The review of Food, Inc. by GreenMuze was exactly as expected. It supported the film, and praised its great insight and the education is provides. The motto of this site is “Green Ideas & Innovations,” which clearly goes along with support of organic food and critique of industrialized systems. While this review makes valid points of the corrupt system, it uses a lot of quotes from the movie. In using all these quotes, it is as if the reader is simply being given a second look at the movie, but this time with another voice between the lines saying, “look, isn’t that a great point!” The review certainly does a good job advocating for the movie and further villainizing these food corporations though. Just like while watching the movie, you get swept up in the excitement and horror of it all, and it is hard to remember to step back and look at who is writing this and the bias within. Another technique used in this review is quotes about the film. These quotes are not cited, but they all state the film as an important and “must see” film. Clearly, this review is in full support of the movie, which makes sense coming from a liberal, “green” supporting site.
The New York Times reviews Food Inc. in a seemingly middle standpoint. While this paper often has a liberal standpoint, it seems that in this review they aren’t too over the top in either direction. The review explains Food, Inc. as a horror film, which is a somewhat applicable remark. Throughout the review, film techniques that Kenner used are exposed, such as the continuous use of gruesome graphics and sob stories. The review is not putting down these techniques, but is simply calling them out, so that the reader can be aware of the manipulation of emotions within the film. This is not a bad thing though, all movies manipulate our emotions, and that is why we watch them. Without emotional twists, a film is monotonous and won’t sell. This review agrees that the statements within the film are gut wrenching and infuriating, and never says they are invalid statements. An end critique of the film states that the film is not quite deep enough though, noticing that each issue is touched upon, but never dives into any solutions. While this review comes from a somewhat liberal source, it seems to have a good view of the film both as an educational film, but also simply as a thriller.
Cargill’s response to Food, Inc. is much more concise and doesn’t delve into the film the way they other reviews did. Clearly, coming from one of the major food corporations that are repeatedly shunned and villainized in the film, this review does not fully support the movie. But also, they seem quite careful as to not come on to strongly in rejecting the film. In this careful tightrope walk, Cargill’s CEO explains their support and agreement about organic foods. This is an interesting tactic that seems to be saying, “we’re on your side too.” Beyond this attempt to keep their audience happy, Cargill’s main point is that there is no simple solution to feeding the 6 billion people on earth, and that unlike the film stated, it would not be possible to feed our population in a system recommended by the film. The last point made was a quote from Norman Borlaug, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the 1960s “Green Revolution,” stating that organic farming could feed only 4 billion, which doesn’t cover our entire population. While this is a legitimate argument, and good promotion of contemporary industry, the truth of this statement is hard to place since it was a quote from the past, and modern technology might prove this statement wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment