Why is Matt Damon the narrator?

[deleted]

He was hired for his voice! that's it, that's what all narrators are hired for.
Do you think Morgan Freeman is an expert on penguins? No, yet he did a wonderful job narrating a documentary about them.


WEREWOLF
"I don't know you had him last" -Tom Servo

He has a well known and powerful voice. That's it, all that matters.

[deleted]

Because he is an actor and has an excellant narrating voice...Not everyone has the talent to be a narrator and yes talent. Proper cadence, inflection, and tone distinguish between a *beep* narrator and a good narrator. You would hire an actor for that.

I hate coconut! Not the taste, the consistency...

With the mountain of material evidence in this film, that you choose to focus on who narrated is disturbing to me.

I'm concerned that--given the serious nature of the point-blank accusations being made here--you feel strongly enough about who NARRATED the movie to take the trouble to post, but aren't interested in finding out if, in fact--as the movie purports--the banking industry knowingly and criminally brought down the economy of the world and that our government is in collusion, or at the very least, is not looking to prosecute.

To your contention that you find it hard to take the movie seriously, perhaps I can help with that: after watching this film, I did as I usually do when I see/read something clearly biased: I sought criticisms. I know that I am not an economics, finance, nor history major. There are those who are--surely there must be criticisms out there. Moreover, Charles Ferguson also made "No End In Sight," which clearly did not make GW Bush look very good, so there's potential for an agenda other than that stated with this movie. I wanted to know because these issues are very serious and, if they are portrayed accurately in the movie, can mean that the global disaster yet to come is even worse than what has already taken place; these aren't the things that get better by being ignored.

After 6 mos of 1) investigating for myself the evidence, 2) requesting criticism on economic websites where those with terminal degrees on the subject answer questions, 3) requesting the same criticisms on websites which oppose banking reform, and 4) discussing this personally with 2 economists, I can tell you that there is no criticism of the evidence presented. I found minor criticisms of things that have nothing to do with the theme--which is, of course, that our banking industry frauded us and that our government is turning a blind eye. There are ZERO criticisms of that. The criticisms I found were to do with the contention that academia could have prevented anything, regardless of whether or not they were being bought off. That's it. I also have a couple myself regarding statements made by Charles Ferguson in a Charlie Rose interview. But of the facts of the research and history??? None. Zero. In other words: it's all true.

Doesn't that bother you more than who narrated the movie?

As I read back over what I've written, I see that it can be taken in a condescending manner; I do not mean to seem condescending. You made a point you thought was valid, and I am quite seriously asking your perspective for doing so rather than figuring out if the accusations made in the movie are accurate, as that position utterly eludes me.

First of all actors are hired to do jobs all the time. 1/3 to 1/2 of the commercials are narrated by actors. That is part of what their training is not just on screen performance. 2nd his father was a stock broker so i am sure he has some knowledge on the subject. 3rd if an actor has a personal interest I see no problem with this.

I don't really understand why some people on this thread bring up Matt's income/wealth as something that would make him less credible as a narrator. He's earned his money through honest work, like most people, and is clearly knowledgable and concerned about society at large - unlike many one-percenters who choose to live in a bubble, cut off from the rest and only driven by self-interest. Whether the salaries of A list actors are too high or what Matt does with his money are different types of discussions.

The film is about structural problems in the financial sector and its ties to government, academia etc. that has made it possible for people to abuse the system out of greed and act in risky, unethical and sometimes criminal ways by defrauding people who lose their savings, retirement funds etc. In the end when the whole system has almost collapsed, and the events have led to a recession with global repercussions, most of them walk away unscathed with their riches intact while the taxpayers take the hit and the poorest suffer most. They have lost track of the notion that the financial sector should offer services, and abused it for their own greed.

The problem isn't that people can get wealthy through their work - the problem is when the constant search for bigger profit results in fraudulent and unethical behavior and the government fails to take action against this. Also, depending on your political orientation you might consider it a general problem when government policies favor the rich at the expense of the middle and working classes which increases inequality, like those of the Bush administration.