Why is Matt Damon the narrator?

I think because he's a leftist and they all hate capitalism so they want to work together to spread the propaganda of how bad capitalism is.

The truth of course is that government causes all misery in society and this financial crash was no exception. It's all the federal reserve and gov who are to blame here.

Why would anybody exert any effort at all in complaining about the voice when that same effort could be directed at the people who are currently living in the profits of the financial crisis?

It's very well to have a faintly anti-capitalist view when it regards the top 1%, and it's all very well to shoot down the narrator of the documentary as "just as much a part of the capitalist society we live in", but if you want to pick one argument after watching this film which will have no impact on anything, it's over the fact that the guy who narrated it is famous.

Furthermore, why do we need this film to be objective? If there's one thing I love about these American powerhouse documentaries, it's that they completely lack objectivity. They tell the story from the perspective that we, the bottom 90% in this case, want to see it, deliberately criminalising those whose actions could at least be explained by crowd-theory and forcing us to be morally offended by their actions. So Sony profits from this? The media industry is not a service industry. We love having a strong media industry - without it, we couldn't be offended by the actions of greedy public servants by watching widely available and completely dis-objective mondo films such as this one.

Direct your anger towards the criminals, not the storyteller.

Maybe it's because Damon is a really smart guy that has an interest in stuff like this. The guy got into Harvard and the only reason he didn't finish was because Good Will Hunting happened "which he wrote while he was there". The guy mum is a teacher and he is clearly very smart himself. So while I can't say he is across the subject I would have to think based off interviews i have seen of him he clearly understands this sort of stuff much better then the average person, sure maybe not to the same level as someone in the industry but you have to understand having his name on it means more people will likely see it and i can tell you now he didn't get paid jack *beep* to do this.

At the conclusion of the film Matt Damon, whose punchy narrative was delivered with eloquence and passion, said: “It won’t be easy but some things are worth fighting for.” Most of us are up for the fight; the world is crying out for change. But what direction do we go?
We have the answer to this dilemma. It was bequeathed to the world by Dr. E.F. Schumacher (web site-‘practicalaction.org’) within the pages of his masterly book ‘Small is Beautiful-A study of Economics as if People Mattered’. Although it was first published in 1973 the economic, environmental and sociological problems we faced then are virtually the same now but a thousand times more acute. His book advocates: the use of ‘Wisdom’, which immediately implies that we have used our intelligence for the benefit of all; that we need to change our attitude to one that is geared to a state of permanence; that we need to embrace ‘Smallness’ and include ‘qualitative’ factors which take into account environmental issues and promotes the humanisation of work. The present Dickensian system of economics is dependent upon our lower traits and is proved no longer a viable option. To quote R. Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Dr. Schumacher stated in his book: “It will require effort of imagination and abandonment of Fear”. There are great rewards for those who are willing to relinquish responsibility. As individuals we all have a responsibility here. Kennedy said: Divided, there is little we can do. Together there is little we cannot do.” If we cannot rise to the challenge to build a fairer and more just world for all to live in, to eradicate poverty in all its forms (the Nelson Mandela legacy) and organise businesses that create wealth that is shared by all (refer to the Scott Bader Commonwealth in Schumacher’s book) then as a species we could be doomed. Materialism has no limit. It’s similar to an addiction that fails to tell you when to stop. It demands ever more growth of wealth. There is nothing to stop it. But the environment is finite-resources will run out eventually.
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world”. Mohandas (Mahatma) Ghandi
(God keep the late Sir Richard Attenborough)

So being a rich actor equals supporting the investmentbanking industry?

Why shouldn't an actor do this?
He may be part of the capitalistic system and celebrity-obessessed society, but let's say he is truly personally interested in the subject matter and wants to do something about it. Why, then, shouldn't he use his money and fame for a good cause?

[deleted]

You make an interesting point about the choice of narrator; but if you choose "someone credible in financial matters" as narrator; that might leave you open to criticism that: they are promoting their economic model, or some sort of agenda; it may leave them open to criticism that they are pointing the finger, with benefit of hindsight, and since the documentary "Inside Job" is about an alleged lack of integrity within the financial sector that they are basically sawing through the branch a lot of people are sitting on, so will be viewed as something of a troublemaker by the establishment, who currently (seven years on) insist the system is working; just send more money.
There is a simple reason to choose Matt Damon as narrator; it's because if you are trying to raise funds to make a movie (about anything) it's easier if you can say you have an established Hollywood star on board. I can't quite explain the reasoning behind "star quality"; Matt Damon didn't write the movie; he doesn't even appear in the movie. As I see it the film makers would be wise to choose Matt Damon over, say, Joseph Stiglitz simply because they will get a bigger budget. Good news though, you can already find a number of movies that are narrated by those credible in financial matters (e.g. When Bubbles Burst (2012)) only I don't think any will win an Oscar. If you win an Oscar that tends to get you a bigger budget, it's a funny old world; the movie business.
I must say that: I didn't notice Matt Damon was the narrator; I recognised the voice as familiar but I was interested in the subject matter and thought it must be a good movie to stop "Exit Through the Gift Shop" winning an Oscar. I do agree with you that the West seems rather money obsessed; that a movie star is certainly a beneficiary of the capitalist system (but the odd goings on the Western financial system might instead be called "crony capitalism"); that objectivity is difficult to achieve (particularly as rating junk bonds as AAA (blue chip) was done for subjective reasons) and I don't think I've seen a bad Matt Damon movie ... so I'd pick him as narrator every time. The fact that he is successful financially I would view as being in his favour (not that I usually consider the narrators bank balance) but if the narrator had "lost their shirt" in the 2007 credit crunch, I'd expect them to be bitter about it.
There is undoubtedly a financial aspect to making a movie (they cost a lot to make); I don't know about Sony as a distributor (they; as a private company, are in business to make profit ... that might be their sole interest; I couldn't say) but if you want this movie shown in cinemas, for longer than a weekend, you need a known distributor. I thought it was a good movie (high production values; well paced; a coherent storyline); I assume it has some truth to it, as it won an Oscar in the factual documentary section, I won't offer a mark out of ten (an educated guess, is still a guess) but I think the movie showed me one thing and, if you don't mind I'll tell you what that was.

It showed me that many of the, so called, financial experts do not understand what money is; they know how to collect it, but they seem to think it's real. Currency is just an abstract mechanism to assist the exchange of goods and services; that's all it is and if you find yourself in a desert (conventional or financial) so can't exchange it, it's worthless. The concept of using IOU's (credit default swaps) as currency is fundamentally flawed, it's really really not real; but a huge bubble was created using "credit". It seems to me that there never was any any money; it was all done on credit; bad credit as seems to be the case. Until the bad IOUs are torn up (the toxic debt) runaway interest will just consume everything. That's what I got from the movie; the belief that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of money and that the experts either don't know this or are paid enough not to care (I suspect the latter). It didn't matter who was saying it though; I prize substance over style (which is possibly why I sometimes dress like a tramp). Objectively; some bank has to go bankrupt before whole countries do.