Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Food Inc.

No description
by

on 4 November 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Food Inc.

Rhetorical analysis of clip
In the documentary “ Food Inc” it uses emotional appeal to show the cruelty of what the food industry had done with taking the beaks off of the baby chicks. By using baby chicks that had just hatched, this can appeal to the audience of innocent young chicks just tossed around through the conveyer belt when the worker take off the beak and pass it on to the next procedure. Another emotional appeal is when E.coli was present in the beef that a young child ate from. He ends up dying just within twelve days when the company of the beef was not in contact until sixteen days after. By using logical appeal, Food Inc shows the negative impact that the food corporations has on the environment like using pesticides and herbicides in water. In this clip it also uses some rhetorical devices like irony. It’s ironic how labels say farm grown but it technically means that the food was processed in a factory.
Food Inc.
Assertions/Validity/Structure
Some assertions made in Food Inc. were: three mega slaughterhouses for that nation means there can be parts of a thousand different cows in a single hamburger; three to four companies control meat production in America, a typical chicken grower (no longer called farmer) in Kentucky has borrowed $500,000 and makes about $18,000 a year. All these things were then proved by facts or interviews done with people that know about the topic.
The argument proposed by Robert Kenner in Food Inc. has validity because he uses facts that are proven by statistic and researchers. This film goes deep into the slaughter house of meat producers and uncovers the truth of the treatment and unsanitary ways the animals are kept, by doing so it improves their argument because it shows that they have proof to back up what they are saying. Kenner and his team also include a view of all angles from talking to authors, advocates, farmers, and CEOs,

All the images shown that negatively portray the food industry makes the viewer have a sense of pity and disgust towards the industries. The argument structured so that the situation is presented first by the traditional farming ways, and then followed by the contrast of the new farming techniques, why they are wrong, and how it harms the customer’s health.
Viewpoint and tone
The attitude and viewpoint of Robert Kenner director of Food Inc. can be inferred from the tone of the documentary. Since the beginning of the film, there was already an ominous mood, with the creepy music zooming out. Clearly there is no joyous point of view this topic, Kenner is revealing all the secrets and injustice done to these animals. His viewpoint is that, there has to be a change, to tell the people to stop and look at what has America come to, producing contaminated food, not only hurting animals but also the people. Robert Kenner would not risk attacking major companies for nothing, no; there was a purpose for the publication of this documentary that was nominated for best documentary at the 82nd Academy Awards. The director wants the people to know the truth of what is happening, he had the courage to tackle such a very little discussed topic, his viewpoint is that people should know where there food is coming, how it is being made, what exactly goes into the food and how it affects the economy, our bodies, the animals themselves, and future generations to come.
Cinematic techniques
The cinematic techniques the film used were the framing. In the beginning of the documentary, it was zoomed in at the farmhouse then zooms out to where the farmhouse was a picture, to reveal that it was hanging in a market. Then the framing was set in the middle of a shopping cart as it passed through the aisle. This reveals the many amount of food product that came from farms which is over forty thousands of it did.

As the film continues on, music in the background starts playing. The music sounds eerie, innocent but can be suspicious that lies within the products. Along with the music is narration added to the film. The sharp narration allows the audience sees the narrator’s confirm statement of the current scene that is taken place.

The lighting in this film of the factory was damp and not well lit. Due to the lighting it shows how the processing of food can be horrid. It was shown how bad the factory of food industry could be on the inside what may not look how it does on the outside. There were only several lights that is only shown on some party of the factory, but not as many that it can fully lit the whole entire factory. The food coming from the factory is just as dangerous that the setting it was taken place.

Video Clip
Purpose & Argument
The purpose of this film to expose the truth behind the food industry. The filmmaker wants you to know how corrupt food processing has become. It shows many different scenes portraying the cruelty towards animals like cutting off the tails of cows and cutting of the beaks of baby chickens. This film uses interviews from farmers to back up their argument. Companies like Tyson refused to be interviewed which shows that they don't want the people to know what is going on in their industry. Their overall argument is that we should stop buying from these industries because of their dishonesty. They want you to buy organic food instead. They want the people to be aware of where their food comes from and how it was deal with.

Director
Robert Kenner is a dedicated filmmaker that has produced several documentaries; Food Inc. Two Days in October, American Experience, The Blues, Russia’s Last Tsar, Influenza: 1918, War Letters, John Brown's Holy War, and When Strangers Click. He worked over six years to produce Food Inc, gathering information and trying to back up his argument. In Food Inc, Kenner, tries to open up societies views on how the meat industry deceives the buyer. His most recent work When Strangers Click is nominated for an Emmy award.
Film background
This film was published in 2008; it took 3 years in the making due to so much money used against lawsuits from all of the companies mentioned in the film. The film placed fourth place for best documentary at the 35th Seattle International Film Festival, and was nominated for best documentary at the 85th Annual Academy Awards. After the film was published it has now teamed up and sponsored Take Part. Where you can team up with others and talk about healthy eating. This year they had a contest called the Food, Inc. Awards where people can enter to win the Lifestyle Award or the Pioneer Award.
Historical context
The historical context of the documentary is that is shows the changes that have happened in general with the food industry. For example they have a cartoon of what chicken looked like in 1970 and a chicken in 2007, a major difference. The documentary shows how farmers today don’t really farm anymore; the use of GMO’s that we didn’t have 50 years ago. It shows the growth yet the damage of technology. Farmers and crop growers didn’t put any chemicals or modified seeds into the soil to feed the animals, or the fact that only a handful of meat companies are in charge of distributing meat, is a sign of danger.
Brief overview
The beginning of the film portrays the changes in the meat industry, giving statistics on what is actually going on in the farms. Giving information of how the farms mistreat the animals, or they can’t show or give information on what they do to the animals. From there the film goes to the topic of what the animals actually eat, like corn and soybeans and the mass production. Saying how scientists now are able to grow more corn now that they have genetically modified it. The end of the film focuses on the companies themselves how they use the law to benefit themselves. They also show the chemicals they put in the food, like fertilizers, to contaminate the food, and yet at the end they show a little bit of brightness by giving information on how people are going more towards organic food.
Full transcript