by Adham Ghandour
POL128 Politics and Film - Ryerson University
The documentary begins showing us farmers explaining the effects that
Monsanto products have had on their business some positively and others negatively.
To start off the documentary that shows that the director wanted to show both
points of views before showing her personal opinion on the matter. The next
scene shows Marie-Monique turning on her computer with the presence of diegetic
sound coming from the start up tone on a Macintosh computer. The sound of the
computer turning on signifies the beginning of Marie-Monique’s extensive
research on the topic of interest, which is Monsanto. The tone also sets the
mood of the documentary showing that it will be informative and based on real
research in support of Marie-Monique’s personal point of view. A reoccurring
scene throughout the documentary that is present between cuts is the
interviewer positioned on her desk physically surfing the web, in search of
information regarding a corrupt company that is gaining power at a dangerously fast
rate. The sound of the mouse clicking as she does her research is always there
and intensifies the importance of what she is doing and how important it is for
her as a documenter as well as a person (Robin, 2008).
Throughout the documentary Marie-Monique is narrating her thought
process making the audience feel like we can read her mind. Every piece of
information that she learns or wants to find out, we learn and discover
simultaneously. This approach for documentation makes the viewers feel more
engaged almost as if they are part of her research team contributing to the
research. Early on in the documentary she makes this statement “For 20 years I
have travelled the globe and everywhere I have heard about this American
Multinational but what I have heard hasn’t always been positive, wanting to
know more I surfed the web for months to put the pieces of the puzzle together”
(Robin, 2008). The previous quote ensures the idea that the creator of this
documentary is truly passionate about this topic and is genuinely interested in
educating herself further to justify the negative image that her and many
others have towards Monsanto. She understands that many might disagree with her
on her personal opinion, but she is doing her job to provide as much credible
research and encounters with specialists to prove her point of view on the
unethical acts performed by Monsanto. In her narration she also poses questions
that are then answered by a series of different interview approaches including
talking heads with people that can relate or are informed enough to provide
their experiences or opinions. The questions that are narrated act as sort of
an introduction to what is to come up next in the documentary.
Marie-Monique was not afraid to delve into extremely controversial
topics that had to do with government organizations and personnel. She took
somewhat of a hostile approach when attempting to show all of Monsanto’s
wrongdoings. This method does help her prove her personal opinions against
Monsanto and satisfies those who share her same belief. In the documentary she
seems to focus a lot on portraying Monsanto as the evil conglomerate that it
probably is, but does not keep the balance of Monsanto supporters. Although
that is not necessary for her to do, since her stance towards the topic is
clear, it does give those who disagree with her reason to say that her studies
are potentially biased towards one side. Such claims could cause the credibility
and reputation of her documentary to suffer. Marie-Monique spoke openly about
the food drug administration (FDA) accepting the production of genetically
modified organs (GMOs) as suggested by Monsanto although they did not meet the
safety standards. One of her interviews when discussing the FDA situation was
conducted with James Maryanski who headed the biotechnology department at that
point. In that interview Maryanski agrees that the FDA’s decision was
influenced by politics rather than following real scientific criteria. She also
spoke to Dan Glickman who used to be Bill Clinton’s secretary of agriculture,
in that interview he mentions that he was given orders not to question the decisions
being made regarding GMOs (Robin, 2008). She really went to any extent to prove
her points, even if it means that her documentary became extremely
controversial.
Another aspect of the film that really brings things into perspective is
the inclusion of real life video recordings of historical events and commercials
into the documentary. Footage is shown of George Bush senior on a visit to
Monsanto’s research labs in 1987. In the video clip Monsanto scientists are
taking the former vice president through the steps of creating genetically
modified organisms. A video like the one mentioned above shows the influence
that Monsanto has on society to the point that the vice president of the United
States paid them a visit. It amplifies the severity of Monsanto’s reach on the
political system and the economy. In the film when transitioning from one topic
to the other, Monsanto commercials were put in to serve what I saw to be a
strong purpose. The commercial would show an actor that looks like he could not
be happier to present a product and talk about all its benefits, when in
reality it is actually harmful in many different ways both for plants and
humans. Directly after showing the commercial the viewer would receive ample
research results and interview outcomes that point out all the flaws in the
product that was just shown in the commercial. It is a more creative approach
to portray an opinion and falsify the opposing one. (Robin,2008)
Marie-Monique Robin travelled across the world to become closer to the
areas and individuals affected by Monsanto’s products. Amongst the many places
she visited were cotton farms in India, soybean farms in Indiana and corn
fields in Mexico. In each country she interviewed those directly impacted my
Monsanto and allowed them to tell their story from their own point of view. By
doing this she is breaking this intangible barrier that often lies between the
interviewer and those being interviewed. It helps her show us that she takes
pride in the issue she is discussing and will go as far as needed to retrieve sufficient
evidence and information to support her argument. By getting up close and
personal with the farmers she was able to show the emotions of those affected
farmers. Emotions bring out other people’s emotions, which Marie-Monique needed
to have the viewers feel to get them to understand the severity of the cause
she is documenting and have them side with her (Hindo,2007).
In the film as the interviewer surfs the internet on her computer she
often visits Monsanto’s website and other official Monsanto documentation and
shows the statements that the company makes in support of their cause, as she
narrates what she sees. In one scene she is looking at the Monsanto website as
she narrates and highlights a piece of text that said “Our products provide
significant economic benefits to both large- and small-holder growers. In many
cases, farmers are able to grow higher-quality and better-yielding crops with
fewer inputs and less labour” (Monsanto Company,2016). She is trying to show
the viewers how Monsanto is able to get local farmers to use their products.
Farmers have families to support and when promised less cost with more overall
profits they will definitely want to give it a try even if they are not sure of
the consequences. The fact that she uses the positivity in Monsanto’s statements
to further supplement her argument against them is a powerful way to get her
messages across to the masses.
As the documentary comes to a close we can hear the audio of a phone
call between Marie-Monique Robin and one Cristopher Warner from Monsanto. In
the audio we learn that Monsanto had refused to allow Marie-Monique to
interview any current employees or directors at Monsanto. Throughout the film
the viewer is flooded with an abundance of knowledge and information that
opposes anything that had to with Monsanto as a producer of chemicals and GMOs
as well as an establishment. The purpose of it was to raise awareness and
really let the horrible acts that Monsanto has executed resonate with the
audience. A scientific and fact based approach was taken by the filmmaker to
convince people of the evil power that is Monsanto. A very emotional and human
approach was also taken to really shake the viewers emotionally in a way that
they can relate in a humane and ethical manner. Marie-Monique scrutinized every
aspect of Monsanto to deliver a powerful message to millions of people around
the world.
Bibliography:
Whipple, Dan. The Futurist33.8 (Oct 1999): 10-12. 21
Oct.2016.
Iyengar, Sudarshan; Lalitha, N. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics57.3 (Jul-Sep 2002): 459.21
Oct.2016.
Hindo, Brian. "Monsanto:
Winning the Ground War." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 6 Dec.
2007. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.
Fedoroff,Nina.”Can We Trust Monsanto with Our Food?”
Scientific American. Nature American Inc.,25 July 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.
‘Latest
Headlines.” A Sustainable Agriculture Company. Monsanto Company,n.d.Web. 21
Oct.2016.
The World According to
Monsanto. Dir. Marie-Monique Robin. Perf. Marie-Monique Robin.
National Film Board of Canada,2008.DVD.
No comments:
Post a Comment