The films “Food Machine” and “Farmland” we watched in class were both very educational about agriculture. Food Machine was more of an indirect communication, whereas Farmland sent a very direct message. Both of the films brought life to the production of the foods we consume everyday. They showed their audience how these foods are grown and harvested.
The film, Food Machine, scratched the surface of food production. The film was based on some of the United State’s largest places of ag production. We saw everything from the inside the production of tomatoes in California to the use of bees for pollination across the country. Food Machine did show a lot of negatives the future holds for agriculture. For example, the bees are essential for …show more content…
Food Machine seemed to try and educate viewers who had no idea about ag production. The host Yul Kwon of Food Machine was not from an ag background and they used things like pizza in New York City to relate to the intended audience. Farmland was much more personal and seemed to be intended for those who are more familiar with ag production, but needed a deeper look into the everyday life of a producer. They used the lives of farmers in different areas and spoke about agriculture in a way people from the same background might comprehend.
I believe the message was the same in both films. The film makers were trying to show the importance of agriculture. U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance supported the making of Farmland. Knowing now that USFRA funded Farmland, it makes sense of how educational it was compared to Food Machine, which was on the less educational side. Being on the more educational side, I would consider Farmland to be a documentary. Food Machine had a funny host and a lot of fun features. I would consider this film to be on the entertainment side considering how much humor was put into it. The USFRA made farmland a documentary to inform and explain ag production. I can relate more to the film Farmland. Everything about the film was realistic. Food Machine was on a much larger scale. I would assume that it is an honest film coming from a
The film, Food Machine, scratched the surface of food production. The film was based on some of the United State’s largest places of ag production. We saw everything from the inside the production of tomatoes in California to the use of bees for pollination across the country. Food Machine did show a lot of negatives the future holds for agriculture. For example, the bees are essential for …show more content…
Food Machine seemed to try and educate viewers who had no idea about ag production. The host Yul Kwon of Food Machine was not from an ag background and they used things like pizza in New York City to relate to the intended audience. Farmland was much more personal and seemed to be intended for those who are more familiar with ag production, but needed a deeper look into the everyday life of a producer. They used the lives of farmers in different areas and spoke about agriculture in a way people from the same background might comprehend.
I believe the message was the same in both films. The film makers were trying to show the importance of agriculture. U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance supported the making of Farmland. Knowing now that USFRA funded Farmland, it makes sense of how educational it was compared to Food Machine, which was on the less educational side. Being on the more educational side, I would consider Farmland to be a documentary. Food Machine had a funny host and a lot of fun features. I would consider this film to be on the entertainment side considering how much humor was put into it. The USFRA made farmland a documentary to inform and explain ag production. I can relate more to the film Farmland. Everything about the film was realistic. Food Machine was on a much larger scale. I would assume that it is an honest film coming from a