marcszar_supersize_me


 * Supersize Me -** //Morgan Spurlock, 2004//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// Morgan Spurlock argues that American's exposure to cheap and convenient fast food has led to an obesity epidemic across the country. Spurlock goes on a diet (eating only fast food) to examine what will happen - he gains weight and develops health problems. Spurlock also argues that fast food corporations know very well the dangers of their foods but continue to push them onto a public too lazy to bother thinking about the negative repercussions of a fast food diet.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * One interviewee argues that lobbyists for the fast food industry work hard in Washington to make sure that the government never passes legislation that is unfavorable to the industry; that is, that the government never passes legislation/regulation that explicitly states that fast food is detrimental to health or that individuals should limit their intake of fast food.
 * //Legal?//
 * Two girls sued McDonald's for supposedly making them obese - the judge dismissed the lawsuit because he argued that the girls failed to show that McDonald's food actually made them fat. But in the experiment in the film Spurlock showed us that eating McDonald's food //does// make you fat - in one month of the McDonald's diet his cholesterol went up 60 points, he gained 25 pounds, his body fat percentage increased from 11% to 18%, and his liver suffered damage. Perhaps the two obese girls did not make as clear a case.
 * //Economic?//
 * The prevalence of fast food has resulted in a "health care" system that is actually "sick care" - we no longer practice preventive care but rather treat symptoms with medications. Hence our system has become extremely expensive because we have to deal with the side effects of a lot of unhealthy lifestyle choices.
 * //Technological?//
 * The film describes the incredibly intricate industrial processes used to refine fast food. Particularly interesting is the discussion on McNuggets - the chicken nuggets are composed of a slurry of chicken waste and byproducts and McDonald's acknowledges that the heavy processing of food like McNuggets actually makes them unhealthy.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * Spurlock shows us that fast food and soda companies spend billions upon billions of dollars advertising their products - especially to children during "cartoon times" on weekend television. The companies know that if they can hook young children into a culture of fast food, the children will grow up to become customers for life.
 * //Organizational?//
 * The film described how effective McDonald's and other fast food outlets were in blanketing the Manhattan landscape so that you were always within easy walking distance of a franchise. Globalization and large economies-of-scale have allowed the fast food chains to establish very large networks of franchises to build brand loyalty and universal recognition of their product.
 * //Educational?//
 * Spurlock wonders why we continue to consume so much fast food when so many of us are already well aware that it is obviously not good for us. Many of us are already well aware of the dangers of fast food (it is common for people to acknowledge that it makes you fat) but we continue to push that awareness to the backs of our minds when we consume fast food.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * One researcher in the film argues that it is not just laziness or personal behavior that keeps us consuming fast food, but that the food actually acts like a drug itself, much like crack or heroin. Hormones and chemicals in the fast food alter brain chemistry so that heavy consumers of fast food actually become dependent on the food and suffer from all types of withdrawal symptoms when they can't get fast food - mood swings, depression, etc.
 * //Cultural?//
 * Spurlock describes an interesting condition where it has become culturally acceptable to publicly chastise and hassle smokers - it is acceptable to goad them and say "You really ought to quit, that's a disgusting habit, that's really not good for you," but it is not acceptable to say to a land whale "Put down that burger fatty, it isn't good for you. You need to stop eating so much." Should the reaction we have to smoking be applied to obesity as well? I really don't know.
 * //Ecological?//
 * The film does not really discuss the environmental damage that the farm (corn) subsidies used to create fast food have had, but it does go into detail about the numerous health problems associated with fast food (Spurlock acquires many of those health problems himself when he goes on his fast food diet for one month).

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// Spurlock's one-month experiment was very convincing - it should be obvious to most people that fast food is not good for the body but perhaps a lot of people who are addicted to fast food try to convince themselves that something else is responsible for their obesity. The experiment should convince even the most strenuous skeptics to admit that fast food has at least //some// negative effects on the body.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// The discussion on Appleton School District (it dealt with children with behavioral issues) as being a pioneering school district that was changing childrens' behavior not via academics and sports but rather via diet, was not that compelling to me. I find it hard to believe that the rowdiness and unruliness prevalent in our schools is solely the responsibility of processed and fast foods; I still tend to think that a breakdown in family order (both parents are always working and absent) is at greater fault.

//What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?// The film does not discuss the increasing prevalence of obesity in Europe and Asia where fast food is becoming increasingly common as well - here are perfect testing grounds for examining if fast food can really spur the creation of an obesity epidemic in a country or if other factors (increasing suburbanization, sedentary lifestyles) are causing the problem (or if the problem is a mix of various social situations).

//What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?// This film is intended to resonate with the many, many Americans who eat fast food (whether they are actually obese on not) by trying to convince them that the way they eat is not sustainable and will eventually lead to premature death. The results from Spurlock's diet experiment might scare some land whales into changing their eating habits.

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// Spurlock halfheartedly asks the fast food companies to consider eliminating their supersize options and to offer alternatives to french fries. He stresses that fast food companies' first responsibility is to their shareholders and that they should not have to exert responsibility for the American diet. It is our own fault we are so fat - Americans need to acquire some personal responsibility and learn to practice some restraint It is up to the individual to make fundamental shifts in their diet - healthy alternatives to fast foods are just as easily available in the supermarkets and it is very easy to avoid fast food if you are willing to exercise restraint.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?// .
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * An industry spokesman for the processed food industry admits in an interview that "we're part of the problem" of the obesity epidemic in the US, so Spurlock was able to express quite a social consensus in the film in showing that various organizations on all sides of the fast food issue acknowledged that something had to be done to address the crisis.
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * No, the film offers insight from industry spokespersons but most of the attention is paid to independent researchers studying the effects of fast food on the human body.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * Yes, there are various interviews done where scientists describe in detail how fast food alters specific areas of the human body and how the environment in the fast food restaurants is specifically designed to attract children (thus forcing their parents to come along with them and helping to promote a positive impression of the restaurant in the child's mind, thus ensuring the child will grow up to be a customer for life).
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * Yes, it wasn't preachy at all; it stressed that people should exercise personal restraint but it didn't do so in a pushy or arrogant manner.
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * The numerous images of land whales waddling around were quite humorous as well as the graphics used to illustrate Spurlock's rapidly deteriorating physical condition. The footage of ordinary people being interviewed on the street is thought-provoking (as well as the idiosyncratic logic regarding fast food).

< Back to my portfolio