Given our discussions of the first two modes that Nichols identifies, we can see that
SuperSize Me fits squarely in the expository mode: it is overtly argumentative; VO dominates the film; it is directed to the viewer; its editing maintains rhetorical continuity; and, by continually visiting doctors, etc. it aims toward a sense of objective judgment ("the charts don't lie"). Yet, as we will see tomorrow, the film also follows some of the strategies of the interactive mode: the doctors, et al he recruits for the experiment become the textual authority that the editing practices of another film would be (say, in
Capturing). The ease of this assignment points to the ultimate lack of necessity of categorizing documentaries into specific modes: we know nothing more about the film by assigning it a mode. Moreover,
Supersize Me employs techniques of at least two of the modes.
However, what we CAN get from the modes Nichols describes for us is understanding into how documentaries work, how they "make meaning." In tomorrow's discussion of the remaining two modes (interactive and reflexive), we will come to understand how each operates and how the design of the modes (in a sense) becomes the argument and subject of the filmmaking and film-viewing processes.
AND, we will watch and discuss Luis Bunuel's surrealist documentary Land without Bread (if there's time). This film operates in a manner influenced by many of the traditions Nichols highlights in his article on documentary modes as it performs a radical interrogation of documentary forms all the while using those forms (and this coming from a film made in 1932).
I feel in a way the documentary SupeSize Me although argumentative was also persuasive, in the sense that ultimately Spurloc wants you to believe that eating McDonalds is bad for you and although he said he is a meat eater and loves meat, his girfreind was the subliminal message saying vegan is better. Not because she just said eating organic vegetables is better for you but she also made it a point to mention Spurloc's sexual performance had changed, in detail, which would definately make most men think twice about picking up a Big Mac. Also the end of the documentary shows her coming up with the detox or "cure" if you will, for his 30 day Micky D binge. Would this be considered reflexive mode?
ReplyDeleteI also agree, I felt the documentary to be both argumentative and persuasive. It was argumentative because in a way he is arguing McDonalds to be so unhealthy for you, but of course everyone knows that almost all fast food is unhealthy for you. He may not be directly saying this to the audience but we can by the way he presents us with factual evidence and the history of McDonalds. It is also persuasive because in a way he is able to persuade us to watch what we eat, read the nutritional facts, don't eat fast food as much as you do now, etc. In the end I believe this documentary to be both entertaining and informative, one of my favorite documentaries.
ReplyDeleteI realize that to narrate a story in the most effective way, different "modes" have to be utilized in a single documentary. Since we will never really fit a documentary into a single "mode" Should they be modes of documentary or elements of documentary? Much of supersize me is Expository and Interactive, you of the "God Voice" and the clear cause and effect(Eating Nothing but Mcdonals leads directly to Sicknes and impotence)which fulfills our(the viewers) part of the expository mode. On the other hand we have the filmmaker not just intervening but becoming a focal point of the film. It is laden with images, testimony, graphs which makes it Interactive. I didn't believe it was trying to come off as argumentative, there was little objectivity in the film I knew from the beginning where it was heading. Each time the Food industry lobbyist made a comment it was followed be a rebuttal. There was no space giving for Mcdonals or any other process food to make its case in any substantial way and as a viewer im more comfortable knowing the filmmakers bias and watching how he proves his case rather than something like "capturing the freedmans" where the filmmaker takes u down this road then that road(we know you have an axe to grind, just grind it and stop annoying us with half truths and lies).
ReplyDeleteI can also see how Supersize Me argues and persuades its viewers throughout the film. By the use of simple editing, the story can be not necessarily changed but subliminally altered in a sense. For example during the interview with the lawyer who was defending the two obese girls in the case against McDonalds and how there weight problem was caused by eating its food, the lawyer was asked what other reasons he took on the case besides for financially beneficial reasons. Although the lawyer stated it was mostly for money, he stuttered over his words in trying to come up with another reason, but instead of actually hearing if he had a reason at all, the camera cuts away to the next scene. Clearly the lawyer did not seem credible enough to begin with, but the audience might not have gotten the point that he was only out for money if the camera hadn't suddenly cut awau from him. Supersize Me can be both expository and reflexive. Expository aspects can be seen through the quick edits and transition scenes in order to convey the message that "McDonalds is evil".
ReplyDeleteI think all documentaries can be said to be argumentative and persuasive one way or another. You don't go into a one-year, two-year project without an agenda. What I thought was interesting about "Supersize me" was that it presented its argument in an interactive, clear, sometimes funny, but definitely effective way. I think it is a good example not only of how the different modes of documentary can be combined and played with to create meaning, but also of the effect different modes and elements of narrative can have on audiences. It is a mainly a story about his experiment, told from his perspective but the creative use of humor and juxtaposition of images and sound makes it easier for the film, in a way, to engage with the audience. There's obviously going to be biases, he never set out to be objective in the first place and that's ok. Once again, I believe that is the beauty of film as an artistic communication medium: the freedom it gives artists to present their hypothesis and arguments about what they think is wrong with the world, throwing it out there and seeing if people agree. It's what makes it fun.
ReplyDeleteI agree very much with Eli that Morgan's girlfriend being strictly vegan is a hint or midden message that meat and fast food like McDonald's is very unhealthy and bad for you. I also feel the is obviously argumentative/persuasive fitting the expository mode of documentary. However, the film is also provides alot of quantative information on dieases, food industry spending on advertising and the increase of food portions provided by fast food over the years. This makes the a reflexive mode of Documentary.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the lawyer had a real ethical agenda with suing McDonald's besides $$$$. Everyone by now should know the health risks involved in eating too much fatty fast foods. It is not rocket science. If you eat too many fatty food you WILL GET FAT and possibly develop health problems
The best part of Morgan's argument was not that McDonald's is evil, but that we as a nation have an increased concern for an increasing obese population of young children who need the proper guidance/info. on making healthy informative decisions
I don't really think it matters how effectively persuasive Spurlock's documentary came off. His case wasn't exactly hard to make, everyone already knows McDonald's is unhealthy. In a sense, he had you on his side by the opening credits. I see this more as "docu-tainment." A documentary that is relatively unobjective, uninformative, but highly entertaining.
ReplyDeleteThe editing, pacing, and use of graphics really keeps the audience sutured in, but all information given is delivered in a overtly persuasive manner (for example, the supersize coke being as big as a 2-liter). You can't deny the effectiveness of his tactics, but you also can't deny the extreme bias he shows towards some of those interviewed. The lawyer heading the McDonald's lawsuit gets cut off before he can offer his "noble cause" and the food industry lobbyist is rebutted with little factual evidence, but rather with the assumption that all food corporations are evil (though they may be).
His use of multiple doctors gives him some credit, but by the end of the documentary it becomes obvious that the doctors take on a more personal relationship with Spurlock and I feel that some of the science is lost.
The most effective and objective arguement Spurlock makes is toward the state of school lunch. It is only there that both sides of an arguement are heard (even if there is still bias towards no lunch programs) and coupled with visual problems (all the kids are eating junk food) and solutions (the organic lunch company) with results.
To wrap this up, I found the structure of the documentary incredibly entertaining. The focus on the documentor really makes the film personal, for better or for worse. I just felt it became too personal and too much like a fiction film (How sick will Spurlock get? Will he get better?) and not as informative as it could have been.