The Film Food Inc - Essay Example

The Film Food Inc Food, Inc. is a highly insightful documentary film released in 2008. It is directed by Robert Kenner. The purpose of the director is to raise awareness about unethical and unhealthy choices made in corporate farming in the US to produce food. This purpose is very carefully chosen by Kenner because it hopes to put an end to all those ways employed by farmers which are harmful to both environment and animals. It is clear that the documentary targets government and common public as its audience. These groups are chosen as primary audience because the director deems it critically important to eliminate ignorance concerning the subject of corporate farming. He thinks the best way to achieve this end is to start from top to bottom. So, the documentary speaks to both official authorities and public to protest against the practices which are environmentally unsustainable. It is stressed that there should be organic food production in the US. This message is vigorously stressed throughout the film from start to end because industrial food producers employ wrong methods which are abusive to animals. Also, the pesticides used are harmful to food which is produced. This is the reason this film attracted huge criticism from industrial food producers and pesticide manufacturers because it works to uncover myriad hideous aspects of agribusiness in the US. Various ideas presented in the documentary are arranged chronologically. This is another riveting thing about this film because the ideas are not just thrown haphazardly at the audience so that it becomes difficult to focus on ideas individually. There is no scattering of ideas or events, rather there is a sequence which makes it easier to absorb the message conveyed by director. For example, first the film is divided into three segments to ensure there is no mixing of events. Starting from the industrial production of meat and poultry to the production of grains and vegetables to the heavy use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers to the promotion of unhealthy and contaminated food, Kenner goes all the way through to inform the public about the reality of their food consumption habits. The effect of this strategy used by director on the audience is of critical importance because it reflects how deep the message is embedded in the minds of every person who watched the film. The more scattering or clattering there is of ideas, the less chance is of any idea properly embedding in a mind and the message is not retained. But, this documentary succeeds in this area because there is very intelligent presentation of different concepts like how the food we consume is prepared, what fertilizers used, and what kind of food is promoted, etc. The film uses narration to convey ideas to its audience. The narrators are Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser. Narration is an important and interesting aspect of the film because it feels like a very different kind of informative story is read which helps to engage the audience. Also, the narration is flawless and both voices are perfectly chosen by director. This is because they do not create a sedative or hallucinatory effect on people watching the film which happens when narration is dull and unimaginative. Rather, the tone of the voices go through highs and lows according to the nature of the scenes. This documentary takes a radical turn from other conventional movies made about food and the director deliberately takes this radical turn. The purpose is to wake up the government and public to acknowledge wrong practices employed in the US food industry. It is not the intention of direction to follow the herd and make a food documentary which praises the food industry and shows sumptuous banquets. Rather, this film is different because it presents a different take on the subject of food. It is not about making people want to eat food without contemplating their options. It is about opening the eyes of food consumers to what they are presented by giant retailers. Focus shifts from perfection to imperfection in this film. Imperfections are highlighted and explored with the hope to promote organic food production. The living conditions of animals and birds are scrutinized and criticized as objectively as possible to help the audience tell right from wrong. This film differs from other films made about food because food awareness is the theme here, not food glamorization. The practices which are abusive to animals and also promote labor exploitation are fearlessly condemned. It is stressed that means do not justify the end. For example, though the end product presented to public is seemingly benign, the means used to produce that product are all wrong and unfair. The bright and glittery American supermarkets well hide the awful background story and Food, Inc. strives to uncover the details of that story. From unhealthily jammed chicken dens to messy meat-cutting rooms to toxic chemicals sprayed on cornfields, the images shown in the film are depressing, but realistic. Research also claims that the film may be hard to watch, but at least it takes a practical and informative look at how food is produced (Severson). Concluding, the film “Food, Inc.” is a good attempt at exposing bad food production methods. It also satisfactorily describes the changes needed to produce healthy food and protect animal rights. The film does not take interest in preaching people, rather it only exposes what is wrong and needs to be changed. The bright supermarkets do not tell the story of the stifling conditions in which animals and birds are forced to live by breeders and the physical pressure it puts on them. So, this film ensures that people know all about their food. They should not be only interested in consuming the end product. Rather, it is their responsibility as aware and conscientious citizens to dig deep and explore the means used to produce food which reaches the market. The film is quite effective in promoting its message because after watching it, any person would not just randomly toss a few packages of processed food in the cart. Rather, he/she would stop to think before selecting food. Work cited: Severson, Kim. Eat, Drink, Think, Change. Nytimes.com, 03 Jun. 2009. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. Read More