Rory Kennedy has followed up her searing documentary “Downfall: The Case Against Boeing” with an update, “Freefall: A Reckoning for Boeing.” The first film focused on the two 737 crashes within five months of each other, killing 346 people. The Boeing executives insisted it was not their fault but, as often happens in litigation and regulatory enforcement, they promised they were fixing whatever was wrong. She says she was “chronologically incentivized” to film and update.
In “Freefall,” Kennedy shows us the evidence that came up when whistleblowers went on the record with their concerns that the quality control that once defined the company’s reputation had been jettisoned in favor of bonus-incentivized cost-cutting.
In an interview with RogerEbert.com, she talks about what brought her back to the story, her view on re-enactment in documentaries, and how she brought cameras into an especially sensitive moment.
What happened after the first movie that brought you back to the story?
“Downfall” really focused on the 737 MAX crashes. And the two airplanes crashed within five months of each other, same kind of airplane, new aircraft. Initially, Boeing argued that it was pilot error. Ultimately, after pressure, congressional investigations, and reporters staying on them, they admitted it was the fault of the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System for flight stabilization) and the plane itself, and they took responsibility. However, they weren’t criminally held accountable. And they had been responsible for killing 346 people, and they assured the public and government and all of us that they learned their lessons and changed their ways. But pretty soon after that plane went up into the air, which is where “Downfall” ends.
And suspicious things were going on. We were reading about incident after incident in the press: engines falling off airplanes, smoke filling cabins, wheels not working. Then the Air Alaska incident happened, when a window blew out midair. Around that same time, the whistleblower, John Barnett, whom I had interviewed for “Downfall” and had a friendship with, died under suspicious circumstances while he was testifying about Boeing. Several whistleblowers were coming out in the press, but others were reaching out to me, saying, “You really need to see what’s going on inside of Boeing.”
So, at that point I went back to Netflix and Imagine, who we worked with on the first film. We huddled together, and I said that I was compelled to revisit and go back in there, and they agreed.
And so, this film is much more inside the factories, what’s happening inside of Boeing from the perspective of the whistleblowers.
You just used the words “took responsibility.” Does that mean admitting it was their fault? Or does that mean some reparations? Or does that mean taking the steps necessary to prevent it from happening again?
Legally, they admitted responsibility, but there was still pushback on criminal responsibility and on holding the CEOs and the people in charge accountable with the impact of actually going to prison. So that’s never happened. Part of the story of this film is the pressure on the families to try to compel these CEOs to actually take responsibility in a way that one would if they killed one person, let alone 346 people. That’s never happened.
I remember in 1985, after a Japan Airlines plane crashed into a mountain, the President, Yasumoto Takagi, spent months traveling across Japan to visit the homes of the victims’ families in person, offering his condolences and a formal apology. We did not see anything like that from Boeing.
Many of the families have yet to get a call directly from Boeing apologizing.
I’m sure their lawyers advise them not to do that. But yeah, as a human being, it’s horrifying to think about.
That’s what this film shows compellingly: Boeing’s continued lack of humanity in handling the MAX crashes, and its continued decision-making that prioritizes profits over safety. It’s been pointed out that they’re not making dishwashers; they’re making airplanes. So, it’s a company where we’re all invested in compliance with regulatory mandates for safety.
In both films, you show us a changeover from a quality-, reliability-, and safety-focused company to a profit-focused company. When did that change occur, and how do you see that change occurring?
We documented some choices that start with “Downfall” and continue through “Freefall.” “Downfall” goes a little deeper, back to the McDonnell Douglas merger, which was a seminal event. And the move of the headquarters from Seattle, which is where the factory was, where all these planes were being built, to Chicago, too.
“Freefall” does a deeper dive into the Jack Welch model of corporate America, prioritizing corporations and shareholder profits above all else. And the kinds of decisions that GE was making then got pulled over to Boeing.
Freefall: A Reckoning for Boeing. Cr. Maxwell ArchivesGE does make dishwashers.
And they do make dishwashers. But that company also went down. “Freefall” is not just a profile of concerns about an airplane and how it’s built and the safety protocols, but it’s also the health of this company. It has been losing more and more money because of the decisions it’s making. It’s not just about safety, although to me that’s the highest priority. It’s also about running a company as effectively as possible.
The point you’re making is that they are cutting costs in the short term but losing money in the long term. That is the fault of the way the board structures incentive compensation. As we see in your film, the CEO made more than $100 million, which is unrelated to what we would consider performance.
As one of our experts says at the end, this company is self-destructive. It’s in free fall, and yet the CEOs who have been running it are some of the wealthiest people in our country’s history.
There’s a very, very sensitive moment in this film when the Barnett family members get some really painful news, and you are in the room filming their reaction. How do you as a documentarian make them feel comfortable enough to have you there?
In the aftermath of John’s death, I was very immediately in touch with his mother and have stayed in touch with her. I also have a good relationship with his lawyers. Because I had made “Downfall,” I had a good amount of credibility for family members and whistleblowers to trust that I was going in there in a way that would represent their stories fairly. I think all of that contributed to their trust in me and their willingness to let me document very intimate moments.
How do you calibrate the kind of re-enactments you include?
I try to minimize reenactment. When you’re making a documentary, you’re always thinking “What is the visual storytelling?” I really prioritize archive research. And I have a really fantastic team who helps me do that. But there are parts of storytelling where there’s just no footage. I’m trying to make a film and a story that is, most importantly, true and at the same time try to make it, for lack of a better word, entertaining, like engaging, keeping audiences invested.
Visual storytelling, whether I’m using graphics or recreations, is an important part of helping audiences understand what’s happening. But I always try to distinguish it stylistically so audiences know what’s recreation and what is archive. I try not to mesh them and confuse people.
One of the most compelling parts of the film for me was the Senate hearing. Senator Blumenthal uses the word “preventable,” and Senator Hassan uses the word “systemic.” Both are powerful and very clear that Boeing is responsible. And yet nobody’s really done anything to make any changes. Who is in a position to address this? And how do you hope they will see this film?
Part of the story is that this is one of the all-time great companies in American history, a company that I’ve long admired. I’m rooting for Boeing, right? I want Boeing to be successful and to do what it has done historically: make some of the greatest, safest aircraft known to man.
Many people can do something. You can get a CEO in there who is an engineer and says, “We’re going to focus on excellence, and we’re going to focus on safety.” There’s a saying that a fish smells from the head, right? But from the head, you can create something good that trickles down, and you feel throughout this institution. Having a CEO and board who really prioritize that would make a world of difference. But then there’s also the Department of Justice. The previous Department of Justice had held Boeing accountable, and Boeing had agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges. Then a new administration comes in and says, “Actually, we don’t need you to plead guilty.”
Those choices affect whether a company is incentivized to do the right thing. And if you’re holding the CEOs who have killed 346 people accountable and they have to go to prison, that sends a very powerful message that any other CEO who comes into that company is going to be like, “I’m going to focus on safety because I don’t want to go to prison.” We can financially support the FAA, the regulatory agency that is responsible for enforcing safety at Boeing. Instead, a lot of FAA funding has been gutted, and its authority to oversee what’s happening at Boeing has been pulled back. There’s also a revolving-door situation where people work at the FAA, and then get hired by Boeing, and vice versa. And so, you know, they’re not fully incentivized to do the right thing.
These are choices that people in elected office are making. And so, with an election coming around the corner, it behooves people to research who they’re voting for and whether they have a record of supporting the agencies that regulate corporations.
Hence then, the article about i was compelled to revisit rory kennedy on freefall a reckoning for boeing was published today ( ) and is available on Roger Ebert ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( I Was Compelled to Revisit: Rory Kennedy on “Freefall: A Reckoning For Boeing” )
Also on site :
- This ‘Whimsical’ 100% Cotton Throw Blanket With Cottagecore Charm Is Giving Major Anthropologie Vibes for Under $20
- Rosen Law Firm Encourages Suja Life, Inc. Investors to Inquire About Securities Class Action Investigation - SUJA
- The IRS is scrutinizing how UnitedHealth moved money through foreign subsidiaries—and whether it underpaid taxes