View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-08-2005, 08:11 PM
cricket
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if that movie is
good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school. why? maybe they
like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their parents didn't
teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach them but there
is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that segment irked me
so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
wrote in message
oups.com...

I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his name) is a
very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a lot of
people could imagine being their friend. And his filmmaking style is
easygoing and something that might change minds, not the shrill, angry
feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely unlike Michael
Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like "Roger and
Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes, I know there
were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still leagues ahead
of what he does now.)

The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately unconvincing
self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some point to make
about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the subject of
the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a way to make
a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which he
deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits every day
for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can easily dismiss
what he did by staying that eating that much of anything, even if it
was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill - and they'd be
right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make himself famous,
and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But it's ostensible
reason for being is not convincing at all.