King Corn

If you've read Micheal Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" the issues addressed in this movie will be more than familiar. The tone, however, is rather younger, more superficial, and lighter. Both are quite enjoyable, and highlight problems most folks would rather not think about. I'd suggest you read the book first, then watch the movie to get the aroma and visuals. It would also be nice if other "reviewers" would own up to a disclosure such as this one, now common and expected, for example, in reputable medical journals: I am not employed by, nor do I have any financial interest in, any of the industries discussed or affected by this movie.

King Corn is an excellent documentary of the entire process of the corn kennel, from its genetic origin to its final use in food. The young protagonists start out from their worry that the junk food they eat will make them live less years than the previous generation and use this energy to investigate the main column of American food which is corn. As they decide to grow an acre of corn in IOWA, they interview people from all stages of the process and make sure that their work is not seen as a all-out criticism of corn. Reading between the lines, you can conclude that although the corn subsidies have made food much cheaper for Americans, it has also reduced its quality. Of course, you have to figure that out yourself since they don't propose a solution.

However, they interview enough people to allow you to think. For example, when talking to a farmer that operates a cattle feed lot in which cows are given antibiotics so they can process the excessive amounts of corn that will make them fat, the man replies bluntly: "yeah, we can have our cows eat grass, but that would make it more expensive".

They also give a primer on high-fructose corn syrup, the preferred sugar in the USA food industry. Heck, it's sugar. But since it's so cheap, tons of food products contain it.

King Corn is an excellent movie for those who don't understand farm subsidies and why they were put in the first place. It's also very balanced and does not cast any of the participants as evildoers. It's just the final (baseball) scene that lets in their youth idealism and pretty much disowns the extensive work they did for the past hours.

The film did not demonize corn as a species. It demonized the particular strain of highly selected and genetically modified corn that we use for high fructose corn syrup and cattle feed, a type of corn that requires intensive fertilization and herbicide regimens, and which actually kills off other strains of corn such as the sweet corn we all love eating at a summer barbecue. Also, cows are ruminants, which means that they have basic, low-acidity stomachs, evolved to digest grass. In order for them to digest the starchy kernels from corn, the acidity of their stomachs have to be artificially increased, causing myriad health problems for them which can only be remedied using antibiotics and hormones. This also makes them vulnerable to diseases that threaten us. It is absolutely naive to think this doesn't impact our health. Finally, the "Harvard professor" you refer to is Michael Pollan, a UC Berkeley professor. He is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book perhaps you should consider reading if you value facts so much. I think it is you who have not carefully understood the information presented by this film.

Wow~ I mean this movie was just amazing. def. one of my favorite docu pics of last year.

When I first heard about king corn I was convinced that it would basically be a typical look at how we, the American people, are over exposed and over weight from feeding on the "natural American diet" which is of course bad for you; much like that of what we saw in super size me. But that wasn't the case here. in short, king corn does a great job explaining the facts of the corn farming process, and the process by which corn itself ends up being part of our daily diets.

king corn has its typical docu moments though out, including interviews with politicians, and confessional citizens whose lives have been affected by obesity. However, its not over done here. Instead were given an exciting look at agriculture in the United States, and good story telling which does a great job delivering its message in a very original way.

Modern documentaries fascinate me.

In theory, the documentary category is an investigation, explanation or essay on something, presumably something both real and true. Because there is the supposition that the thing is interesting of worth hearing about for some reason, one assumes that most documentaries would be compelling things. All you have to be is a good enough storyteller and let the truth take over.

You have to pick the right story though. Al Gore's story should not have been that the planet is going amok and will kill us, but that it is doing so not because of corrupt government or greedy corporations, but because of us, and things we think are reasonable.

Rather than trust the story, most modern documentarians add in another story to grab our attention, and then slip in the real story under it. Thus, in a documentary about unhealthy fast food, we have the primary story about a goof who tries to eat nothing but fast food. I'm interested in these things because this is a modern phenomenon, and is made possible — I think — because of our desire for layered (I prefer folded) narrative.

To the movie. Here is the real story: The US constitution allowed two senators per state, and that was carried over to the new states regardless of wisdom. So we have some states with disproportionate power over the public purse. As they are farming and ranching states, that power transforms into huge, irrational farm subsidies. There are all sorts of unintended consequences, noted here. One is that food production has shifted to the creation of biomass for the sweetener, meat and ethanol industries.

Each of these has its own subsidies further distorting the balance. Another is that food has become extraordinarily cheap — the lowest cost ever in the history of mankind. This in turn has modified consumer habits allowing unnecessary luxury items not possible before.

This film only deals with the massive health problems from bad meat and sweetener. It uses two devices.

One is the story of two young guys, how they "came home" to Iowa and leased an acre on which to grow corn. They noodle about, discovering what will happen to "their" corn, and thus reveal the facts, usually as told to the boys by an expert. Its rather obvious that most of the interviews are rehearsed, and that they would be precisely the same without this framing story. Unfortunately, the two guys — who are two of the several writers for all the fiction — aren't interesting or appealing. Their host apparently goes bankrupt at the end, an extraneous unexplained fact.

We leave the boys playing on an acre of grass in the midst of a vast corn planting — their acre ostentatiously withdrawn from the system.

The other device is some stop-motion animation involving kernels of corn, a map and sometimes a toy farm set — which cleverly appears in the disposal auction of the displaced farmer at the end. This animation adds no information or explanatory value. Its there simply to be cute, and perhaps to break the monotony.

It is a strong story, this meat and sweet disaster. It could have been a strong film. It could have used folding effectively.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.