The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

110 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• June 25, 2009 by Eddie Webb

  Why didn't he call Dr. Reid out?! She is just going to be invited back to steal again!

  Reply

  • November 29, 2009 by joan c. williams

    I dated a recovering drug addict for 3 yrs;he smiles,is entertaining,dresses well; conversely he keeps a 'nasty' efficiency apt.,goes dancing (solo) at any oppor-

    Reply

  • May 10, 2010 by Jennifer Turner

    I loved it! Right way to do things. It makes you think, you never know who's watching you! Everyone win's!

    Reply

• June 25, 2009 by Karen Maude

  The production of this video was very good, but, the "responsibility" theme initially marketed was very, very good and got everyone's attention with the woman's soft voice and "help your neighbor" approach. I've seen a few ads of this new campaign and think they are too serious. People know the difference between doing the right and wrong thing. What the first campaign captured was more of "help thy neighbor" which I believe is what this world needs more of these days. Sorry, I just think this is too serious and people already know what the right thing to do is. People have to make the right choices and that is up to the person individually.

  Reply

  • June 25, 2009 by Jeff Walker

    Karen, I agree with you - but only to an extent. Your remark that "People have to make the right choices and that is up to the person individually" leaves out important ethical choice variables. For instance, sometimes people do not have the capacity to "make the right choices"; if the woman who took the clock is a kleptomaniac, for example, then her mental capability hinders her from doing what is virtuous or responsible. This does not free her from seeking help, but perhaps she's not at that point yet. (And if the young man had not been so brusque, perhaps he could have helped a bit.) Even if this film does not intend to demonstrate the power of addiction, it still remains specious to claim that people always know what the ethical action is in a given situation. We all view the world from different viewpoints, and those viewpoints provide the foundation for our ethical actions. As such, we need to be careful when we assume that people simply know what's right and wrong. Now stealing may seem to rank with murder and adultery as a "universal rule," but the reality is that even black-and-white issues contain much gray area in between. Without knowing some of the background information (was she stealing the clock back or did she have a problem), we are left to fill in the blanks. On another note, I personally applaud that these longer films (as opposed to the commercials) span a spectrum from light ("Tony" and the British film about the young man trying to be responsible so he adopts a dog) to dark (this film and some others). It gives us all something to think - and to blog - about.

    Reply

    • June 29, 2009 by Jana Merten

      Thanks for saving me the time of commenting! Now all I have to write is a simple and happy little "ditto".

  • August 2, 2009 by vicky cowan

    People often know what is right for them. That does not mean they know or care about the concept of "right" and "wrong" ethically or morally. What is right for some people includes violence, theft, arrogance, greed, taking bribes and even murder. Sometimes the quiet, gentle voice is the only one that gets thru to the people who think the world revolves around them and anything they do or say is right. Suggesting that people know what is right and wrong is not necessarily correct. Even knowing that you did something wrong does not mean that you will admit it or even attempt to correct it.

    Reply

  • August 2, 2009 by Gene Wright

    What was his purpose in the date? to impress to further his cause or just have agood time Clue me in

    Reply

  • November 30, 2009 by joan c. williams

    I have dated a 'converted' drug addict (4 yrs.clean); he smiles, is personable, very extraverted; he also keeps a 'nasty' efficiency apt.goes dancing (solo) at every opportunity, feels entitled to 'free'relationships; additionally buys and watches porn, promises everything but carries through on nothing. Several things on his job that are "mandatory" he has charmed or weaseled his way out of complying. I do not think he is 'responsible', adult', or trustworthy. Final note, he 'steals' from job, i.e., paper towels, toilet tissue, etc. He postures as a 'church deacon. My dx. = posturing, hypocritical, ego maniac. I think it is definitely SERIOUS,.

    Reply

  • December 6, 2009 by astrel fort

    Apparently, I watch the video I find something very important. Because, When the man come in the house he is welcoming by his guest. However, the tall beautiful woman with the long hair wonderful smile appear to stilling the show . Perhaps, she is probably weight one hundred ,and some pounds. Surely her looks is charming at the dinner table. Further, the lighting candle on the table is a sign of love. Therefore, she believes she may have an opportunity to seduce the man. Important ant, after the dinner ,she is deciding to go .In fact, the man is willing to take her home. Moment later, she is getting in the car, and looking at him with a beautiful smile say to him “I love your car”. He is gentle looking her back and smiling continuous driving. Happily ,she is when she is getting out of the car ,she is asking him if he wants to coming for a little while. Briefly, he looks at her ,and say no .Seeing that, he is a married man or already in love with someone else. Sadly, she get out of the car and go her way. Thus, when a man is truly love a woman it is a blessing from God. Therefore ,your faith can extending your relationships for may years to come. Truly, a true is not easy to find. I am hoping to falling in love one day, so I can applying the same method this young just applied to get a way form this chick.

    Reply

    • May 18, 2010 by hehe

      dude! you gotta be rich for women to flock as you dream. Don't dream otherwise.

    • July 24, 2010 by Jeanne Pauli

      Tell me you do understand that he "couldn't" come up to the lady's apartment because he had seen her cheating (namely, stealing the clock). She, upon hearing him decline the offer, felt her coat pocket, knew the clock was now absent, knew that he knew what she really was and quietly went away. I do not understand your post.

  • June 14, 2010 by Ted

    Very good point. Most important is to remember that God is watching.

    Reply

• June 25, 2009 by Arlene Burnham

  Too dark of a Film.

  Reply

• June 25, 2009 by Carl Mueller

  I don't think there was any doubt that she was trying to steal the clock, but I think Carl could have handled it better. Specifically, he should have remained cordial and friendly (short of coming up to her place) but the next day share what he discovered with her friend (the party hostess). I realize this is transferring the responsibility, but I think her close friend would be a better person to discuss the matter.

  Reply

• June 25, 2009 by judy lam

  Oh my word, what a great message. There are people out there that do this type of addiction and can't help it. What a great commercial

  Reply

• June 28, 2009 by Brian

  I liked how he made sure she would know he knew without having to say a word. You could see the look of shock and embarrassment on her face as she exited the car. He could have made a scene and confronted her on the spot but I think he needed time to consider the possibilities any action might have on all parties involved.

  Reply

• July 2, 2009 by Wayne DeVogler

  People, am I missing something, or are the other comment makers missing something? Everyone comments on her taking the clock! Which she did when she slipped it in her coat pocket in the bedroom. He saw the act and then immediately turned and left. We are left to believe that she took the clock. But, in the end of the film the clock was back on the dresser in its proper place. It is true that she at first intended to take the clock, but she could have changed her mind and returned it to the dresser as her morals and ethics won out. He didn't know that while sitting on the couch. But he had her coat in his hand as they left the party. Was the clock not in the coat on the stairs because she replaced it or he replaced it - we don't know for sure. He could have returned the clock to the dresser responsibly and his actions in the car might have been understandable. But, she would have noticed that the weight of the clock (it was not a small clock) was not in her coat before she went out the front door or surely in the car. She would have known at that time she had been caught. We did not see that in her actions in the car. Do we know for sure that her ethics and morals didn't win out and she acted responsibly herself. Now commenting on this premise, wasn't he acting less responsible in not supporting her change of heart and returning it if that was the case. If this was the case he clearly didn't care, because only the first act is the bad act and the second act of replacing it was not a good act. Is he acting responsibly when she had a problem and at least conquered it, this one time, and he didn't take the opportunity to comment then or at a later time in her support. Furthermore how could she have even known that he saw her take the clock. The film did show her looking over her shoulder, but the film lead us to believe she did not see him outside the door because there was no look on her face. If she did replace it, then she ultimately acted responsible and should have had his support and she wouldn't know why he was acting so cold. In another twist, she could have saw him at the door and wanted him to see her take the clock to test him to see if he would confront her or the hosts to test his character, but that would be a whole other dialogue about the meaning of the film. Don't we all have an obligation to recognize that we all have flaws. The fact is that he didn't use the opportunity to support her whether she took it or not!

  Reply

  • July 3, 2009 by Leo

    Wayne and I saw the same film. I do not understand how some of those making comments can be certain about what they saw, when the film is so open to a number of interpretations. In fact, multiple scenarios could very well be the whole idea of the film.

    Reply

    • July 3, 2009 by carly souder,sarah berholtz

      WHAT WAS THE MEANING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • October 18, 2009 by oldleftie

    I have to be cordial, right? so all I can say is "Huh"?

    Reply

    • October 18, 2009 by oldleftie

      So some of the commentators would have us believe that if she had returned the clock, he still would have rejected her offer, and that her shocked look as she exited the car was due to something other than her realizing that the clock was not there. I shall be cordial. This is not a new wave french film leaving questions to be answered. This is the "Responsibility Project". If she had returned the clock, he would have known it when he got her coat. He would have been reassured. There would have been no reason for him to reject her; and therefore there would have been no reason for her to have looked so shocked when he did. She would have simply been disappointed. Give us a break, people. This is a commercial, after all.

  • January 27, 2010 by Chelsea

    He brought her coat to her. My take on it is that he took the clock out of her pocket and put it back, before bringing her coat to her in an innocent appearance of cordial help. Thus saving her face, and him bringing it to her attention that it's still not acceptable. That way everyone wins. They don't lose their clock, and nobody loses their pride.

    Reply

• July 8, 2009 by lyssa many tarks

  What in the world? Why did she try and steal it then didn’t then at the end. You see it - I am so confused!

  Reply

• July 12, 2009 by shay morgan

  The critic states, we are left to believe she took the clock. Yes, if she removed the clock and took into her possession at any point and time, she took it. Very simple: stating the clock was replaced still does not take the act or by definition way of taking the clock. The man seeing and turning to leave does not take away she took the clock or is his responsibility to make it known and correct her errors. So because she decided to have morals, ethics, or that she may have felt caught, busted, or that she decided to return the item does not take way the fact, she took the clock. It does not matter the time limit she had in her possession. So she stole it for two seconds. She still stole the clock at some point. We do all have flaws, but this still does not mean a thief is not a thief if they take at any point something that is not theirs to possess. Support is done is many ways. If I rob a bank, I may be supported by my family as a person, but they will support me all the way to jail. If I decide to return the money, still I am a bank robber. Oh, but officer I decided my ethics and morals kicked in and I returned it. Still a bank robber - she stole.

  Reply

• July 13, 2009 by GrannyFannie

  Well now; I thought the way the film circled back to the clock that meant the chick returned it. Go figure.

  Reply

• July 17, 2009 by Dr. Mark Taplette

  I thought the film was good and the message was even better. He did not confront her directly about what she had done but she realized that what she had done had ruined what was a good evening for both of them and put an end to the relationship going any further. Did anyone think that maybe this is way she "is not married?"

  Reply

• July 20, 2009 by anita

  I don't get it. Was this supposed to show that someone took responsibility? This was just about a “bad girl" taking something from her friends, someone witnessing it, and then doing nothing about it. This film was a waste of time and contrary to the whole point of your website. We need more examples of how to handle these situations.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.