Rhetorical Analysis Of The Movie 'Food, Inc'

In the prestigious documentary film, Food Inc., produced by Robert Kenner and founded upon an Eric Schlosser’s book, Fast Food Nation, Mr. Kenner has an intriguing impact on the American consumers of many food products and industries. Throughout the film, viewers and everyday consumers of these various products, visualize what takes place behind the scenes in food factories, contrary to what they may see through forms of advertisement. The documentary generates an image of an “Agrarian America” in a naturalistic way to convey the message of what food production truly consists of. The film uses ethos, pathos, and logos as rhetorical devices to enhance the horrendousness of food production to its audience in multiple ways. Food Inc. provides not only a visual effect on the audience's emotion to portray its message, but uses a variety of commentary scenes from several experts and members within the food industry.

In the novella Animal Farm, the timeline of early 1900s Russia unfolds in an allegory, with revolutionists Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx sparking a rebellion against Czar Nicholas II. Subsequently, a social democratic party known as the Bolsheviks overthrew the czar, aided by two significant leaders: Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Even so, the newfound ideology of communism that Stalin introduced and quickly corrupted through propaganda proved to be just as oppressive as the reign of Nicholas II. Most importantly, this corruption and oppression was elucidated by British author George Orwell through the use of rhetorical devices in the allegorical satire Animal Farm, where the audience receives a glimpse into the cunning caricature of

Food Inc. is an American documentary film directed and produced by Robert Kenner and released on September 7, 2008, to bring awareness to Americans about the food that they consume daily. The film accomplishes this goal by using facts and interviews who appeal to ethos logos and pathos

‘Food Inc’, is an informative, albeit slightly biased, documentary that attempts to expose the commercialisation and monopolisation of the greater food industry. The film attempts to show the unintended consequences resulting from this, and for the most part this technique is very effective; however there is an overreliance on pathos in lieu of facts and statistics at times.

Marion Nestle, an author with a couple of published books and a teacher at New York University, dives into the how supermarkets encourage shoppers to buy more than they need in an essay taken from her 2006 book “What to Eat: An Aisle-by-Aisle Guide to Savvy Food Choices and Good Eating.” Nestle informs her audience of general shoppers on the topic of how supermarkets are prime real estate so that she can convince the audience that supermarkets do things to make more money by getting people to buy more. Nestle uses rhetorical strategies of having pathos, examples, and facts. Nestle begins her essay by utilizing pathos. She attends to the audience’s emotions by describing the mass amounts of choices shoppers must make when they shop and the stress that comes with shopping.

Have you ever been in a rush, low on cash, and looking for something to eat so you didn’t really have a choice but to grab a burger with fries at your local fast food place? Have you ever paused or stopped to think about where the burger really came from, or the process that went in to be made? The Food Inc documentary investigates and exposes the American industrial production of meat, grains, and vegetables. Robert Kenner the producer of the film makes allegations in this film and he explores how food industries are deliberately hiding how and where it is our food is coming from. He emphasizes that we should find out where our food comes from and why is it that the food industry does not want us to know. Food Inc. does not only uses compelling images, such as hundreds of baby chickens being raised in spaces where they do not see an inch of sunlight, it also includes the speeches and stories of farmers, families, government officials, and victims of the food industry. The four current problems facing today’s food industry are the reformed usage of the false advertisement within the labeling of products , mistreatment of farmed animals, and the harmful chemical in our meats. The documentary Food Inc uses very persuasive tactics that demonstrates strong elements of pathos, ethos, and logos make an effective appeal, while uncovering the dark side of the food industry.

For those with a taste for muckraking exposés, documentarian Robert Kenner dishes out the dirt on the U.S. food industry, from bad seeds to hog heaven and beyond. If this movie doesn’t make you want to drop your burger and run for the border, nothing will.

In the documentary, Food Inc., we get an inside look at the secrets and horrors of the food industry. The director, Robert Kenner, argues that most Americans have no idea where their food comes from or what happens to it before they put it in their bodies. To him, this is a major issue and a great danger to society as a whole. One of the conclusions of this documentary is that we should not blindly trust the food companies, and we should ultimately be more concerned with what we are eating and feeding to our children. Through his investigations, he hopes to lift the veil from the hidden world of food.

The undeniable greed Napoleon possesses can only be fulfilled by giving the other animals the illusion of bettering themselves by not questioning his logic: “Boxer, who had now had time to think things over, voiced the general feeling by saying, ‘If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right.’ And from then on he adopted the maxim, ‘Napoleon is always right,’ in addition to his private motto of ‘I will work harder’” (Orwell 60). Because Animal Farm’s audience predominantly consists of working class citizens, they begin to feel sympathy for Boxer since he cannot recognize Napoleon is exploiting him exclusively for his personal goal of becoming a puissant leader; therefore, animosity towards Napoleon develops in the audience. Considering the animals promptly welcome Napoleon’s promise of a better life, they work towards exhaustion, unknowingly fueling Napoleon’s greed: "All that year the animals worked like slaves. But they were happy in their work; they grudged no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything that they did was for the benefit of themselves and those of their kind who would come after them, and not for a pack of idle, thieving human beings" (63). Although the animals working for Napoleon are unaware he is gradually becoming more human and willfully betraying his fellow animals for his own benefit, it is evident to the audience that Napoleon is corrupt. As Napoleon cunningly achieves power, his greed continues to grow, the same as a totalitarian leader’s:

Back in the day almost everyone viewed woman to be the person who cleans, cooks, has children, and obeys her husband. Even woman themselves had this view hammered into their minds at such a young age, the views that women are inferior to men. This stigma of woman can be found traced throughout Virginia Woolf’s essay of two meals, a meal for men and a meal for women at a college. She uses numerous composition techniques and effectively disperses them throughout her narrative. By doing so, she accurately demonstrates her views on society’s stigma of a woman's role in an eloquent manner.

The film Food Inc., like many other films of its category is not so much of an informative documentary, rather more of a slanderous exposé which blows the lid off of the food industry and its operations. To say that the film is neutral and tends towards more of an educative approach would be a misinterpretation to say the least. Throughout the entire movie it is always evident that the movie aims not solely to educate its audience about the truth of their food, but to convert the misinformed and inspire a rebellion against food industry practices. The movie does this through a tactful approach of bombarding its audience with gruesome clips, facts and testimonial story lines. The film asserts it claim through a thrilling critique of the horrific meat production process which is most prevalent in the U.S food industry and its impact on humans and the environment, while extoling alternative practices which seem to be more sustainable and humane, yet are underutilized. The film goes on to highlight the different players in the food politics arena, emphasizing the role that government agencies play. Also the film divulges the reality that is the monopolization of the food industry by big multinational corporations such as Monsanto Company, Tyson Food, Perdue Farms, Smithfield Foods, etc.

Pathos, logos, and ethos are used throughout In Defense of Food to strength arguments on eating more healthy. Pollan contributes to his arguments by showing Americans what the Western diet has done to their health. These three devices help to provide support to enhance his arguments on finding a more healthy diet.

They say if you don’t like heights but enjoy the thrill, don’t look down. This is the same mentality that director Robert Kenner tries to prevent in his film Food Inc., where he sheds light on the corporations that control the way our food is being grown, processed and sold to the American people. With the help of Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, and Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore 's Dilemma, Robert takes a shot at all corners of the food industry from meat packaging, to corn reprocessing, even Monsanto’s seed copyrights. While Kenner’s goals for change certainly lead to a better America, they tend to lean on the side of unrealistic.

Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto is an eye-opening analysis of the American food industry and the fear driven relationship many of us have with food. He talks in depth about all the little scientific studies, misconceptions and confusions that have gathered over the past fifty years. In the end provide us with a piece of advice that should be obvious but somehow is not, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He follows the history of nutritionism and the industrialization of food, in hopes to answer one question….. how and when "mom" ceded control of our food choices to nutritionists, food marketers and the government.

Everyone has the right to know what's in the food that they are eating. It's upsetting how these massive corporations dominate American citizens. If everyone knew how much brutality was required to meet the demands of the fast food industry, I like to think the public would simply not tolerate it and demand that animals stop being designated property in law. I find it impossible to believe that if people knew the reality that they would not want animals to have recourse to legal protections from enduring lifetimes of nothing but abuse.