McMahonFilmAnnotation9

What’s On Your Plate, Catherine Gund, 2009
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

Two children, Sadie and Safiyah, go out to find out where the food that they eat is produced and who is doing the production. During their investigation, they get more than they bargained for by uncovering some of the inner workings of the food system mainly focusing on farming and food served at public schools. In time, the kids come to discover that there are many sources of good healthy food available, but few people know about them and they are underutilized. After talking to a friend of theirs at a fencing club, they discover that his dad has recently had a heath scare and so he was eating healthier. However, they had to drive out of Harlem to get good food since there were not places to purchase fresh produce. After a little research, they found a weekly farmer’s market that has been in Harlem for 10 years. However, this brings up a good topic about how some communities only have corner stores or the like because that is what the neighborhood wants. So, certain areas begin to get locked into the mindset that these places are the only places available to get food. One group of people that do not get to choose what they are fed though are the children in the public school system. The lunches generated by the public organization have been, traditionally, sub-optimal in nutritional terms. During an interview with the head chef, he reveals that the interest for healthy, organic food for the children is there, but the means with which to purchase them are not there. Funding for the public school system is stretched thin and it is hard to convince the government to give more money for the same amount of food albeit healthier. The movie also follows a particular family, the Angel family, from their farm to stand in the market and explain the steps that they have to go through to be successful urban farmers. They are hoping to sell shares of their farm to customers who will then receive a set amount of food per month. These programs work well, but the people who need them, startup farms, cannot guarantee results since they are new. Even then, produce may take some time. In the end, the film emphasizes that eating healthier any way you can which would be a direct improvement for your health and would start an interest within the community.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The movie follows the active research and work done by Sadie and Safiya. The two girls narrate, sometimes in unison, their travels along with people and present a lot of scientific data with drawings or animations which provides a good graphical backdrop. Personally, I thought that the film had very little emotional appeal. Sure, there were a few moments where there was a surge of emotion, but the two girls really got on my nerves after a while. Don’t get me wrong, I love kids, but their constant narration really got old after a while. It kept me from getting too engrossed in the film.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

This movie explores the educational problems associated with food as well as the organizational aspects. People don’t know where their food comes from or where they can get a constant supply of healthy meals. The politics of the public school systems are looked into briefly. Also, the culture surrounding local farmers is touched upon involving the market farmers and the Angel family.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?**
 * Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I found that the local farmers markets were the most persuasive part of the films. It’s local, fresh, and affordable. I didn’t even know that New York City was even capable of having farmer’s markets. It is truly quite amazing that such local and fresh food can be available in one of the busiest cities in the United States. I always assumed that urbanization inhibited the distribution of fresh foods, but this movie really showed me wrong. I know that on a large scale it might not be possible to feed the whole city like this, but the option is there. In fact, more and more farmers markets were opening up all over the city to encompass all of the burrows. There truly is a movement that I had no idea was taking place. Perhaps this is happening all over the country. I would be very curious to find out.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

Again, I don’t want to sound anti-children, but those kids really got to me. How they paused and said phrases together in unison. It really got on my nerves. Also, I feel like a lot of the interviews were underutilized due to their question choice and how people presented information to them. Now, I realize that this movie is more directed at children or at least the politically and environmentally illiterate, but it should really be viewable to all people. After the intro scene with the going slowly through their process talking in unison, I almost stopped watching. I’m glad I gave it a shot, but I truly think that this movie could have been a lot better without those kids.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I think that more in depth follow ups to a lot of the topics would have added a whole different level of education. What are the fallbacks and advantages of buying shares of farms, more politics about the school board and what determines the money. This film tried to cover a lot of topics at once, while keeping them kid friendly, but only made me curious about a lot of the topics rather than informed.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film pushed people to go out and support their local farmers, markets, and sustainable businesses. People, even in New York City, are capable of living a healthy lifestyle with their whole family if a little bit of leg work is done beforehand.
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

Going off one of the questions that I made during a PV presentation in class, I wanted to find out more about the degradation rates of solar panels. Turns out, they do degrade, but not near as much as I thought before. This gives me more hope towards solar panels as a more permanent energy option. []
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

After doing some more research, I realized that I knew almost nothing about the country of Mali. If you gave me a map, there would be a 1% chance that I could locate Mali correctly. So, I wanted to find out more about the country as well as whether or not farming was as big as the movie portrayed in the villages. It turns out that Mali grows a lot of cash crops, so farming is literally THE way to make money which ends up fueling the education problem by pulling children away from school. This makes me think back to the presentation on the World Bank not developing nations correctly. I can understand this better now. http://www.mapsofworld.com/mali/economy-and-business/agriculture.html