What do you think Food Inc is arguing for and what were the most successful strategies that were used in the film? Give particular attention to
1) the overlaps between the movie and both Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore's Dilemma;
2) the use of people in the film (as opposed to the investigative reporting in Fast Food Nation);
3) the roles that Schlosser and Pollan played in the film.
This post is due on 2/15. You might want to take a look at the W6 blog prompt before you respond to this so that the two posts don't overlap too much.
The film Food, Inc is determined to show America the underbelly of our food industries. The film goes behind the scenes of agriculture and the suffering farmers, the abused animals, horribly treated workers, and the decline in our nations health. All because our corporate money hungry people, putting their desires above the good of America.
ReplyDeleteFood, Inc shows all of these horrific images and facts in order to argue their point. Which is that American citizens have power, if they start demanding better food, safer environments for the workers and the animals that the corporate heads would have to deliver. At the end of the film they have suggestions of what people can do to try and help such as, grow a small garden, try to buy locally, buy organic, etc.
Some of the strategies used were the inside footage of how the animals are treated; how they are feed and what that does to the animals,how the workers are being exploited, and how the farmers are losing their power in their field. The story of Kevin was very touching and informative. Having his mother explain the laws they are trying to pass and how they didn't tell society about the spoiled meat until 16 days after Kevin died.
Also, the new laws that are in place for farmers, and the patent laws used to keep farmers in check. One of the other upsetting farmer stories was the termination of a chicken raiser because she refused to keep her chickens in a windowless house.
Using Pollan and Schlosser and their informative understanding helps the audience better understand what they are talking about in the film. And it doesn't ever matter what people are watching if they don't understand the material. Clarity is one of their strongest attributes to this film. I feel the film was very strong, and I definitely am going to try to buy better.
In Food Inc., their focus on the use of pathos is impossible to ignore. In all of the interviews, they evoke some sort of emotional response. Similarly, they fished for a different type of emotional response when they captured the footage of chickens being raised simply to be made into food. When pertaining to the people shown, responses were more than likely frustrated and sympathetic. But when the animals were shown, the audience seemed to have a more horrified and guilty reaction.
ReplyDeleteFood Inc.'s utilization of logos was a prominent tool, as well. The filming of the manufacturing corporations and industrialization taking place inspired all viewers to scrutinize America's food industry and the reasons why so many things are taking place.
Also, using ethos, the Food Inc. producers strategically sided with the innocent people without saying it completely outright. This film obviously supported the individuals who were either struggling with a food-related loss or legal battle against a big-name corporation; in doing so, this film evoked a sense of trust and reliability out of the audience, only to seem more accurate throughout the entire documentary.
In Fast Food Nation, much of the video relied heavily on the camera angles and video footage, as opposed to the real-life stories seen in Food Inc. Additionally, Food Inc. appeared more believable because of the several personal testimonies, whereas the only story in Fast Food Nation was that of Morgan Spurlock. And his story is more questionable, since most viewers' attitudes are some variation of, "I don't eat McDonald's three times daily, anyway."
Food Inc.’s strong attributes are its clarity and sincerity. The viewers indefinitely knew what point was attempting to be made in each scene, and the stories featured were convincing in a truthful way. This documentary targeted all Americans who have witnessed the always-changing food industry, and it effectively persuaded and dissuaded them on various levels.
For thousands of years, people have gotten information from books and other publications. Within the past decade or so though, information is often being presented through movies and documentaries. Food Inc is a classic example of how visually stunning and informative a documentary-type film can really be. The purpose of this film, in my opinion, is to open the eyes of the many people who have seen this film throughout the years to the cruel and sometimes unsanitary process of food production. I’ll be perfectly honest and say that this film was a huge educational experience for me. I mean I had some idea about how food was processed and where it came from, but in no way, shape or form did I expect to see some of the material that was included in Food Inc.
ReplyDeleteThe two things that really helped persuade me where the use of people in the film, and also the roles of Schlosser and Pollan. The director and producer of this film must have had a very hard time finding farmers and other food processors that were going to be willing to share their particular experiences. I remember the narrator of the film explaining that after asking dozens of farmers in the area, they finally were lucky enough to find two farmers that would even appear on camera. The first male farmer was a very traditional southern gentleman who used farming as a means to provide for his family. He explained how he had several chicken “barns” across the area. When the cameras asked to go inside of the barns, they were quickly denied. After exploring this man’s situation, the cameras then decided to go research a woman’s barn. This experience was definitely an eye-opener. She allowed for the cameras to enter the barns and what the viewer saw wasn’t very pleasant. Dark, and very gross are two adjectives that come to mind when thinking of the condition of her barn. She explained to the viewers how she felt like she was being treated like a slave and that in a way she felt sorry for the chickens she was slaughtering. Shortly after the filming of this film, the chicken company terminated her contract due to her unwillingness to update her barn, which was really sad because that was probably her only source of income.
The roles of Schlosser and Pollan were also very important aspects of the film. Allowing these two experts to speak on the various problems within the food industry really opened my eyes. They often spoke about how they thought food production should be changed and how the biggest component of obesity is income. Both of these points were great because they gave details and facts to back up their arguments. Another thing that these two men pointed out, was that food companies will stop at nothing to get a consumer addicted to their product. The engineering of these foods often press our taste buds to the limit. They often spike products with insulin and sugar.
The documentary Food, Inc. is an attempt to inform Americans of what lays behind the previously veiled, widely trusted food industry. Food, Inc. advocates consumer awareness and simultaneously reveals the ugly side of well-known multinational food corporations – a side we Americans were never meant to see. While it exposes the food industry and the injustices the nation has been subject to, the documentary suggests actions viewers can take to help the increasingly worsening issue at hand; such suggestions include: purchase organic or locally grown produce and advocate consumer awareness and food safety.
ReplyDeleteThe most successful strategy utilized in the production of the documentary was undoubtedly the personal testimonies from average Americans suffering from the injustices. Employing such a tactic appeals to pathos and an emotional response can be expected from the audience. Examples of this strategy in the documentary include: the testimony of a farmer being sued by a multi-million dollar corporation, a mother who lost her young son to E. Coli and a family living in poverty unable to afford a healthy meal. Further examples of the use of pathos include the depiction of animal cruelty and the mistreatment of employees of the food industry. I personally find this strategy more effective in conveying the film’s message than presenting an audience with a number of facts and statistics, as was employed by Fast Food Nation.
Many similarities exist between Food, Inc. and the Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore’s Dilemma texts. All seek to inform Americans and advocate consumer awareness. Further, all seemingly feel obligated to educate ignorant citizens and serve as a wake-up call for those concerned with the food they consume.
Schlosser and Pollan contributed to the breadth of information presented in the documentary. Both investigative journalists presented facts and statistics imperative to an informed America. With numerous authored books under their belt, Schlosser (co-producer of the film) and Pollan prove to be credible sources for such a film.
Food Inc. was trying to reveal how the production of food, in America (and globally) has changed. Their argument in my opinion is that our current food production techniques are profit-driven and can/ do have large “unintended consequences” on our population’s health, and environment.
ReplyDeleteThe overlaps I saw between the film and book were that they both have emphases on industrialized agriculture practices, discussion on organic foods and small-scale farmers, and fertilizers and corn. The processes that food is involved in as it goes from the “farm to the table” were examined and discussed in both media platforms.
I thought that Food Inc.’s use of people was one of their most successful strategies. Including both Pollan and Schlosser in their films was an attempt to appeal to the audience’s ethos, because both men are successful authors who are known for their controversial works that explored the food industry, its history, and current substandard tactics. Their roles, were simply to support the films argument, and use the credibility they had gained from their previous creations, to persuade the audience even more.
Other people, who they included in the film that I thought added to the documentary were, Joel Salatin, the small scale farmer, and Barbara Kowalcyk, the mother whose two- year old son died from E.Coli. Moe Parr, the seed- cleaner- equipment seller and Gary Hirschberg, the owner of a large scale organic business also contributed to the film with their stories. The material that the aforementioned people provided was not only interesting but it had the ability to appeal to ethos (Salatin & Hirschberg) pathos (Parr, Kowalcyk,) and logos (Salatin & Hirschberg). Compared to the investigative reporting employed in the Fast Food Nation, this approach seemed less tactical and went straight to the core of how the food production companies have drastically altered people’s lives, and how people have managed to exist solely on true-agrarian practices which can persuade the audience to support the film’s argument.
Food Inc. and The Omnivore’s Dilemma have very similar goals. Both of them want to show us where our food comes from. Both of them also heavily push us towards an aversion to big food corporations. The fact that they are so similar is no surprise to me, considering Micheal Pollan played a pretty large role in Food Inc. as well as authoring The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Both the movie and the book serve to show us that while we may think we have great diversity of choice in the grocery store, much of our food can be traced back to one of a few select companies.
ReplyDeletePeople were used in the film as “the voice of America” in a way. The speakers were for the most part concerned Americans. Every speaker had something to contribute: scientific knowledge, research, experience growing food, or a tragic tale. The film appeals to our sense of decency and our good will towards our fellow man.
Schlosser and Pollan were experts within the movie. These guys know what they are talking about. They also frame the show in a way that is easy to understand, and gives us a context in which to view the information we are being presented with. There is a clear agenda that the movie is pushing, and these guys are some of the main proponents. Although they may be trying to indoctrinate us, they do a good job of showing us the horrors of the food industry.
Food Inc. makes a case for Americans to know exactly what is going into their meals, and how they're being prepared. Pollan makes a case in the early stages of the film that when one walks into a supermarket, the amount of choices at hand makes it seem as though there is plenty of diversity in the food industry, and it's all for the benefit of the consumer. This is really not the case, Pollan stated, as all of those brands are owned by the same four companies. Additionally, the genetically modified seeds that lead to 90% of the world's food products can all be traced to the Monsanto Company. Presenting one hard hitting fact after the other, Food Inc. succeeds at it's goal of stunning the viewer, using a variety of methods to do so.
ReplyDeleteA large theme of the film was based on the food industry's drastic re-modeling of farming. Footage of a real chicken farm for a major corporation (such as Tyson, or Perdue) was shown, and it wasn't what the viewer would have expected. Thousands of chickens were crammed next to one another, hardly given any space to move before they were eventually killed. It was explained that hormones were given to the chickens to make sure that white meat areas, such as the breasts, would grow to a larger size than normal. This added weight would make it nearly impossible for some of them to walk, and they would collapse after only a few steps. Showing actual footage of a farm leaves nothing for Food Inc. critics to debate; the information is clear cut and right in front of them. This was an excellent way of showing the viewer exactly what the state of farming affairs were without having to resort to holding a bias.
People who have been victimized by the food industry were used frequently throughout the film. Barbara Kowalyck, a woman who lost her son due to E. Coli, is featured discussing her proposed legislation to Congress that would give the US Department of Agriculture authority to shut down food plants that produce contaminated meat. She is shown looking up news articles on other children who have been victims of contaminated meat; clearly still devastated by this tragedy. Her inability to pass even the most basic sensible law showed how thoughtless the food industry can be. A woman who lost her only child due to carelessness in food inspection was given nothing to show for it, and her inclusion in this film certainly gave the viewer an idea of how underhanded and deceitful the food industry can be.
The main argument of Food, Inc. is that there is a massive disparity between the image of pure, clean, nutritious food and the reality of the food industry. In the end, it proves its point, but the hopeful message is that American consumers, if they should choose, can influence the industry by boycotting bad companies and demanding higher quality products.
ReplyDeleteThe most successful rhetorical techniques in the film were its use of dramatic imagery and visuals, its journalistic spotlight on the farmers affected by the industry, and its use of statistics and figures.
There was so much b-roll in this documentary that explicitly exposed the horrible conditions of animals. Some of the most telling shots showed the way workers treated sick and lame cows: they beat them and abused them so they could get them to the slaughterhouse and make money their money.
The journalistic spotlight of this film was also very effective; it showed rather than told. By interviewing the poor, hardworking farmers who were under attack by huge, rich companies like Monsanto, the injustice of the status quo was painfully obvious.
Like Fast Food Nation and Supersize Me, Food Inc. used plenty of statistics and figures to help prove their point. The most startling statistics were the most convincing: that only a few huge companies supply all America's meat, that corn derivatives are in almost all of our grocery store foods, that chickens have grown exponentially in size over time due to research and development.
The film's hopeful message fits perfectly with the arguments developed throughout the film: since rampant, unregulated capitalism got us into this mess, thoughtful consumerism can get us out.
Food, Inc. tries to show what really goes into the production of America’s food. It goes beyond the typical image of farming and beautiful pastoral vistas to show the audience the truth. They’re not eating what they think they’re eating. In fact, what they’re eating can be harmful to them, maybe even fatal. Food, Inc. shows that food companies purposefully hide this truth from consumers. It’s not about ethical and moral implications; it’s about money and how to make more without spending more. To anyone who watches this film, it is a wake up call about food in America.
ReplyDeleteFood, Inc. delivers horrific image after horrendous testimony to affect the viewer into change. That is their overall message, driven home at the end of the movie. The consumer has the power. Don’t let the big businesses rule your diet and your health. Demand change. Effect change. Food, Inc. offers ways to implement this sort of change in order to lessen the hold big business have on food production.
Having experts like Schlosser and Pollan in the film, talking about the veil and explaining things in simple terms really helps connect the audience to the film’s topic. A lot of what is discussed in the movie is complicated in nature but the creators did a great job of simplifying things for the average American viewer to understand.
I thought the use of real people in the film was very effective. One of the earliest segments involved a family who didn’t have much income. They were torn between paying for medicine or paying for healthy food. It’s a vicious cycle. Pay for the medication and in place of more expensive healthy food from a supermarket like fruits or vegetables, the family orders off the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. The unhealthy food leads to more health problems that leads to more medical bills and the family still can’t afford to eat better and try to get healthy. The fast food industry has a hold on people like this family and they will never let go.
Food Inc. was trying to argue that the American public has lost all control over the kind of food we can purchase. There are only four companies that are responsible for the vast majority of the food manufacturing in the U.S. Their companies' agendas, however, do not line up with the needs of the nation. The film focuses on the dramatic negative effects of this oligolopy on real American people. To best achieve this, Schlosser incorporated many stories of human tragedy with food corporation as their antagonist.
ReplyDeleteTo promote activism, Food Inc. showed the story of the woman whose son was killed by e. coli. The imagery of the healthy boy playing in the water stood in distinct contrast with the child's persistence in trying to have more water when he was hospitalized. His mother was devastated just talking about how desperate he was, even biting off a chunk of the sponge his water was rationed in. The mother, as a result of the food corporations' indifference, has become as desperate for food reform as her son was for water.
The two chicken farmers that were interviewed showed the two dividing paths allowed by the food manufacturers; follow our lead or feel our wrath. The first farmer had the same mentality as the processing company he worked for; make money. He didn't seem to have any regrets about how his farm operated because he was blinded with greed. The female farmer, however, showed the power these companies have. She held back tears as she explained how these companies forced farmers to take on loads of debt, put their animals in danger and sacrifice their moral compass without seeing any of the immense profits that were being brought in. Her defiance caught up to her in the end and Perdue revoked her contract and she was left with nothing more than her dignity.
These companies are tyrannically tearing this country apart. These companies have replaced social pride with monetary power. Food Inc. shows exactly how this shift away from ethics has effected our citizens.
Food Inc. is very similar to Fast food Nation and The Ominivore's Dilemma with forming an argument against the major food companies in America. The audience forms a negative image from the disguting results within the sources. The information provided about the companies growth in power and control have created an illusion for Americans. Each source goes in depth to explain how a demented illusion of our food industry has impacted our food culture.
ReplyDeleteA difference in Food Inc from Fast Food Nation was how they differed in the images of people. Instead of simply investingating with people, Food Inc takes an emotional approach. Food Inc shows the background of farmers and workers while also showing a mother who had lost her son to a food illness brought out upon the hands of our major food companies. These emotional images impact the way the audience feels about the food companies and prove how un-safe they actually are. The touch of reality really adds to signifcant evidence against the food companies.
Scholosser and Pollan had roles in the film that also added a lot of credibility to the argument. With their written works, knowledge and exploration of the truth behind the industry; they help the audience form an accurate opinion at the end of the film. I felt very confident with their opinions, and it helped me make sense of what was really going on through they journey of our food industry. Their expertise was powerful and I think the greatest point made was how our food industry has created an illusion. When we walk into the grocery store, we think that there is so much variety around us. This is an illusion due to the fact that all of the products that surround us are all derviced from similar processed ingredients; along with only a few huge companies that have complete control over this truely cruel food culture.
This is a good post. This post gives truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it.. cultured ghee vs ghee
ReplyDelete