I'm not really the kind of person to go out of my way to watch a documentary. This does not mean I don't see the potential value a documentary can bring to a viewer, it's just that at times I wonder the integrity of some documentaries. Case and point Micheal Moore. He has been notorious for editing his films in a way that are slightly distant from reality. Taking non-fiction and skewing it to the direction of fiction. Of course this can be said for any medium,but it could especially be a problem in films depending on how directors tend to edit a given interview or patch their film together. Now I know some of you will think that in some cases you have to be bias to prove your point. True, but a film that is lacking any form of rebuttal should always be called into question. But, as viewers, sometimes we just have to take the film at face value and trust that it's leading us down a worthy path.
Now in the case of "Food Inc." there is no rebuttal from the groups that it attacks (i.e. Tyson), but then again that's because they never responded, which sometimes is the most riveting kind of fact and in many ways gives 'Food Inc.' a pass for being so one sided. Yet, for as one sided as "Food Inc." is, it's full of information that makes me question where I've been the last few years. The film spends its scant run time on breaking down the evolution of the food industry. From the farms to the slaughter houses to Government regulation, the film deftly tackles the chain of command the food chain now flows from. Obviously with such a broad brush stroke, the film covers many individual topics that serve one another. Such topics covered are: the mistreatment of animals (like how chickens are raised prior to be killing and worked into Tyson Chicken Patties), the spreading of disease and illness through the malnourishment of animals and increase of assembly line production, the mistreatment of workers, the potential of disease spreading to consumers through food, and the handcuffing of farmers through the use of big corporations. The aforementioned topics do seem like a lot of information to handle and in many respects the topics I mentioned are merely the beginning, but the film is able to deliver its information in a clear manner. It's a manner that will not only open your eyes, but disgust you.
Yet, what the film struggles with is it's ability to cover any given topic with in depth information. Never are we fully given the complete package with the particular topic and at times makes me question whether the point is really that strong to even be in the discussion. With that being said, where I was left feeling the need for more information, I was completely drawn in by the pathos the film delivers. Whether it's the story of Moe Parr, a seed cleaner who has been attacked through the long arm of the law by seed giant Monsanto, who is taking Moe to be an individual that is trying to break their seed patent. With no money to fight the giant, Moe and his business are needlessly broken down by a corporation who wants complete control of their market and the farmers. With this singular example the film demonstrates how the "food chain" has gone corporate as its more concerned about the almighty dollar. But this is not the only example. Peppered throughout the film are countless examples of people who have been the victim of big food businesses and their hand in government dealings. Another example is that of a mother whose son died from an E.coli laden burger and is lobbying in Washington to develop a law to change the standards of food production. Although this particular segment is a little short, it's extremely powerful and further reinstates the potential danger that resides in all of our foods when laws only perpetuate the risky endeavors of big business.
When everything is taken into account, "Food Inc." is a film that is inherently bias. Certainly they could've delivered points from the other side, but in many respects the opposition made no effort to fight back. Secondly, the levels of ignorance and danger the film reveals are too big and pertinent to look away from."Food Inc." may not seem to play fair, but when it's all said and done, it's been the conglomerates in the food business who have been playing unfair. Throughout the years they have tilted the scales in their favor by treating all of the pieces in the food production process (the animals, the workers, farmers) as tools of greed. And most of all, they treat our lives as a means to an end.
No comments:
Post a Comment