Too much on your plate.

Food, Inc. (2008) is one of the better documentaries to be released in recent memory. Not only is it a compelling presentation of shocking, and often times sickening information, but it is also a film that employs a number of classic cinematic techniques to scare the shit out of you. And it does. Granted, I didn't leave the theater vowing to convert to a plate full of organic food, or swear off store bought beef for the rest of my life. I did, however, take a step back and just stew in what Robert Kenner had just spent an hour and half showing me. I knew going in that there would be some grainy night vision footage of animals being abused. I was prepared for that and was completely unaffected by it, as cruel as that might sound. I've seen it all before. What had me struggling to keep my dinner down were the mountains of overwhelming corn to which half of the film was devoted. Shot after shot of corn falling at the screen, or the camera panning across an ocean of corn that is destined to become soda and crackers and feed. It all boils down to a food industry in which there is little to no variety, with a handful of people controlling what goes into your body three times a day. The film did what any documentary should do, which is preach to the unconvinced and spark a fresh thought. It made me wonder why my family, after so many years, had stopped relying on our own garden and animals for food. There was a time when our kitchen was full of home-grown vegetables and home-slaughtered pig. Why had we stopped doing this altogether so suddenly? That I can't answer, though the film shows why this happens with a lot of families. What I can say is that it makes me, and probably a lot of other viewers, long for locally grown food.

I was excited to see this film, even though I was prepared not to agree with a lot of what was presented (as I assumed that it would be a message laden with organic-only intentions). I grew more and more excited as the theater continued to fill until only a few seats were left. Following the film there was a panel discussion about the importance of locally owned and operated food production, which strengthened the film's message by allowing the opinions of those closer to the audience than the flashing images. Even better was that every person left the theater talking. That's what a good documentary - a good film - does. It stirs shit up, throws a wrench into the machine so that people start questioning what they're doing. While it wasn't the most artsy film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam since I've been attending, I cannot think of movie with more a connection to the North Country. Of all the films, I've attended, this one seemed to have the biggest impact.

My only concern (and the cause of a certain degree of puzzlement) is the inclusion of information regarding the founder of Stonyfield Farm. What bothers me is that his story almost goes against what the film encourages, which is for people to support local farming and demand to know what's going into their food. While Stonyfield Farm produces organic only yogurt products, this does not mean that they have anything to do with local interests. Just because something is labeled "organic," does not mean that it comes from a small, independent producer. The founder says that his business deal with Walmart is a small step toward the nation becoming more involved in their food choices. But selling out to one of the largest (if not the largest) suppliers in the world seems to take away from the movement. There's even a segment in the film where the producers and Stonyfield's founder walk around a convention full of organic and "independent" food producers. But, as is pointed out, most of these companies are owned by larger businesses like Coke and Pepsi. What this means is that although the ingredients might be organic, someone is still getting fucked. Walmart sets the prices because they command the majority of the market on everything. They're still going to find a way to produce the organic food cheaper and quicker so that there can be more of it supplied to people as the demand grows. He's taken his business from something small and meaningful, to just another wing in the corporate mansion. By buying in, he seems to have lost sight of what the movement means. Am I reading into this correctly? I wonder, then, why the film makers included this. Perhaps it's because they disagree with his methods, and are showing his methods as if to say that this is the opposite of what should be done. Maybe I'm wrong? I would absolutely love feedback on this, because when I think about this film, I get caught up on this section.


Verdict: Pretty much Stoked. Amazing turnout. I wish the response was always this great, and maybe it will be from now on. Really looking forward to next week's screening of Los cronocrimenes (2007).