Words Don’t Matter.

Hey Kevin,

I agree with your statements here, our words are extremely important. Also, despite your perception to the contrary, I also believe that Truth is of utmost importance to our lives.

Sorry I never got back to you on that last post, frankly, when I read your response I just didn’t have the time to compose a response to all those issues at the time and I just forgot about it afterward.

However, I will respond briefly to my reference in this post. When it comes to Food Inc., the movie is propaganda for sure. That’s a given. I slipped a little too far into playing Devil’s Advocate when I was writing before, I wasn’t writing to defend the movie as much as to point out that I didn’t like your method of criticism.

I still think you took a piece of work, and criticized if for not being something it wasn’t supposed to be to begin with. It’s like criticizing a red painting for not being blue, well, the artist didn’t want it to be blue. You can say that you would like it better if it were blue not red, but that’s your opinion, it has nothing to do with the “goodness” of the painting.

Food Inc., is a propaganda film (like most documentaries). You can dislike it, and disagree with it. I’m sure most of the “facts” in it are controversial at best (at this point I haven’t seen them film in 6 months and don’t remember most of it anyway).

That said, lot’s of good arguments get drug through the mud sometimes, be careful not to fear any good that comes from the imperfect. We are all imperfect, and more relevant to this point we all have flawed motives. When I hear an issue, I want to hear all sides, and take the good from wherever I find it.

I think you’re still missing the point. The difference between red and blue is mere stylistic preference, and as I said before, I left all stylistic criticisms out of my review when it did not pertain to manipulation of the audience. Criticizing a red painting because I wished it were blue is not the same as criticizing an intentionally misleading message for having its facts wrong. Neither a red nor blue painting carries any moral weight. Neither make truth claims. The red painting doesn’t beckon the observer to change his life and crusade against entire industries; it would hardly be worth the focus of even a blog post.

Leaving aside your strange claim that most documentaries are propagandist in nature—I would agree that feature film documentaries largely do fit the bill, but I would also argue they aren’t really documentaries because of the very malpractice that makes them propaganda—it’s hard to believe anyone could watch that documentary and not come to the conclusion that its purpose was to change a person’s mind. It even offers an explicit call to action at the end. I simply take it to task for exactly what it claims to be: a film-based presentation of facts, of a “reality” you didn’t know existed. But the film flat out lies to create that reality, so how can its portrayal be trusted? Were you to find out a close friend were a compulsive liar (as I have in the past), would you not suddenly become wary of everything he or she claimed unless you otherwise knew it to be true?

Again, it simply makes no sense to urge someone to look for the good in a film which has been shown to play fast and loose with the facts. The film presents itself as all “good.” How is the viewer to know the difference?