It takes only a few minutes to see that there is a clear working thesis for the documentary Super Size Me (2004). Whether Morgan Spurlock began his project with a mind as open as his mouth does not really matter: Ultimately, this film is a big slam against fast food and our culture that loves to eat it.
But I don't know if it needed to broadside us quite so much with it. At least, Spurlock didn't need to take the experiment as far as he did (not too far into his diet, his doctor tells him there's a chance he could kill himself should he continue the all-MacDonald's diet). That part is excessive for the purpose of gross entertainment, and while it also makes the food seem all the more disgusting, it seems gratuitous.
I should back up. The premise of the documentary is this: Spurlock sets out to eat MacDonald's for every meal to illustrate a point that some court decisions involving the fast-food mega chain have stated: that those bringing suit against MacDonald's would have a case if they could prove that eating three meals a day there threatens health. Of course, it is clear that this sort of diet is hazardous - but seeing it really does create a visceral reaction in the audience. Spurlock's medical exams and his test scores really are disgusting.
Surely all this serves Spurlock's thesis: that MacDonald's is bad for you and that Americans are too fat because of places like it. He includes a number of expert interviewees and data sources to bolster his position, and that position is clearly supported by his evidence and is surely validated by the experiences of audience members. But that also gives the film a sense of obviousness and makes it feel like a bloated, unnecessary film at times.
Maybe that is also his point, though: that we aren't really getting the point. We aren't understanding just how bad some of this food is for us, and that we need to be shocked to get it. If that is the case, then Spurlock is incredibly smart.
Teaching idea: Take a Look at the Source
Select a credible documentary, watch it, and as you do make notes of the studies/data presented as evidence for or against the major argument of the film. Ask students to do the same, pausing at moments when such sources are presented. Then, in small groups, find a few of these sources in their original context. Who created the study or data? If the source is a person, what else has he or she contributed to, and what else has the person said about the documentary topic? Are there other ways to interpret the data? Is the documentary using the data as they were intended, or is the director twisting their application at all?
Ultimately, the point of this activity is to show students that even data can, in some cases, be either selectively chosen to make a point or misapplied for the same reason. It is important to be skeptical and to analyze original sources whenever possible.
I stole your idea? Clearly you stole mine! Well good job on utilizing my genius.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked about the obviousness of Spurlock's discussion. I never thought about the intentionality of it. Sure, we know that junk food is bad for us. Yes, Yes, Spurlock, we know that if you eat a lot of junk food you will be fat and unhealthy. Spurlock is not teaching us anything new.
Yet, why do we still do it? Why is childhood obesity only growing as an epidemic? If what he is saying is already known, then why as a society as a whole are we not doing anything about it.
It's interesting that you bring up that perhaps that is the point. Perhaps instead of teaching us anything, Spurlock's intention is to just get us to finally look at ourselves and realize what we are doing. Perhaps he is just asking us to finally open our eyes to the obvious!