Skip to content or view screen version

Super Size Me - Review

richarddirecttv | 16.09.2004 13:24 | Culture | Oxford

Downsize McDonalds Now!

Morgan Spurlock's film is another example of the glorious invasion of the of the cinema schedules by the political feature-length documentary. While British TV continues to gorge itself on reality TV crud, following the American model for uncritical, corporation-sponsored programming, the cinema is becoming the place these days for radical film for a mass audience. “Super Size Me” is, by the director's own admission, very much in the Michael Moore mould. He sets out on a health-endangering burger binge, eating only at McDonalds for 30 days. The film is journalistically strong, packed with information on the health disaster which is fast food. There are some superbly manipulative sequences, like the stomach-stapling operation waltz.
As someone who made a film against McDonalds 15 years ago, in the era when Ronald sued anyone who moved against him, I was amazed to see this film hit the schedules without being actioned out of existence. This is presumably thanks to our heroes Helen and Dave from the McLibel case, who made the Big Mac bite off more than they could chew. The arguments in the film will be familiar to most indymedia readers, few of whom will eat regularly at McDonalds. Nevertheless, the shots of the bloated figure of Spurlock wheezing as he struggles up the stairs, and his doctor's shock at the potentially fatal decline of his liver, graphically portray part of the reasons for opposing this evil corporation. Labour exploitation, the sourcing of the beef from recently-deforested land, and anti-environmental packaging are not the subjects of this film, which focusses exclusively on the effects on the consumer. It's helpful for the film's outreach to those consumers that Spurlock himself is no vegetarian, despite his Vegan chef girlfriend! But it seems unlikely that this film will make the Fahrenheit 9/11 break-through, out of the arts cinemas and into the multiplexes. So it's largely preaching to the converted at the moment, which is a big shame, because it's hugely entertaining and accessible. Could indymedia screenings help?

“Super Size Me” is now showing at the Phoenix Picture House, Walton St, Oxford  http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/site/cinemas/Oxford/local.htm

For more information on the McLibel 2, including their on-going case in the European court, see  http://www.mcspotlight.org/

richarddirecttv

Comments

Hide the following 14 comments

Who exactly is forcing people to eat McDonalds?

16.09.2004 15:36

Is there some kind of forced feeding of McDonalds 'food' going on that I haven't heard about?

SXB


McDs targets kids, or hadn't you noticed?

16.09.2004 15:52

The film answers this inane question very effectively. It opens with a chilling scene of American schoolkids chanting the glories of fast food like it was a brain-washing nursery rhyme. Try resisting the pressure from your over-weight 10-year-old kid, as I have had to do, when, after you've been to a popular kids' film, the McDs so-called "happy meal" comes with a free toy franchised from the same film.

richarddirecttv


And the parents of these kids are too weak to say no?

16.09.2004 16:02

I've got two sons (13 and 8) and they've probably had, at a guess, about 5 McDonalds meals in their lifetimes. Neither boy is obese (or even overweight).

Don't blame the business if the parents of these obese children aren't strong enough to sort out their children's diets. Blame the parents.

Do five year old children make their own way to McDonalds, buy as much as they can eat and then pay for it all by themselves? No - they're taken there. And yes, I DO know all about pester power! :-) But kids always nag for things. It doesn't mean to say you have to give in to them.

SXB


Feed on the facts

16.09.2004 16:32

I don't think the film is intended to unmask any sinister plot to force feed anything, but to inform people of just how terrible the product is, so they'll stop eating there. Simple as that really.

It's surprising how few people know just how toxic this shit is. Many people I know think it's just mildly unhealthy, until they learn the full facts. McDonald's also do their best to deceive people into thinking that their food is nutritious.

Cigarette companies used to run ads saying that smoking was good for you. Nothing new here then.

In the USA, McDonalds pioneered "supersize" portions. Since the film was released, they've pulled these from the menu, and ran full-page ads about this film, which shows just how rattled they are about the truth coming out.

Good book for more info is "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser:
 http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/books/schlosser.html

Ian


hmmm. I see...

16.09.2004 17:06

"And the parents of these kids are too weak to say no?"

So you seem to be saying that child-targeting intensive marketing campaigns create a need for authoritarian parenting, which tends to beget dysfunctional behaviour, usually either timid submissiveness or reactionary awkwardness. Young kids can't neccessarily understand the arguments involved and stand to be socially excluded and bullied if they don't consume mass-culture commodities.

!


Thanks for the lesson

16.09.2004 17:46

I'd like to thank SXB for his lesson in parenting, but I reserve the right to be angry about having to bat off the demands provoked in young people by transnational corporations who want to make them addicts of their products even if it kills them in the process.

richarddirecttv


AGREE, SXB

16.09.2004 18:49


Isn't the abnegation of personal responsibility one of the main dangers of any 'nanny' (totalitarian?) state? It is silly to pretend that parents and families don't have a choice. For a start, they could resolve to watch less TV, or they could, as a friend of mine has done, boo everytime a MacDonalds advert comes on (her kid doesn't crave them), or or or. Advertising is NOT mindcontrol, it is a bunch of failed writers and disillusioned graduates struggling to come up with something that looks good enough to be paid stupid money for.

watcher


A coupla quick points...

16.09.2004 21:17

Isn't McDonalds just the unhealthy tip of a much bigger problem? Most food sold in supermarkets is 'highly processed'. It's more profitable to sell it than letting people grow and cook their own food. Much better to have all the parent(s) at work so they're too shagged out to cook a nice meal for themself(s) and their kid(s). Anyone who thinks that TV adverts don't pile on the pressure on said parent(s) hasn't been reading their Orwell.
Marx first (?) tried to theorise the adulteration/cheapening of bread in mid C19th London. For the individual capitalist food producer, e.g. McDonalds, it 'cuts costs' but all capitalists benefit if wages can be lower because people can buy cheaper processed commodified food.


/ btw...that's the theory, my 2 kids don't necessarily practice what I preach ;)

unbeliever


the return of repressive tolerance

16.09.2004 23:05

Predictalby, and predictably boringly, when somone makes the kinds of comments that Richard makes re the effect of advertising the silly response occurs that advertising 'doesn't work'. Of course it does! Do you think the megacorps are stupid!?

They wouldn't use it if it did not work. Why is this not obvious?

The argument that it would be OK if only parents were 'strong enough' to resist it just ignores the huge change in the nature of familial culture which has been engineered by the Propaganda Apparatus. The time when particular families had their own culture and distinctive values is gone - the boundaries around the family have become permeable. Ironically, the 'abloition of the nuclear family' once called for as a revolutionary slogan by cultural leftists is now being accomplished by the culture machine of Capital.

The only cultures within the advanced nations which appear to manage to insulate themselves from this are religious fundies and White Nationalists. I feel that 'alternatives' maybe shoud learn from them - but to do so they will need to ditch the paralysing ultra-tolerance and liberal individualism shown in some of the responses to richard.

david murray


Went to see it last night

17.09.2004 08:49

...after I'd read Richard's review above. Excellent film. Only 98 minutes long, but this was the right length for the subject matter.

Being a US film meant for a US audience, it went for a light touch on the underlying economic issues. Only at the very end did he point out that a corporation being responsible only to shareholders might have something to do with the problem.
He also didn't expand the issue to address how all food is being corporatised, how we are pulled further and further from the production of our own food, alienated from our food by the growth of packaging, by the shrinking number of food providers, etc. These issues underpin many of the threats that the fast-food industry seems to pose by itself, and it's important to see this as just one symptom of a much larger problem.

Instead he chose to personalise one important problem of fast-food around a "what-if" experiment. His self-deprecating humour made a nice change from Michael Moore heroism, and there were lots of "and this is what it's done to my dick" type anecdotes. :)
He also made it clear at the start that McDonalds is not the only offender, they're just the worst offender, with the most outlets.

I think SXB is right in one sense: saying "no" to poisonous junk is the right answer to the problem. But it can be much harder for some people than it is for others, and for parents on behalf of their school-age kids, to get the full facts and to stand up against the pressure of billions spent annually on marketing. Modern advertising definitely is a subtle form of mind control, and the megacorps keep shelling out for it because it continually provides a direct, measurable and immediate boost on sales, paying for itself many times over. The film spent some time showing how piss-poor McDonalds is at allowing customers access to "nutrition information", which shows how hard it is even for people aware of the problem to make an informed decision.

So the answer seems to lie in building a culture of resistance to fast food. This is already a well established part of the growing anti-capitalist culture in the US, UK and other countries. It now needs to get taken to a wider audience, and well-made, accessible films like this are a good way of doing that.

spanner


Want a copy

17.09.2004 09:00

Anyone want a copy on cd-rom? Send me an e mail and i send it to you.

Zaskar
mail e-mail: markdwatson@blueyonder.co.uk


quick reply re animal testing

26.09.2004 21:19

> David Murray (is that his real name?) derides the suggestion that advertising
> doesn't work, commenting “Of course it does! Do you think the megacorps are
> stupid!?” This applies to animal testing too. Of course these techniques work !

There's a difference. Corporations aren't *forced* to advertise, therefore if they spend money on it they must be getting something back. But they *are* forced to provide some kind of evidence that their drugs, cosmetics etc are safe to use. Animal testing is the cheapest, but not the most scientific, way of doing that.

It's all very simple from the perspective of profit.

They use animal testing not because it works, but because they are legally obliged to provide some kind of testing, so they pick the cheapest option.

PS Who gives a f*** if David Murray is his real name?!?!?!

.


puzzled ...

13.10.2004 01:22

... that the last poster adds a remark re animal testing that was not part of my post that s/he/it was replying to and then replies to what they have added to my post !!!

david murray


Note for David

15.10.2004 16:52

It's because she was replying to a comment which did include a reference to animal testing, and also asked if David Murray was your real name. That comment was removed after she had replied to it, because its content was not of an approved nature whereas hers was. This often happens on Indymedia, and makes it rather difficult to follow the arguments sometimes. They do tend to seem one-sided when they've been edited in this way.

Older Hand