Van-Anh La Honors 211 A 1022656 The Dark Side of Food: Film Interpretations of Nutritional Consumption Many food documentaries

often typically vilify processed foods and genetically modified organisms while praising organic produce. However, the overall impact on the viewer changes significantly depending on how the film presents its argument. Here we analyze two documentaries: Food Matters by James Calquhoun and Fed Up! By Angelo Sacerdote. Although both are mostly based on scientific fact and rely heavily on interviews from health care providers, the differences in certain stylistic elements contribute to the final message of both films. Food Matters deals with nutrition specifically in relation to disease in the US and Fed Up! is a scientific discussion of GMOs vs organic food. By looking at the use of vintage move clips, duration of various speakers and customized animations; we are able to determine which film was more effective in delivering its message or if they stand to learn something from each other. Splicing in video clips from old movies is often effective in showing how things have or have not changed in society since then. Both Food Matters and Fed Up! Have clips scattered throughout from movies, documentaries and even war footage from 1939. Fed Up! Even uses the voice over of 50s infomercials as the over-arching narrator. The clips are often presented right after one of the interviewees has made an important point. In Fed Up!, after Ignacio Chapela says the phrase we have adopted the mentality of war into the mentality of agriculture, the film cuts to footage of World War II and commercials that read Death to Weeds. The footage of World Warr II shows the use of nerve gases and the commercials show how those nerve gases are used as pesticide gases in fields. Since the American society continues to use pesticides today, the mentality towards agriculture remains one of warfare. The audience is able to trust the film at this point because visual evidence of the statement Ignacio made has been provided, in
Page 1

Van-Anh La Honors 211 A 1022656 addition to bringing the statement to life in a way that shocks the viewer. Similarly in Food Matters, Jerome Burns explains that in order for a drug to be licensed, it just has to provide two studies where the new drug out-performs a placebo; no matter how many failed trials have occurred. He explains that this is not a thorough evaluation of the drug before being released to the public: that when the drug is released to the product the population is participating in an unknown third experiment. Immediately following, is a clip from Quacks and Nostrums (1958) in which a scientist explains to a young man all new drugs are tested for their purity and potency before being distributed to the public. The clip represents not only what the majority of the population believes is occurring with drug companies, but where this notion of careful drug inspection came to be. Shown right after the comment, it allows the viewer to comprehend that the standard for new drugs has changed significantly, and not for the better. Although both films were successful in using clips from old movies to support their argument, labeling of such clips made a vast difference in viewer comprehension. Fed Up! used many black and white clips that the viewer may guess to be from the 50s, but since all the clips used were not labeled, the audience was left wondering if the clip was from a fiction film, raw footage, or commercials. The audience spends their time wondering if the clip is shown for irony or to provide evidence instead of considering the argument at hand. In Food Matters however, every single clip used from another production was labeled with the film title and year such as Quacks and Nostrums-1958. By providing this amount of information, it allows the viewer to search for the film and discover that it was an informational short movie on pharmaceutical industries. Since this movie is spliced throughout the rest of the documentary the

Page 2

Van-Anh La Honors 211 A 1022656 audience figures out the intention of using these clips as propaganda and how they make the argument against current health regulations stronger. The choice of speakers in each movie ranges to roughly 11 people. The variety of profession as well added to each documentarys egos and logos. By having holistic dentists, raw food dieticians, and medical journalists, Food Matters can strongly support the stance that chemical drugs are detrimental to the body, while nutrition and vitamins are the cures to disease. In addition, Fed Up! not only interviewed organic farmers but also a biotechnician from UC Davis. Obviously, these two people have opposing views on whether GMOs are safe for the general public or not. The inclusion of both lends credibility in the movie to provide both sides of the argument. Therefore, both films by interviewing more than 10 people, allows the viewer to think that the director made the effort to seek out a number of different opinions. Timing is especially important when two documentaries rely so heavily on interviews to narrate. The difference in the duration of each speaker makes a difference in how the argument is presented. In Fed Up!, every person that is interviewed is given a time limit of 3 minutes at most. Even if their voice is still narrating while other images are shown, the film only spends a short period of time with each person. In a particular scene that lasts about 5-6 minutes, the head of biotechnology at UC Davis and a Friends of The Earth Representative appear to speak back and forth on the subject of GMO safety using clips of their separate interviews mixed together. The scene is effective because when the Representative makes a claim about a dangerous GMO process, the audience instantaneously is able to receive a counter point from the biotechnician. Although each person only ever speaks for less than a minute at a time, the quick back and forth splicing allows the viewer to be immersed in the argument and perhaps formulate an opinion of
Page 3

Van-Anh La Honors 211 A 1022656 their own. A con of this quick timing is that throughout the documentary there is a sense of haphazardness and a lack of continuity as different thoughts continue to be introduced. On the other hand, Food Matters spends a great deal of time with each person they interview. The speaker often has three to four minutes of their own screen time. Andrew Saul, a doctor who is a main speaker has so much time devoted to completing his thought that the documentary could be split up into parts according to ideas he presents and concludes. The extended amount of time spent with each person allows for continuity and greater comprehension of the material at hand. As much as Fed Up! Felt chaotic at times, Food Matters was like an extended essay and each speaker was responsible for a paragraph. The negative to this however, was that it was easy to grew tired of listening to one person for too long. Also, it often felt as though when the audience spent too much time with one speaker, the idea was too drawn out. The extra time definitely worked for some speakers and their ideas, but after an hour and a half, the pattern needed to be broken. One element that both films did not have, however, was the use of customized animations supporting a statement made by a speaker. In Food Matters, Andrew Saul states that in the past 30 years only 10 deaths are attributed to vitamin overdose. This is followed by a panoramic shot over a digitally created cemetery with hundreds of tombstones. Exactly 10 of them are fenced off and labeled as Attributed to Vitamin Overdose. These animations throughout the documentary help to illustrate other statements, such as this one, that would otherwise seem insignificant without a visual. Fed Up! does not use its own animations whatsoever throughout the film. Much of this documentary is scientific jargon, explained by a biotechnician department lead about how DNA is spliced into other organisms. These
Page 4

Van-Anh La Honors 211 A 1022656 complicated processes would be much aided by animations. Without this element, any terms or explanations not understood by the viewer is essentially useless in being used in the documentary. Fed Up! does try to continue using borrowed clips by showing old propaganda cartoons after certain speakers. Sometimes, the animation works harmoniously with the statement given and either provides a visual representation or ironic example of what is being said. Most times however, it is more difficult to find a clip that exactly represents digestion of GMOs versus fabrication of one for the sole purpose of the film. In this way, Food Matters contained a very useful element that allowed it to portray the current medical healthcare industry negatively through first account of experience and visual representation. Both films used a number of different speakers to present their arguments against GMOs or chemical medicine, which was then backed up by video clips from old movies. After thorough examination of each films use of the two stylistic elements, it is hard to come to a conclusion if one better represented the argument. I personally had viewed Fed Up! first, and after I saw it, I felt as though it was a little chaotic. I appreciated the inclusion of a biotechnician and footage of a Monsanto conference as many food documentaries never let the scientists argue their cause for the safety of GMOs. However, eve as a science major, I myself found it hard to keep up with the different arguments occurring. The speakers were switched so frequently that I could not finish formulating a thought of my own. I thought that the use of 50s propaganda films and commercials were especially unique and effective in showing that what we currently still believe is what was used as propaganda in the 50s. After viewing Food Matters, I thought this documentary in particular was clearer about its over-arching argument. I was surprised that it too used clips from the same era of time. Its use of custom animation as well as photos of cancer

Page 5

Van-Anh La Honors 211 A 1022656 patients before and after nutrition regimens stuck with me more. What lacked for me in this film were real scientific facts. Although two speakers were healthcare professionals, one raw food dietician said, Were going to genetically modify things we know nothing about. This is a very strong but untrue statement and I would not have known so if I had not seen Fed Up! directly before. In one interview the Head of the Biotechnician department explains how the fragments of DNA scientists are extracted from fish to put into fruits, are elements we all have in common, and are very well known in the biochemistry field. Viewed one after the other, a person is first able to understand the origin of GMOs, how it is processed in the body, and why organic food is better for society culturally. Moving into the second film the argument of how nutrition affects health and disease is better understood because we already have a background on the differences between GMOs and organic food. To be a truly effective standalone documentary however, I believe that Fed Up! needed to incorporate animations and varying duration of speaker time like Food Matters. Both films included the same type of elements in their representation of science and medicine, however, had they borrowed more stylistic choices from each other, both films would have been more dynamic, credible, and captivating.

Page 6