AndersonFilmAnnotation5


 * Film Annotation #5**
 * King Corn**
 * Word Count: 1061**

This film, //King Corn//, was directed by Aaron Woolf. It was released in 2004.
 * 1.** **Title, Director, and Release Year?**

The film’s central narrative is that corn is in pretty much everything we eat, and that we are basically made out of corn since we eat so many foods containing corn. Two guys, whose ancestors had lived in the community, borrow an acre of land from a farmer. The film tracks the acre of land and the corm planted on it throughout the year. It also tracks where the corn goes and discusses changes in agriculture over the years.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film does not have much in the way of scientific information, but the farmers discussed how they grew, harvested, and sold corn. Presumably, their methods were based on science, or at least observation of what worked and what did not. They also said that farmers were getting 200 bushels an acre; before a lot of the modernization and genetic selection, 50 bushels an acre had been a lot. //King Corn// had a lot of emotional appeal, especially the part where the two main characters in the film, Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis find out that they both had ancestors living in the same town as the acre of land. The film had a lot of country music and sort of a soft, old-times, country feel to it. The last scene was of an old family farm being auctioned off.
 * 3.** **How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film does not explicitly state sustainability problems, but many were covered in the film. Farmers are paid by the government to grow corn; otherwise, farmers would probably lose money growing corn. Many people do not know that most of the food they eat comes from corn. The film also discussed obesity, which is both a sustainability problem (if people are eating too much, then energy is wasted in growing that food) and a health problem. The film could definitely have gone into more detail about how connected these issues are to humans and the environment, but it was only about 90 minutes long and obviously could not focus on all aspects of agriculture.
 * 4.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I really liked how the film presented facts and seemed unbiased. It had a good “feel” to it-it was not overly dramatic or confusing. The film also discussed what corn is used in and how pervasive it is in the food supply. Beef cows, for example, are fed corn to help them fatten up faster, even though it is dangerous to their health. To prevent the cows from getting acidosis (the corn makes their stomachs more acid), and in general to keep them from getting sick due to the stresses of the feedlot, antibiotics are added to the cows’ feed. Soda contains high fructose corn syrup. The film pointed out that when people get a burger, fries, and soda at a McDonalds, they are eating corn. The cow ate corn, the hamburger might have corn syrup or corn starch in it, and the soda contains high fructose corn syrup. The film discussed the link between rising consumption of soft drinks and more cases of diabetes.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

There was a scene where the two men were getting money from the government based on how much corn they would be planting. I would have enjoyed an explanation of how subsidies work and their history. It was touched upon slightly, but not enough to make an impression on the viewer. I also would have liked to have seen at least some of the issues connected more to environmental problems. While I enjoyed that the film was a bit more upbeat since it did not detail every single problem, I would have liked to have seen more discussion of the connections between the environment and farming.
 * 6.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I think that //King Corn// reaches out to a broad audience. Many people can relate to the film. Many Americans have ancestors who lived on farms, and, if they do not, they probably eat meat from factory farms. The film is also not biased or dramatic, two things that help reach out to a broader audience. Too many environmental films make viewers come away feeling like the situation is hopeless.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film could have connected the issues being discussed more to environmental problems. Since I know a fair amount of what was discussed in the film and how it relates to the environment already, I was able to see the connections, but the average person probably would not. I did feel like not having constant reminders about how terrible every action being done is to the environment made the film more interesting and easier to watch. However, a few facts about how poisonous pesticides are or how excess fertilizer runs into the ocean and kills marine life would have greatly increased the film’s environmental education value. I was very surprised that, when food travel was discussed, it was not pointed out how bad that is for the environment. Many food items in the supermarket come from far away-I live in the Midwest, and some of the fruits and vegetables in the supermarkets come from California, Washington, or even Australia.
 * 8.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film did not suggest corrective actions. A movement towards local foods would solve many of the problems presented. Also, subsidies may help the farmers, but they are not so good for the environment, since they encourage unsustainable practices. Taking a look at the system and making it into a system that encourages sustainable farming practices would be very effective.
 * 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.**

Since I live in farm country, I know probably more than most people about farming, even though my own family does not farm. Although I know some agriculture history, watching //King Corn// made me compelled to learn some more. I found [|this article] about the history of agricultural subsidies. At first, the government had supported industries other than agriculture, even when times were hard. Then, under FDR, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was created that paid farmers to not grow crops. The reasoning behind this was that food prices would rise if there was a smaller supply (at the time, the Great Depression was underway and there was an excess supply of food), food prices would rise. The subsidies have stayed in place and now actually pay farmers who grow food, not just ones who let their fields or some of their fields lay fallow. [|Another article] questions the relevance of subsidies in today’s world.
 * 10.** **What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

References [] []