Friday, November 20, 2009
Food, Inc.
Just got done watching Food, Inc. Ashley and I spent about 15 minutes trying to decide what to watch via Netflix or iTunes, and I said "no documentaries!" I didn't want to think tonight. I suggested Crank 2 or something like that but Ashley wasn't too excited about that idea. Then we saw Food, Inc. on iTunes and I remembered really wanting to see it when it came out, but as usual, no theaters in our area carry this type of film (If it wasn't made my Michael Moore and its a doc - its not showing in St. Charles, IL). Anyway, I saw a sign for the dvd, interestingly enough, at Chipotle (which I now plan to investigate as I thought Chipotle was owned by McDonald's). So when it came up on iTunes and Ashley said she wanted to see it I decided thinking on a Friday night might be OK.
UPDATE! So I just had one of those sort of media-crossover moments that just kinda makes you smile, whether you discover its something "good" or "bad". I went searching to figure out if the Mac Shack owns Chipotle. Turns out they DID have a majority stake in the company for several years, and are responsible for much of its growth, but did not start it and now have no involvement. Chipotle really does use quality food grown "with integrity" as they like to say. Anyway - I found this story: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7857921. Check it out - might give more hope than the end of Food, Inc.! (read below) - and the crazy part... it features the jolly organic farmer who also gets a ton of screen time in the movie. Guess he is the face of the "real" food movement for big media. Crazy!
It's a good movie - not as entertaining as something like Super Size Me, but beautifully shot with solid arguments presented throughout. So solid were the arguments that by the end I was ready to say screw it - the little guy has no chance in anything anymore. I don't even grow corn or soybeans, and I'm scared Monsanto (the biggest producer of soybean seed in the world), is going to find a reason to sue me for patent infringement. The power of these companies is staggering, as is their lobbying power and connections to the powerful in our country's government.
Food, Inc. makes the stronger argument, the one based in logical reasoning, and largely stays away from more pathos oriented individual stories. Well... kind of anyway - there is the mom who's kid died because of tainted beef, and the corporate chicken farmer who is miserable, and the independent organic farmer who lives a jolly and fulfilling life. Maybe what I meant to say was that its hard to watch this film and then just be like "WELL.... the filmmakers just picked the most outrageous and sensational examples." Because in fact, they really didn't - they simply show what's going on. And my guess is that they really DID try hard to get reps from all the major food companies to come on camera, and that they really were denied. While text that reads "Tyson Foods declined our request for an interview" set over a chicken-house that would be mistaken for a prison before a farm is a strong visual image; unprepared, belligerent, or simply caught red-handed spokespeople squirming through an interview would have been even stronger.
It's not until the last few minutes of the film that we actually are given a sense that something can be done, that there is a chance this corporate food machine can be defeated. It was a welcome sequence after over an hour of doom and gloom, but at the same time was so short that one is left wondering if anything truly can be done. The film ends with (if I'm remembering correctly) almost an identical call to action as used in An Inconvenient Truth. Text over music telling us that yes, we can change things. We can shop organic, go to farmer's markets, and call our congresspeople.
I guess the older I get the more scared I am. Scared of the powerful. Scared of the corporations. Even scared of the government. Say I make a video on YouTube that goes crazy viral. An anti-beef video. Gets on the news, gets mentioned everywhere: The newspaper, the radio, all over the web. So powerfully crafted is this thing that people start responding. Meat sales go down, I've had the effect I'm looking for. And BAM, I'm sued for more than I'm worth and simply trying to represent myself costs more than I may make in the next ten years.
Sounds crazy, right? Same thing happened to Oprah, if you remember back a few years. The film mentions this and its just scary. Yes, she won, but she is freaking OPRAH. And it still took 6 years and god knows how much from the Harpo Studios coffers. And the little guys, the seed-cleaner, the guy who doesn't want to use Mansanto seeds, well they try to stand up for themselves and don't have a chance.
Well this has turned more into a rant than a review or response to the film I guess. It's crazy though - we had left-over chicken parmesan from a fast-food pizza place for dinner. Tomorrow we are having a new fridge delivered. We will probably end up going out to grab some food after cleaning the old fridge out and transferring stuff. The grad school lifestyle's not cheap. So doubt we will go to the farmer's market or head to Trader Joe's into the organic section. Naw.. we'll probably get McDonald's (I'm serious).
:(
UPDATE! So I just had one of those sort of media-crossover moments that just kinda makes you smile, whether you discover its something "good" or "bad". I went searching to figure out if the Mac Shack owns Chipotle. Turns out they DID have a majority stake in the company for several years, and are responsible for much of its growth, but did not start it and now have no involvement. Chipotle really does use quality food grown "with integrity" as they like to say. Anyway - I found this story: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7857921. Check it out - might give more hope than the end of Food, Inc.! (read below) - and the crazy part... it features the jolly organic farmer who also gets a ton of screen time in the movie. Guess he is the face of the "real" food movement for big media. Crazy!
It's a good movie - not as entertaining as something like Super Size Me, but beautifully shot with solid arguments presented throughout. So solid were the arguments that by the end I was ready to say screw it - the little guy has no chance in anything anymore. I don't even grow corn or soybeans, and I'm scared Monsanto (the biggest producer of soybean seed in the world), is going to find a reason to sue me for patent infringement. The power of these companies is staggering, as is their lobbying power and connections to the powerful in our country's government.
Food, Inc. makes the stronger argument, the one based in logical reasoning, and largely stays away from more pathos oriented individual stories. Well... kind of anyway - there is the mom who's kid died because of tainted beef, and the corporate chicken farmer who is miserable, and the independent organic farmer who lives a jolly and fulfilling life. Maybe what I meant to say was that its hard to watch this film and then just be like "WELL.... the filmmakers just picked the most outrageous and sensational examples." Because in fact, they really didn't - they simply show what's going on. And my guess is that they really DID try hard to get reps from all the major food companies to come on camera, and that they really were denied. While text that reads "Tyson Foods declined our request for an interview" set over a chicken-house that would be mistaken for a prison before a farm is a strong visual image; unprepared, belligerent, or simply caught red-handed spokespeople squirming through an interview would have been even stronger.
It's not until the last few minutes of the film that we actually are given a sense that something can be done, that there is a chance this corporate food machine can be defeated. It was a welcome sequence after over an hour of doom and gloom, but at the same time was so short that one is left wondering if anything truly can be done. The film ends with (if I'm remembering correctly) almost an identical call to action as used in An Inconvenient Truth. Text over music telling us that yes, we can change things. We can shop organic, go to farmer's markets, and call our congresspeople.
I guess the older I get the more scared I am. Scared of the powerful. Scared of the corporations. Even scared of the government. Say I make a video on YouTube that goes crazy viral. An anti-beef video. Gets on the news, gets mentioned everywhere: The newspaper, the radio, all over the web. So powerfully crafted is this thing that people start responding. Meat sales go down, I've had the effect I'm looking for. And BAM, I'm sued for more than I'm worth and simply trying to represent myself costs more than I may make in the next ten years.
Sounds crazy, right? Same thing happened to Oprah, if you remember back a few years. The film mentions this and its just scary. Yes, she won, but she is freaking OPRAH. And it still took 6 years and god knows how much from the Harpo Studios coffers. And the little guys, the seed-cleaner, the guy who doesn't want to use Mansanto seeds, well they try to stand up for themselves and don't have a chance.
Well this has turned more into a rant than a review or response to the film I guess. It's crazy though - we had left-over chicken parmesan from a fast-food pizza place for dinner. Tomorrow we are having a new fridge delivered. We will probably end up going out to grab some food after cleaning the old fridge out and transferring stuff. The grad school lifestyle's not cheap. So doubt we will go to the farmer's market or head to Trader Joe's into the organic section. Naw.. we'll probably get McDonald's (I'm serious).
:(
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Girl Trouble
I found Girl Trouble to be a remarkable film that affected me as a viewer much more than I had anticipated. I still have Girlhood to watch (both films were screened in my class - I was out of town during the Girlhood screening), so rather than compare and contrast the two films, at this point I will offer some of the reasons that I found Girl Trouble to be so compelling.
The filmmakers’ technique had a lot to do with why the film works. By spending four years following three girls caught up in the juvenile court system in California the audience experiences the journey along with the film’s subjects. Often, documentaries drop us into a situation, yet fail to inform of us of what happened before and after the actual shoot took place. By stretching the timeline of the filming process, Shanga, Stephanie, and Sheila’s journeys are more complete. The filmmakers also take care to introduce the girls and their pasts near the beginning of the film, and end with an epilogue explaining what happened to each young woman post production.
I also found the choice of focusing on young women working in the “center” to be effective, because Lateefah serves as both a constant presence (if not always onscreen) and something of a narrator throughout the film. While the girls grow up and go through experiences both good and bad, Lateefah serves as a consistent role model and cheerleader to each of them. Lateefah, and her non-profit girl’s center, were interesting subjects themselves in that they did not provide a “perfect” or clean and shiny version of rehabilitation and prevention. The center is small and seems to be underfunded, and Lateefah herself is a bit odd-looking and unpolished. News reports often focus on beautiful new youth centers represented by good-looking professional spokespeople (i.e. Oprah’s girl’s school in Africa). That the filmmakers took the time or simply decided to focus on such a place seems unique in itself.
I have seen films in the past that claim to represent the stories of multiple people or characters, yet that end up focusing only on the one or two most interesting cases. This didn’t happen in Girl Trouble. Thinking back on the film, the actual screen time each girl is afforded seems to be amazingly equal (perhaps Sheila receives a bit less time, thought she was behind bars for over a year). The editing of the film carefully considers each girls storyline, and I was never left wondering for long. In fact, I can remember thinking, “I wonder how things are going with Stephanie and her baby,” just as the film cut back to Stephanie and her baby. Also, the fact that at no time does Lateefah’s story or her overall vision for the girl’s center take over the story is a testament to how well the film focuses on closely inter-related stories without letting one dominate. At no time does the film seem to devolve into an warm and fuzzy infomercial about the success of Lateefah’s center, yet that success (and some struggles) are clearly illustrated to the viewer.
My guess is that Girl Trouble didn’t have a large theatrical release, not only due to the subject matter but also due to the limited production budget. The documentary seems to be shot primarily on video, not film, and while there is some effective usage of animation in viewing court documents, neither sound quality nor carefully constructed cinematography create what might be called a “pretty,” or aesthetically pleasing film. That being said, this film’s subject matter is strong enough that those things are not necessary needed. The audience that will ultimately see or hear about the film, however, most likely pales in comparison to that who are familiar with the slickly-produced Murderball. And while I do not personally believe documentary must always maintain an “air of sobriety” it is interesting to consider that while quadriplegic rugby and the lives of its players are certainly intriguing, and that disability awareness is important, there are far more girls, probably hundreds of thousands if not more, who are currently caught up in juvenile crime and the courts who on a daily basis face a vicious cycle of bureaucracy, domestic, and economic issues that may prevent them from becoming productive citizens of our country.
The filmmakers’ technique had a lot to do with why the film works. By spending four years following three girls caught up in the juvenile court system in California the audience experiences the journey along with the film’s subjects. Often, documentaries drop us into a situation, yet fail to inform of us of what happened before and after the actual shoot took place. By stretching the timeline of the filming process, Shanga, Stephanie, and Sheila’s journeys are more complete. The filmmakers also take care to introduce the girls and their pasts near the beginning of the film, and end with an epilogue explaining what happened to each young woman post production.
I also found the choice of focusing on young women working in the “center” to be effective, because Lateefah serves as both a constant presence (if not always onscreen) and something of a narrator throughout the film. While the girls grow up and go through experiences both good and bad, Lateefah serves as a consistent role model and cheerleader to each of them. Lateefah, and her non-profit girl’s center, were interesting subjects themselves in that they did not provide a “perfect” or clean and shiny version of rehabilitation and prevention. The center is small and seems to be underfunded, and Lateefah herself is a bit odd-looking and unpolished. News reports often focus on beautiful new youth centers represented by good-looking professional spokespeople (i.e. Oprah’s girl’s school in Africa). That the filmmakers took the time or simply decided to focus on such a place seems unique in itself.
I have seen films in the past that claim to represent the stories of multiple people or characters, yet that end up focusing only on the one or two most interesting cases. This didn’t happen in Girl Trouble. Thinking back on the film, the actual screen time each girl is afforded seems to be amazingly equal (perhaps Sheila receives a bit less time, thought she was behind bars for over a year). The editing of the film carefully considers each girls storyline, and I was never left wondering for long. In fact, I can remember thinking, “I wonder how things are going with Stephanie and her baby,” just as the film cut back to Stephanie and her baby. Also, the fact that at no time does Lateefah’s story or her overall vision for the girl’s center take over the story is a testament to how well the film focuses on closely inter-related stories without letting one dominate. At no time does the film seem to devolve into an warm and fuzzy infomercial about the success of Lateefah’s center, yet that success (and some struggles) are clearly illustrated to the viewer.
My guess is that Girl Trouble didn’t have a large theatrical release, not only due to the subject matter but also due to the limited production budget. The documentary seems to be shot primarily on video, not film, and while there is some effective usage of animation in viewing court documents, neither sound quality nor carefully constructed cinematography create what might be called a “pretty,” or aesthetically pleasing film. That being said, this film’s subject matter is strong enough that those things are not necessary needed. The audience that will ultimately see or hear about the film, however, most likely pales in comparison to that who are familiar with the slickly-produced Murderball. And while I do not personally believe documentary must always maintain an “air of sobriety” it is interesting to consider that while quadriplegic rugby and the lives of its players are certainly intriguing, and that disability awareness is important, there are far more girls, probably hundreds of thousands if not more, who are currently caught up in juvenile crime and the courts who on a daily basis face a vicious cycle of bureaucracy, domestic, and economic issues that may prevent them from becoming productive citizens of our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
