Fed Up (***1/4)

One might track the American obesity epidemic by looking at the rise of the food documentary, which has nearly become its own subgenre in the decade since Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me. This film shares its title (minus an exclamation point) with a 2002 production that focused on the industrialization of food production in the second half of the 20th century. While director Stephanie Soechtig (whose earlier film Tapped went after the bottled-water industry) covers that turf briefly, the particular enemy here is Big Sugar, which really encompasses the entire processed food industry, since added sugar is in almost all of the packaged foods found in the modern supermarket, not to mention the candies and snacks found in the checkout aisle of stores of all types.

Countering arguments about individual responsibility and fears of an overregulating “nanny state,” Soechtig emphasizes childhood obesity, selecting a cross-section of what seem to be working-class American teens as her case studies. They help to explain how simply exercising personal choice as a way to slim is so difficult when even school purvey junk food and, as is clear from the clips, they are often led astray by misleading health claims on food labels that tout, say, lowered fat and don’t mention all the added sugar.

Katie Couric provides the narration. Soechtig also gets some of what might be called the usual suspects in the anti-corporate food war to make her case, including Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, former FDA head David Kessler, and pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig. Lustig has the role of explaining why it is not true that, as I used to believe, “a calorie is a calorie.” I’ve heard the explanation, but he does it well. Finally, former President Bill Clinton and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin speak to the power of the food industry to thwart even modest-seeming measures like keeping fast food out of schools and issuing dietary guidelines that set a recommended level for sugar.


That both of these politicians are Democrats speaks to the difficulty of the issue. As with global warming, for the obesity crisis, no plausible private-sector solution presents itself. Thus denial becomes an attractive option for those suspicious of Big Government solutions. But perhaps, with the issue increasingly apparent for all to see, added sugar really will come to be seen, like cigarettes, as the “poison” that Lustig calls it.

Like some of the other food movies, this one ends with an exhortatory message, in this case urging the viewer to cut out sugar for ten days. It’s a slightly odd one, given that the film specifically repudiates the idea that reform can come through individual action. I also suspect that the people seeing this movie will be those already quite conscious of their own diet. However, should some ordinary filmgoers happen to see this, they’ll find a pleasant, well-paced film with some fun graphics (less intrusive than Spurlock’s) and an informative rather than hectoring tone.

 

IMDb link

viewed 6/12/14 7:50 pm at Ritz 5 and posted 6/12/14

Inequality for All (***1/4)

What An Inconvenient Truth was for Al Gore and global warming, this documentary by Jacob Kornbluth is for Robert Reich, labor secretary under Bill Clinton, and US income inequality. It’s similarly built around a lecture series, given by Reich to his students at University of California, Berkeley. (The movie also credits Reich’s book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, as a source.) Additional interview segments supplement the lecture, some with Reich, others with winners and losers in the new economy. And there is a little of Reich’s own story, from his early friendship with fellow Rhodes scholar Clinton to his childhood experiences being bullied because of his lack of height. Reich has incorporated his lack of stature into his act. When accepting his cabinet position, he said he had already known he was on Clinton’s “short list.”


Reich uses a plethora of statistics to show how wealth concentration has changed over time in the United States, frequently employing a suspension bridge to symbolize the changes. The peaks of the bridge represent the years 1928 and 2007, years preceding economic collapse — in each case, wealth disparities had reached new heights. He uses the statistics to correlate the current rich-get-richer trend to declines in union participation, the growth of the banking industry, and rising college tuition rates. Thus, although in his lecture he promises to challenge the assumptions of conservatives and liberals, most of his argument falls comfortably along liberal lines. Clips of Jon Stewart humorously making Reich’s points also reinforce that image.

Here the comparison with global warming is instructive. The worst effects of climate change are yet to come, so it is relatively easy to deny. But increasing income disparity over the last 30 years is nearly undeniable. Thus the argument becomes whether we should care. There is are fairness arguments in either direction, but primarily Reich is saying that income inequality is not merely unfair, but that it weakens the economy by making it more difficult for the middle class to thrive; since consumer spending is 70% of the economy, a middle class with no money to spend cannot buy the goods and services it generates. Besides Reich, the best spokesperson for this point of view is the Nick Hanauer, owner of a pillow company. Hanauer all but states that his eight-figure income is more than he deserves; he has so much that he doesn’t know what to do with it. Most of it is not use to create jobs, but invested in funds that he knows little about. Of course, those resistant to Reich’s argument might still claim that these funds create jobs indirectly, and while Reich may be correct in the long term about inequality hurting the economy — I think he is — in the short and medium term it is possible for the overall economy to grow even though those with below-median incomes get poorer. This I think the fairness argument needs to be made, too. Arguably, this is done indirectly. Hanauer and Warren Buffett, who appears briefly, are contrasted with other interviewees who are struggling to make ends meet in the new economy. Many of them work in the same kinds of jobs that were around in the 1970s, but the jobs now pay less in real dollars.

 

One thing Reich doesn’t tackle is the political movements behind these changes or the cultural landscape that may have lent public support to policies he deplores. About his onetime boss, Clinton, his take is basically, we did a lot, but not enough to reverse the long-term trends. By his own account, he was something like a broken record in bringing up the issue of inequality at every opportunity. Politics may explain why, in
that in the aftermath of the economic downturn little has been done to reverse inequality (the Affordable Care Act conceivably could help). No doubt this disappoints Reich, but his ideas have found some expression in the Occupy movement of 2011 and have at least received broader dissemination. the last third of the movie depicts the Occupy protesters and generally exhorts its audience to go forth and change things. It’s more general and less compelling than the first half of the film. But for someone who wants the facts about inequality, and Reich’s argument, in distilled form, this movie presents it clearly, and Reich is an engaging personality.

 

 

IMDb link

viewed 10/16/13 7:10 at Ritz 5 and posted 10/17; revised 10/19