Capitalism and Just Eat It Documentaries Contrast Essay

Introduction

Documentary producers are accountable for what they exhibit in their films (Nichols 12). Unlike fictional movies, these films help the public in acknowledging and understanding their environment. Therefore, the films are very influential. They shape people’s outlook with respect to current and previous occasions (Nichols 15). By doing so, they render their subjects to be scrutinized by the audience. When analyzing a documentary, viewers should not only focus on what they see but also on the purposes of the film (Williams 17). They should scrutinize the impacts of the film and highlight how it depicts its subjects. The article below reviews the truths presented and how they are put forward in Capitalism and Just Eat It.

Site of production

Grant Baldwin and Jenny Rustemeyer produced Just Eat It the movie in the year 2014(Brownstone 1). In the documentary, the Canadian couple undertakes an experimentation to consume only rejected foodstuff for six months. Through this, they illustrate the ecological catastrophe exhibited by North American eating behaviors. The scenes presented by the two producers leave the audience astonished by their wasteful eating habits (Brownstone 1). It encourages, the viewers, food producers, and food stores to think twice before discarding their food.

It should be noted that the two producers are champions in fostering environmental cognizance. Their first documentary also focused on waste management. The film was called The Clean Bin Project (Lee 1). They emphasize the necessity for leftover reduction in the documentary. In the film, they avoided shopping for approximately one year. Through this, they ended up with nothing to dispose of that period. The first documentary was well received by the audience. Following its release, the couple was invited to numerous events to lecture about waste management. As such, the first film encouraged the producers to create Just Eat It. The second film trails the couple as they relinquish cafeteria meals and abandon grocery spending. During this period, they rely on foodstuffs rejected by the food stores, supermarkets, and groceries (Brownstone 1). It was shocking for them to note that truckloads of flawlessly delicious food in North America were predestined for the landfill.

On the other hand, Michael Moore produced Capitalism: A Love Story. The film is perhaps his best production so far. For the last two decades, the producer has articulated his contempt for the traditional documentary layout. With the intention of reaching to more viewers, he has endeavored to make this documentary more appealing and attractive as the fictional movies. Apart from utilizing the usual documentary formats, he also uses interviews, archival recording, and voice-over history (McEnteer 79). In the Capitalism: A Love Story, he integrates many thematically pertinent episodes from antique Hollywood and classroom movies, several recorded videotapes, pop music, and every day private on-camera appearances.

Concerning site production, a major downside of Moore’s films documentaries is that they have become rote and foreseeable (Douglas 82). As such, Capitalism: A Love Story is biased. For instance, it does not offer insinuations on the producer’s recent affluence or allegedly comfortable lifestyle. The missing information could have highlighted about his political philosophy, private beliefs, or naïve ideas of modern documentary format. Further than their homogeneous layout, the theme of all his documentaries illustrates one feature of American capitalism.

As such, the films emphasize on American capitalism’s attribute as an unresponsive financial system. The producer shows that this economic structure does not focus on essential good morals. The above depictions were enthused by America’s long-gestating fiscal collapse that became predominant during the 2006-2009 recessions. Through Capitalism, the producer examines America’s financial system. By doing so, he refutes the biased views by which it is comprehended and preserved revealing its current socially useless features. He also queries its enduring viability.

Site of image

On Just Eat It’s first scene, Baldwin’s brother invites the couple to assist in clearing out his fridge because the family wanted to relocate. Afterward, they are represented purchasing foodstuffs deemed unsellable from a grower’s market. In this scene, the producers wish to criticize the predominant customer fascination with the aesthetic appeal of foodstuff. They compare North American peach-packing plants with beauty competitions.

They likened the categorization criterions in these industries with those exhibited by beauty contests. Within a month, the couple is represented surviving by scavenging through bins in residential backyards. Things change when they begin to explore other sources of food wastes. They start to scavenge on the outskirts of Vancouver. Here, they find more edible foods discarded. From there on, they initiate a dumpster tour, which guides them to a swimming pool sized container packed to the rim with hummus.

In Just Eat It, it is disappointing to note that further than what the couple recovered loads of more edible foodstuffs end up in landfills. The movie also dedicates a lot of airtime to many environmentalists who suggests that forty percent of all the food produced in the region is wasted. The statistics are disturbing because hunger and starvation are a major problem in developing countries. Instead, residents of North America should adopt inventive eating methods. Through this, there would be little foods rejected, surplus foods should be sold or donated to regions with inadequate food security.

Based on the scale of the issue, the documentary offers a preview of the situation. For instance, the film provides little information about how restaurants and caterers contribute to the problem. Nonetheless, the documentary manages to attract attention a vital and overlooked matter. Just Eat It illustrates that a difference can be achieved by altering eating habits rather than changing one’s lifestyle.

On the other hand, Capitalism: A Love Story explores the reasons behind the international economic meltdown witnessed in the year 2009 (Douglas 81). The film incorporates a comic expression at the business and political mischiefs that climaxed in what the director refers to the major theft in the history of America. Before the financial crisis, Moore indicates that there was an enormous handover of America’s taxpayer money to private commercial organizations.

Notably, Capitalism: A Love Story offers a haphazard approach to the events that led to the international economic turmoil. Despite this, I noted that the documentary’s sections do form a connection to the succeeding and steadily developing the movie’s critique. Its review of the numerous indicators of the present catastrophe like foreclosures, expulsions, insolvencies, increasing unemployment, and snowballing health-care prices are positioned in a historical context. They range from the postwar financial explosion to the radical loosening of monetary protocols experienced during the Reagan Administration. Moore asserts that the guidelines had overwhelming costs for the bulk of Americans.

I also noted that because the events being analyzed in Capitalism: A Love Story are familiar to the targeted audiences, Moore decided to highlight individual shocking scenes of the depraved, depredatory acts of corporations in America (Douglas 81). They comprise of some insurance strategies taken out by loads of leading businesses, the unfair and hazardous work environments, and extracts from an underground Citibank memorandum written to its stakeholders. The above crimes encourage Moore to consult a priest and a bishop stationed at Detroit. During the visit, he inquires if capitalism is an evil. The priest supported his doubts by stating that capitalism was a sin that ought to be eradicated. On the other hand, the bishop utilizes a rather less powerful language and offers a less clear disapproving view.

Site of reception

To the audience, Just Eat It is very persuasive. As such, the couple is depicted living healthy lives without spending their money on retail foodstuffs. Furthermore, several environmentalists interviewed in the film offer the audience with many facts. For instance, the environmentalists indicated that more than that forty percent of all the food produced in North America goes to waste. By watching the documentary, the audience will be motivated to alter its eating habits to reduce food wastage. Viewers will learn that food waste is unintentional. They will note that food waste results from a culture that can be altered. Through this, the audiences are motivated to champion for food wastage reduction.

Unlike the first documentary by Baldwin and Rustemeyer, Capitalism: A Love Story is less authoritative (Douglas 81). I noted that his work was biased. The audience will observe that his documentary was only interested in dehumanizing capitalism. It failed to capture views of those who embrace capitalism. For instance, he poses harsh and inquisitive queries to supporters of capitalism. On the other hand, he offers a listening ear to those victimized by capitalism.

Equally, the audiences may question some of the interviewees consulted in the research like Wallace Shaw. Shaw has been a longtime friend of Moore. Therefore, by engaging a friend as an interviewee, Moore compromised on the credibility of his documentary. He should have consulted other stakeholders in the industry who are not his friends. Through this, the information presented would have been biased free.

As a viewer, I enjoyed Capitalism: A Love Story. I also anticipate for his upcoming documentaries. However, I feel that if he continues to depend heavily on comical practices and the picturesque street acting he will lose many of his viewers. In this regard, Moore should avoid making his work so predictable in the future, as he currently does. In the future, he might be astonished at the level of thoughtful argument and continuous conversation that his viewers will be able to accept without feeling the requirement to be constantly amused.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that documentaries, unlike fictional movies, help the public in acknowledging and understanding their environment. As such, they shape people’s outlook concerning past occasions and influence their views on recent issues. Documentaries convert secretive hitches into public matters. Through this, they render their subjects to public scrutiny. The article above reviewed two documentaries viewed in class. They are Capitalism and Just Eat It. The movies were analyzed based on their site of production, site of image, and site of reception.

Works Cited

Brownstone, Sydney. Just Eat It Is a Documentary About a Couple Living on Dumped Grub. 2015. Web.

Douglas, Aaron. “Capitalism: A Love Story.” Journal of American History 12.3 (2010): 81-82. Print.

Lee, Maggie. Film Review: Just Eat It: A Food Waste Story. 2014. Web.

McEnteer, James. Michael. Moore: Ambush. Artist. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2006. Print.

Nichols, Bill. What Gives Documentary Films a Voice of Their Own? Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 2001. Print.

Williams, Linda. “Mirrors without Memories: Truth, History, and the New Documentary.” Film Quarterly 46.3 (1993): 9-21. Print.