for accountability when treated badly by corporations.
I am not defending tort reform or mandatory arbitration because I don't know enough about the issues or the subject. After seeing this movie, I feel the same way, in fact I feel a thirst to hear from the other side as this film had me feeling manipulated by cherry picked cases and emotionalism. I don't doubt that there will sometimes be harm done to the individual by corporations but there are also "opportunistic" cases brought forth by individuals when the situation calls for it. There was no addressing this in the film and no explication of what happens to professionals such as doctors when they are, perhaps, unjustly accused by individuals.
Saladoff's claim is that the "other side's" story has been told for the past 25 years. I don't feel I know that story well enough and would have appreciated more background of why tort reform and mandatory arbitration exist in the first place and, perhaps, even a story or two where their existence may have worked in everybody's favor.
When all was said and done, the film painted a dire situation for and effectively raised strong emotion against, tort reform and mandatory arbitration. I felt a trifle manipulated in the process.
That being said, I think it needs greater balance in order to work as a serious statement. The subjects of tort reform and mandatory arbitration are her targets in directing this film. 4 cases are presented supporting her thesis that they are damaging to democracy and not supportive to the masses who are looking for accountability when treated badly by corporations.
I am not defending tort reform or mandatory arbitration because I don't know enough about the issues or the subject. After seeing this movie, I feel the same way, in fact I feel a thirst to hear from the other side as this film had me feeling manipulated by cherry picked cases and emotionalism. I don't doubt that there will sometimes be harm done to the individual by corporations but there are also "opportunistic" cases brought forth by individuals when the situation calls for it. There was no addressing this in the film and no explication of what happens to professionals such as doctors when they are, perhaps, unjustly accused by individuals.
Saladoff's claim is that the "other side's" story has been told for the past 25 years. I don't feel I know that story well enough and would have appreciated more background of why tort reform and mandatory arbitration exist in the first place and, perhaps, even a story or two where their existence may have worked in everybody's favor.
When all was said and done, the film painted a dire situation for and effectively raised strong emotion against, tort reform and mandatory arbitration. I felt a trifle manipulated in the process.
Tell Your Friends