I was expecting the Michael Moore treatment showing how evil big corporations are to unsuspecting Americans with a snide but preachy sense of humor. Instead you find fair treatment of all the issues with multiple perspectives shown. The makers really were fair and balanced. Agriculture issues tend to be complicated with many shades of gray between minimal black and white. The makers of King Corn drifted across this monochrome spectrum with ease by letting the subject speak for itsself. As a midwesterner, I was very surprised that they didn't portray Iowans as backward rednecks straight from central casting. I hope they decide to make more documentaries as they did wonderful with this one!
30 Reviews
King corn. Is King.
Amadeus1124 April 2008
Wow~ I mean this movie was just amazing. def. one of my favorite docu pics of last year.
When I first heard about king corn I was convinced that it would basically be a typical look at how we, the American people, are over exposed and over weight from feeding on the "natural American diet" which is of course bad for you; much like that of what we saw in super size me. But that wasn't the case here. in short, king corn does a great job explaining the facts of the corn farming process, and the process by which corn itself ends up being part of our daily diets.
king corn has its typical docu moments though out, including interviews with politicians, and confessional citizens whose lives have been affected by obesity. However, its not over done here. Instead were given an exciting look at agriculture in the United States, and good story telling which does a great job delivering its message in a very original way.
When I first heard about king corn I was convinced that it would basically be a typical look at how we, the American people, are over exposed and over weight from feeding on the "natural American diet" which is of course bad for you; much like that of what we saw in super size me. But that wasn't the case here. in short, king corn does a great job explaining the facts of the corn farming process, and the process by which corn itself ends up being part of our daily diets.
king corn has its typical docu moments though out, including interviews with politicians, and confessional citizens whose lives have been affected by obesity. However, its not over done here. Instead were given an exciting look at agriculture in the United States, and good story telling which does a great job delivering its message in a very original way.
a superb documentary
petersj-217 December 2009
College buddies return to a place called Greene in Iowa which was their ancestral home. This is a disturbing documentary but handled with intelligence and warmth. Basically it deals with the fact that because we are all demanding cheap food we are prepared to ignore the enormous health and environmental repercussions of over production. The issue is handled brilliantly and it will be easy to see how the film makers will be (wrongly) accused of exaggeration. Just like climate skeptics today these guys will be accused of scare mongering. That's the sad reality. The film makers however have been fair and balanced. What's wrong with corn? Essentially nothing but the corn is being fed to cattle. This is where it gets very disturbing. Its clever how the industry has used the term "grain fed" as a positive. What is disturbing is the corn produced is nothing like the juicy variety we like smothered in butter, indeed it is almost inedible! The corn is fed to cattle. It gets worse. To help the cattle avoid disease there are anti biotics added to the corn.The potential dangers here are too horrible to think about.The humanitarian aspects of modern family are another issue but you will find the film disturbing. I had a look in my pantry and was shocked to see just how much corn syrup is used. We have a right to know what we are eating and King Corn is a revelation but not a very comforting one. I could speak more about the issue itself but others have done that. It is scary and it makes me think of the field of dreams as a field of nightmares and I doubt Elvira Madigan will be running through corn fields in America. The documentary itself is rational without being cloyingly provocative. No preaching and no bad guys. The directors treat the farmers as victims as well. The people in the film are just lovely. They are hard working Americans trapped in an unethical industry. We, the consumers, are the real culprits; our demand to keep food cheap has led us to a diet which causes diabetes and other health scares. The film must be seen and its got the zappiest cleverest little ending. Sadly a limited audience will see this. It wont be on main stream TV, indeed I only saw it as it was recommended by a friend. One thing is for certain is if is shown on television it will not be sponsored by any fast food chains.
Field of Dreams
tedg25 May 2009
Modern documentaries fascinate me.
In theory, the documentary category is an investigation, explanation or essay on something, presumably something both real and true. Because there is the supposition that the thing is interesting of worth hearing about for some reason, one assumes that most documentaries would be compelling things. All you have to be is a good enough storyteller and let the truth take over.
You have to pick the right story though. Al Gore's story should not have been that the planet is going amok and will kill us, but that it is doing so not because of corrupt government or greedy corporations, but because of us, and things we think are reasonable.
Rather than trust the story, most modern documentarians add in another story to grab our attention, and then slip in the real story under it. Thus, in a documentary about unhealthy fast food, we have the primary story about a goof who tries to eat nothing but fast food. I'm interested in these things because this is a modern phenomenon, and is made possible — I think — because of our desire for layered (I prefer folded) narrative.
To the movie. Here is the real story: The US constitution allowed two senators per state, and that was carried over to the new states regardless of wisdom. So we have some states with disproportionate power over the public purse. As they are farming and ranching states, that power transforms into huge, irrational farm subsidies. There are all sorts of unintended consequences, noted here. One is that food production has shifted to the creation of biomass for the sweetener, meat and ethanol industries.
Each of these has its own subsidies further distorting the balance. Another is that food has become extraordinarily cheap — the lowest cost ever in the history of mankind. This in turn has modified consumer habits allowing unnecessary luxury items not possible before.
This film only deals with the massive health problems from bad meat and sweetener. It uses two devices.
One is the story of two young guys, how they "came home" to Iowa and leased an acre on which to grow corn. They noodle about, discovering what will happen to "their" corn, and thus reveal the facts, usually as told to the boys by an expert. Its rather obvious that most of the interviews are rehearsed, and that they would be precisely the same without this framing story. Unfortunately, the two guys — who are two of the several writers for all the fiction — aren't interesting or appealing. Their host apparently goes bankrupt at the end, an extraneous unexplained fact.
We leave the boys playing on an acre of grass in the midst of a vast corn planting — their acre ostentatiously withdrawn from the system.
The other device is some stop-motion animation involving kernels of corn, a map and sometimes a toy farm set — which cleverly appears in the disposal auction of the displaced farmer at the end. This animation adds no information or explanatory value. Its there simply to be cute, and perhaps to break the monotony.
It is a strong story, this meat and sweet disaster. It could have been a strong film. It could have used folding effectively.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
In theory, the documentary category is an investigation, explanation or essay on something, presumably something both real and true. Because there is the supposition that the thing is interesting of worth hearing about for some reason, one assumes that most documentaries would be compelling things. All you have to be is a good enough storyteller and let the truth take over.
You have to pick the right story though. Al Gore's story should not have been that the planet is going amok and will kill us, but that it is doing so not because of corrupt government or greedy corporations, but because of us, and things we think are reasonable.
Rather than trust the story, most modern documentarians add in another story to grab our attention, and then slip in the real story under it. Thus, in a documentary about unhealthy fast food, we have the primary story about a goof who tries to eat nothing but fast food. I'm interested in these things because this is a modern phenomenon, and is made possible — I think — because of our desire for layered (I prefer folded) narrative.
To the movie. Here is the real story: The US constitution allowed two senators per state, and that was carried over to the new states regardless of wisdom. So we have some states with disproportionate power over the public purse. As they are farming and ranching states, that power transforms into huge, irrational farm subsidies. There are all sorts of unintended consequences, noted here. One is that food production has shifted to the creation of biomass for the sweetener, meat and ethanol industries.
Each of these has its own subsidies further distorting the balance. Another is that food has become extraordinarily cheap — the lowest cost ever in the history of mankind. This in turn has modified consumer habits allowing unnecessary luxury items not possible before.
This film only deals with the massive health problems from bad meat and sweetener. It uses two devices.
One is the story of two young guys, how they "came home" to Iowa and leased an acre on which to grow corn. They noodle about, discovering what will happen to "their" corn, and thus reveal the facts, usually as told to the boys by an expert. Its rather obvious that most of the interviews are rehearsed, and that they would be precisely the same without this framing story. Unfortunately, the two guys — who are two of the several writers for all the fiction — aren't interesting or appealing. Their host apparently goes bankrupt at the end, an extraneous unexplained fact.
We leave the boys playing on an acre of grass in the midst of a vast corn planting — their acre ostentatiously withdrawn from the system.
The other device is some stop-motion animation involving kernels of corn, a map and sometimes a toy farm set — which cleverly appears in the disposal auction of the displaced farmer at the end. This animation adds no information or explanatory value. Its there simply to be cute, and perhaps to break the monotony.
It is a strong story, this meat and sweet disaster. It could have been a strong film. It could have used folding effectively.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Not Bad.
cumberpanda30 October 2008
I was forced to watch this in my Tech class for our unit in Agricultural technology, and all in all, it wasn't bad, as far as amateur documentaries go. As with all food documentaries, it touched on the explicit dangers of obesity and how fat Americans are, but not to the point of preachiness. Most of the focus was on the process of corn, from growing to harvesting to the elevator. Although the subject content is not as exciting as the apocalypse, it's important enough to be seen. We really don't realize how much corn is a part of our daily food intake. While calling King Corn "enlightening" is a stretch for some, it opened my eyes. I not going to start obsessively reading the ingredients for every single food product I eat, but you can't accuse me of ignorance. In short, King Corn is good for a school assignment, but watching it on your own will more likely than not make you a grade one nerd.
Kernel of Truth
marcobrcc16 December 2023
Two filmmakers spend a season in Iowa making their own corn, exploring the product chain, and learning how practices have changed over time. The documentary is a good watch, pretty enjoyable overall.
It explains very well that the U. S. agriculture policy, which heavily favors corn production, came about as a result of Americans dying of malnutrition in the 1920s and 30s and resulted in the federally-funded deconstruction of the family farm. It also sheds light on the crucial role of agricultural subsidies in sustaining the corn sector. Without these subsidies, the majority of farmers would face financial losses in their corn production.
Peeling back the layers of corn production, the subsidies emerge as a crucial player, shaping not only the very landscape of American agriculture but also what ends up on our plates (and in our hair).
It explains very well that the U. S. agriculture policy, which heavily favors corn production, came about as a result of Americans dying of malnutrition in the 1920s and 30s and resulted in the federally-funded deconstruction of the family farm. It also sheds light on the crucial role of agricultural subsidies in sustaining the corn sector. Without these subsidies, the majority of farmers would face financial losses in their corn production.
Peeling back the layers of corn production, the subsidies emerge as a crucial player, shaping not only the very landscape of American agriculture but also what ends up on our plates (and in our hair).
Nice noncommittal documentary
maxwelldeux28 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Undoubtedly, this documentary starts quite slow. They started off talking about how they were going to plant an acre of corn and follow it throughout its lifespan, including all the way to consumer. Nice premise, but over the first 30 minutes of this were talking about planting and growing corn, with no mention of where it was going ("it" being both the corn and the documentary).
My wife even asked at one point where the heck this documentary was going.
Once they sold their corn in the documentary, it started to get interesting. They actually started talking about where the corn goes, and all the various ways it gets into our bodies. Most of the rest of the documentary was devoted to this topic, and the makers of the film managed to explore this topic without judgment.
While you could infer the filmmakers' position from the film if you're reasonably intelligent, they don't come out and say it explicitly. They allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. This is one of the bonuses of the film.
Though a lot of the information in the film is old and relatively well known, especially if you watch some of the modern food documentaries, it's a nice introduction to a lot of the food issues we face as a society.
My wife even asked at one point where the heck this documentary was going.
Once they sold their corn in the documentary, it started to get interesting. They actually started talking about where the corn goes, and all the various ways it gets into our bodies. Most of the rest of the documentary was devoted to this topic, and the makers of the film managed to explore this topic without judgment.
While you could infer the filmmakers' position from the film if you're reasonably intelligent, they don't come out and say it explicitly. They allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. This is one of the bonuses of the film.
Though a lot of the information in the film is old and relatively well known, especially if you watch some of the modern food documentaries, it's a nice introduction to a lot of the food issues we face as a society.
Wow! A sad, tragic - but awesome - documentary
Tom-46412 November 2007
I knew this movie was going to be good from the trailers and the reviews I'd read, but I didn't expect to be blown away by such an unpretentious little flick. The truth is, it didn't need pretensions - the facts it presents, clearly and without dramatization at all, are plenty enough to make its point.
This is a documentary in the style of the "Columbo" detective series: a pair of friends wander through the Iowa corn industry, discovering things as they go, and showing us what they discover. Simple enough; but what they discover - and show us as they discover it - is a damning indictment not only of the corn industry, but of the entire American way of factory farming.
What's wrong with high fructose corn syrup? Why is grass-fed beef so HUGELY better than corn-fed beef? How do you force land that's been farmed literally to death to produce crops anyway, and bumper crops at that? See this movie; you'll find out.
Naah, on second thought, don't worry about the questions: just see this movie.
This is a documentary in the style of the "Columbo" detective series: a pair of friends wander through the Iowa corn industry, discovering things as they go, and showing us what they discover. Simple enough; but what they discover - and show us as they discover it - is a damning indictment not only of the corn industry, but of the entire American way of factory farming.
What's wrong with high fructose corn syrup? Why is grass-fed beef so HUGELY better than corn-fed beef? How do you force land that's been farmed literally to death to produce crops anyway, and bumper crops at that? See this movie; you'll find out.
Naah, on second thought, don't worry about the questions: just see this movie.
To the commenter above
gerry-mak20 September 2008
The film did not demonize corn as a species. It demonized the particular strain of highly selected and genetically modified corn that we use for high fructose corn syrup and cattle feed, a type of corn that requires intensive fertilization and herbicide regimens, and which actually kills off other strains of corn such as the sweet corn we all love eating at a summer barbecue. Also, cows are ruminants, which means that they have basic, low-acidity stomachs, evolved to digest grass. In order for them to digest the starchy kernels from corn, the acidity of their stomachs have to be artificially increased, causing myriad health problems for them which can only be remedied using antibiotics and hormones. This also makes them vulnerable to diseases that threaten us. It is absolutely naive to think this doesn't impact our health. Finally, the "Harvard professor" you refer to is Michael Pollan, a UC Berkeley professor. He is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book perhaps you should consider reading if you value facts so much. I think it is you who have not carefully understood the information presented by this film.
A fun look at the un-fun facts
zanderxo15 July 2008
If you've read Micheal Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" the issues addressed in this movie will be more than familiar. The tone, however, is rather younger, more superficial, and lighter. Both are quite enjoyable, and highlight problems most folks would rather not think about. I'd suggest you read the book first, then watch the movie to get the aroma and visuals. It would also be nice if other "reviewers" would own up to a disclosure such as this one, now common and expected, for example, in reputable medical journals: I am not employed by, nor do I have any financial interest in, any of the industries discussed or affected by this movie.
liking the message doesn't make it a good documentary
mcmillen-212 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I wouldn't say this was a horrible movie, but it certainly wasn't a good one. I think a lot of people think that if the movie's informative or says something you agree with, that makes it a good documentary. I didn't have a problem with the subject matter, it's the way it was presented.
The filmmakers made the choice of inserting themselves into the film. This can be a very effective documentary style (see Michael Moore & Morgan Spurlock for example) but in this case, no offense guys, you just don't have the personality to pull that off. You're not funny, you're not witty, you're not interesting, you're just two dudes floating through this film as if bystanders - which is fine, but then be bystanders, don't be in front of the camera. Don't take offense to that - a lot of people would not be suitable for this type of documentary, including me.
One example: there was a shot in the taxicab where the camera lingers on one of the guys (I don't know their names - and it doesn't matter) presumably to capture his emotional response to some horrible story the driver just told him, yet he's just staring blankly. What emotion was that supposed to be conveying? Either have a reaction worthy of showing us or leave that on the cutting room floor.
Second problem: The filmmakers try to make it look like they're just two schmoes who are clueless about this stuff and are just trying to figure out how corn got into the molecules of their hair. Right. That's insulting our intelligence and just got more & more annoying as the movie went on. You obviously were educated about this topic and that's why you did the movie in the first place.
Third problem: I thought the point of growing an acre of corn was to see what happened to it. But since it's impossible to follow what happened to their one acre of corn because it gets mixed in with everyone else's, that makes that whole part of the movie pointless. At that point they're just doing a more traditional kind of documentary and it was even less important to have them in the story. Yes they still got to show some information about how corn is planted & raised, but they could have shown that, and to better effect, by hanging out with farmers handling real crops.
Fourth problem: I don't remember all the details, but they calculated (spoiler alert?) that if not for the government's checks they would have lost money. Perhaps this is a valid point but using their calculations and drawing conclusions from that is complete B.S. If you were a real farmer, you'd probably own your own equipment, or if not you wouldn't be renting equipment in order to farm one acre of land for 18 minutes. Of course that's not economical!! Fifth problem: Munching into an ear of corn wasn't tasty... well duh, it wasn't sweet corn. There are different varieties of corn. Biting into raw popcorn wouldn't taste good either. That doesn't demonstrate anything one way or the other.
Finally (I could probably go on but I'll just make one more point): What was that ending all about? It was silly and contrived.
Note that nowhere in this comment did I say anything about disagreeing with their message. A good movie could have been made on this subject, but this wasn't it.
The filmmakers made the choice of inserting themselves into the film. This can be a very effective documentary style (see Michael Moore & Morgan Spurlock for example) but in this case, no offense guys, you just don't have the personality to pull that off. You're not funny, you're not witty, you're not interesting, you're just two dudes floating through this film as if bystanders - which is fine, but then be bystanders, don't be in front of the camera. Don't take offense to that - a lot of people would not be suitable for this type of documentary, including me.
One example: there was a shot in the taxicab where the camera lingers on one of the guys (I don't know their names - and it doesn't matter) presumably to capture his emotional response to some horrible story the driver just told him, yet he's just staring blankly. What emotion was that supposed to be conveying? Either have a reaction worthy of showing us or leave that on the cutting room floor.
Second problem: The filmmakers try to make it look like they're just two schmoes who are clueless about this stuff and are just trying to figure out how corn got into the molecules of their hair. Right. That's insulting our intelligence and just got more & more annoying as the movie went on. You obviously were educated about this topic and that's why you did the movie in the first place.
Third problem: I thought the point of growing an acre of corn was to see what happened to it. But since it's impossible to follow what happened to their one acre of corn because it gets mixed in with everyone else's, that makes that whole part of the movie pointless. At that point they're just doing a more traditional kind of documentary and it was even less important to have them in the story. Yes they still got to show some information about how corn is planted & raised, but they could have shown that, and to better effect, by hanging out with farmers handling real crops.
Fourth problem: I don't remember all the details, but they calculated (spoiler alert?) that if not for the government's checks they would have lost money. Perhaps this is a valid point but using their calculations and drawing conclusions from that is complete B.S. If you were a real farmer, you'd probably own your own equipment, or if not you wouldn't be renting equipment in order to farm one acre of land for 18 minutes. Of course that's not economical!! Fifth problem: Munching into an ear of corn wasn't tasty... well duh, it wasn't sweet corn. There are different varieties of corn. Biting into raw popcorn wouldn't taste good either. That doesn't demonstrate anything one way or the other.
Finally (I could probably go on but I'll just make one more point): What was that ending all about? It was silly and contrived.
Note that nowhere in this comment did I say anything about disagreeing with their message. A good movie could have been made on this subject, but this wasn't it.
Removing the dubious conclusion, the work is excellent
tsancio1 March 2009
King Corn is an excellent documentary of the entire process of the corn kennel, from its genetic origin to its final use in food. The young protagonists start out from their worry that the junk food they eat will make them live less years than the previous generation and use this energy to investigate the main column of American food which is corn. As they decide to grow an acre of corn in IOWA, they interview people from all stages of the process and make sure that their work is not seen as a all-out criticism of corn. Reading between the lines, you can conclude that although the corn subsidies have made food much cheaper for Americans, it has also reduced its quality. Of course, you have to figure that out yourself since they don't propose a solution.
However, they interview enough people to allow you to think. For example, when talking to a farmer that operates a cattle feed lot in which cows are given antibiotics so they can process the excessive amounts of corn that will make them fat, the man replies bluntly: "yeah, we can have our cows eat grass, but that would make it more expensive".
They also give a primer on high-fructose corn syrup, the preferred sugar in the USA food industry. Heck, it's sugar. But since it's so cheap, tons of food products contain it.
King Corn is an excellent movie for those who don't understand farm subsidies and why they were put in the first place. It's also very balanced and does not cast any of the participants as evildoers. It's just the final (baseball) scene that lets in their youth idealism and pretty much disowns the extensive work they did for the past hours.
However, they interview enough people to allow you to think. For example, when talking to a farmer that operates a cattle feed lot in which cows are given antibiotics so they can process the excessive amounts of corn that will make them fat, the man replies bluntly: "yeah, we can have our cows eat grass, but that would make it more expensive".
They also give a primer on high-fructose corn syrup, the preferred sugar in the USA food industry. Heck, it's sugar. But since it's so cheap, tons of food products contain it.
King Corn is an excellent movie for those who don't understand farm subsidies and why they were put in the first place. It's also very balanced and does not cast any of the participants as evildoers. It's just the final (baseball) scene that lets in their youth idealism and pretty much disowns the extensive work they did for the past hours.
A Must See for Anyone Wondering What's Up with our Food/Health Care sit in the US
jfilm29 August 2009
This film is a must see for anyone interested not only in food production and food policy in the United States, but also what ailes (sp?) us as a nation. The US government, and the agricultural industry has unfortunately created a system that is out of whack. While we spend less than at any time on food, we are spending more and more on health-care (the one point I wish the film had made more directly). This film should be seen by all Americans. I saw another comment that quibbled with the particulars in the film. The film is not a doctoral thesis, it is a piece of art trying to raise awareness. I also thought the device of the two filmmakers staking out an acre of corn and following it through the year as a spine to the story was quite wonderful, as well as the animations that they did with a still camera. As far as I know you can also get the film to screen in your community from the film's website. I highly recommend it - would be great food for thought.
Low key but very revealing and interesting
DennisLittrell30 June 2013
In this interesting and informative documentary two young men, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, return from the east coast to the Iowa farm country of their ancestors in order to find out what it is like to be a corn farmer in America. Their plan is to plant an acre of corn and follow that corn to market and see what happens. They want to know what life is like for the farmers and they want to know how the corn is processed and eventually consumed. What they find out is mixed.
They learn about the high yields that are possible today with the variety of corn that dominates corn production in this country. This plant has the property of being able to grow close to others of its kind, thereby increasing the number of plants per acre. This is good no doubt. However this variety of corn while ideal for the making of high fructose corn syrup and ethanol is lower in other nutrients such as protein and oil. For my perspective this too is okay. If that is what sells, the farmer really doesn't have much choice.
But what is disturbing about the corn farming and processing business are the subsidies that go to big agriculture and the consolidation that has taken place turning small farms into huge farms. Monoculture is a disease of the land. If more small farmers were able to make a living planting different varieties of crops people would eat better and healthier.
Cheney and Ellis also learn that much of the corn is used to fatten cattle. The natural diet of cattle is grass. Fattening them with nothing but corn makes them sick, but not sick enough to die before being slaughtered for the market.
They also learn (if they hadn't already known it) that corn is in an amazing number of the processed foods in the supermarkets and is the basis of McDonald happy meals. In other words king corn is instrumental in fostering and abetting the obesity epidemic.
The documentary is fascinating because it shows the exact details of how planting, weeding (chemically), fertilizing, harvesting and marketing of the corn is done. There are conversations with farmers and others and the famous food writer Michael Pollan makes an appearance.
This is not a documentary that is going to please the corn industry, but it is not a polemic either. I thought it was fair and accurate as far as I know. I am on the side of more diversified farming organically, but I know that feeding the seven plus billion people on this planet isn't possible without mass agricultural methods such as seen in this video. The fact that our government insists on subsidizing a relatively unhealthy diet based on genetically modified corn and soy is the main culprit. If there were subsidies for farmers to plant a wider variety of crops using organic methods that would improve our diet and allow for sustainable agriculture. The problem with this is we would need a larger percent of the population to farm.
—Dennis Littrell, author of "The World Is Not as We Think It Is"
They learn about the high yields that are possible today with the variety of corn that dominates corn production in this country. This plant has the property of being able to grow close to others of its kind, thereby increasing the number of plants per acre. This is good no doubt. However this variety of corn while ideal for the making of high fructose corn syrup and ethanol is lower in other nutrients such as protein and oil. For my perspective this too is okay. If that is what sells, the farmer really doesn't have much choice.
But what is disturbing about the corn farming and processing business are the subsidies that go to big agriculture and the consolidation that has taken place turning small farms into huge farms. Monoculture is a disease of the land. If more small farmers were able to make a living planting different varieties of crops people would eat better and healthier.
Cheney and Ellis also learn that much of the corn is used to fatten cattle. The natural diet of cattle is grass. Fattening them with nothing but corn makes them sick, but not sick enough to die before being slaughtered for the market.
They also learn (if they hadn't already known it) that corn is in an amazing number of the processed foods in the supermarkets and is the basis of McDonald happy meals. In other words king corn is instrumental in fostering and abetting the obesity epidemic.
The documentary is fascinating because it shows the exact details of how planting, weeding (chemically), fertilizing, harvesting and marketing of the corn is done. There are conversations with farmers and others and the famous food writer Michael Pollan makes an appearance.
This is not a documentary that is going to please the corn industry, but it is not a polemic either. I thought it was fair and accurate as far as I know. I am on the side of more diversified farming organically, but I know that feeding the seven plus billion people on this planet isn't possible without mass agricultural methods such as seen in this video. The fact that our government insists on subsidizing a relatively unhealthy diet based on genetically modified corn and soy is the main culprit. If there were subsidies for farmers to plant a wider variety of crops using organic methods that would improve our diet and allow for sustainable agriculture. The problem with this is we would need a larger percent of the population to farm.
—Dennis Littrell, author of "The World Is Not as We Think It Is"
A good snapshot of America's corn problem, but a mediocre film
benm-4175123 March 2019
King Corn follows two filmmaker bro's into Iowa as they take on precisely one acre of land to witness the process of modern corn farming from start to finish. Filling the unexpected gaps between their work - which takes very little time using modern machinery and processes - are a number of interviews of different perspectives on the corn industry. You have the food experts who discuss the trouble with growing immense amounts of nutritionally dead corn to create products like glucose, you have other experts who describe the incredible efficiency and achievement of the industry, then you have the small town farmers who make their living doing something they are increasingly dispassionate about.
The idea of two city-dwellers bumbling into a small town to grow an acre of corn is a great way to build a narrative that the majority of viewers who don't know anything about agriculture can follow. Witnessing the process and hearing the interviews along the way helps to build a snapshot of an industry we are all participating in (via consumption) yet tend to know nothing about.
However, this narrative is also what drags the documentary down. The two filmmakers don't really do or say anything interesting, and their footage ends up creating a lot of dead space. They never express much of how they feel or react to the mostly negative information of the film, beyond trying their own corn and realizing it tastes horrible because it was designed to be a commodity rather than food.
There is something to be said for remaining ambivalent, as a filmmaker, to let the audience decide how they feel. Yet this 1.5 hour documentary obviously takes the position that there is a problem with the American corn industry. The government subsidizes the production of nutritionally dead corn that can't even be eaten, which ends up fueling an unhealthy diet of sickly meat and diabetes inducing sodas. But rather than fully executing this position and giving a direction for the viewer to go from there, whether it's how to do something or how to do more research on the topic, the filmmakers continue to film themselves bumbling about the small town doing not much of anything.
Not only does the poorly executed narrative aspect drag King Corn down as a film, it also negates its potential as a call to action. It's obvious by the end that there's a big problem in the food industry, yet the narrative reaction is basically "aww man this sucks". I think at the time the film came out, it may have seemed more appropriate to reveal shocking aspects of systems we take for granted - without much critical analyses on the way - but documentaries have come a long way in the past decade and now King Corn seems like a simplistic reaction to a complex problem.
Nonetheless, King Corn does offer a good snapshot of modern American corn and its problematic nature. Spending a year in a small town brings the viewer through something most of us city-dwellers wouldn't normally see. Overall it isn't a bad watch, but viewers should feel encouraged to dig deeper after the fact and think about how they are or aren't complacent in the issue - rather than taking the defeatist stance the filmmakers did.
The idea of two city-dwellers bumbling into a small town to grow an acre of corn is a great way to build a narrative that the majority of viewers who don't know anything about agriculture can follow. Witnessing the process and hearing the interviews along the way helps to build a snapshot of an industry we are all participating in (via consumption) yet tend to know nothing about.
However, this narrative is also what drags the documentary down. The two filmmakers don't really do or say anything interesting, and their footage ends up creating a lot of dead space. They never express much of how they feel or react to the mostly negative information of the film, beyond trying their own corn and realizing it tastes horrible because it was designed to be a commodity rather than food.
There is something to be said for remaining ambivalent, as a filmmaker, to let the audience decide how they feel. Yet this 1.5 hour documentary obviously takes the position that there is a problem with the American corn industry. The government subsidizes the production of nutritionally dead corn that can't even be eaten, which ends up fueling an unhealthy diet of sickly meat and diabetes inducing sodas. But rather than fully executing this position and giving a direction for the viewer to go from there, whether it's how to do something or how to do more research on the topic, the filmmakers continue to film themselves bumbling about the small town doing not much of anything.
Not only does the poorly executed narrative aspect drag King Corn down as a film, it also negates its potential as a call to action. It's obvious by the end that there's a big problem in the food industry, yet the narrative reaction is basically "aww man this sucks". I think at the time the film came out, it may have seemed more appropriate to reveal shocking aspects of systems we take for granted - without much critical analyses on the way - but documentaries have come a long way in the past decade and now King Corn seems like a simplistic reaction to a complex problem.
Nonetheless, King Corn does offer a good snapshot of modern American corn and its problematic nature. Spending a year in a small town brings the viewer through something most of us city-dwellers wouldn't normally see. Overall it isn't a bad watch, but viewers should feel encouraged to dig deeper after the fact and think about how they are or aren't complacent in the issue - rather than taking the defeatist stance the filmmakers did.
Great doc - scary and true
cvminwi20 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Corn used to be food. Now it's a food product. This is the point of this excellent documentary. Cattle, one of the main consumers of corn, were never meant to eat corn. It makes them sick. It kills them. Humans were never meant to eat High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's making us fat and killing us. This is what happens when we turn food into food products and growing food into agri-business. Worse, government subsidies, meant to help farmers grow food to make people healthy, are now paying multinationals to manufacture food products that make people sick. This is one of several excellent warnings about where BigFood is taking us. Also read Omnivore's Dilemma; Animal, Vegetable, Miracle; and In Defense of Food. This ain't your grandpa's farm (or corn), people!
Fantastic! These guys go the subtle route rather than the "in your face" style (some semi-spoilers)
original_fuzzball14 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
What I really like about this film is how you feel like you're watching two city guys just kind of figure out how farming works. Along the way you come to understand our broken (IMO) corporate farming system, the political and social ramifications of our farming industry, and much more.
This is a film that I hope will catch people unaware. For instance, Sicko was a fantastic brutal indictment of our un-health-care system. Unfortunately, unless you're someone who already knows the system is broke, and you're not anti-Moore, then you're probably not seeing that film. Which is a shame, because I think everyone should see Sicko and really contemplate what is going on, but I digress.
King Corn is such a fun film, about a couple likable guys who go about things in a seemingly naiveté that it invites you to watch, regardless of where you sit on the debate concerning our current food system. That is its strength, as it innocently invites all to watch. Only when all parties to an issue participate can we really have a meaningful discussion of our current state of affairs.
I only withheld that last vital 10th star, because I felt they could have asked Mr. Butz some tougher questions. Obviously his point about driving down food costs is valid, but how we did it, how we subsidize it (since we're paying for it via taxes, is it really that much cheaper?) and other ramifications of the policy he championed may not be as great as Mr. Butz views it. I did like that they were respectful in their treatment of him during their interview, but a few more fast pitches (no need to throw a spitball) would have been nice.
Go see this film.
This is a film that I hope will catch people unaware. For instance, Sicko was a fantastic brutal indictment of our un-health-care system. Unfortunately, unless you're someone who already knows the system is broke, and you're not anti-Moore, then you're probably not seeing that film. Which is a shame, because I think everyone should see Sicko and really contemplate what is going on, but I digress.
King Corn is such a fun film, about a couple likable guys who go about things in a seemingly naiveté that it invites you to watch, regardless of where you sit on the debate concerning our current food system. That is its strength, as it innocently invites all to watch. Only when all parties to an issue participate can we really have a meaningful discussion of our current state of affairs.
I only withheld that last vital 10th star, because I felt they could have asked Mr. Butz some tougher questions. Obviously his point about driving down food costs is valid, but how we did it, how we subsidize it (since we're paying for it via taxes, is it really that much cheaper?) and other ramifications of the policy he championed may not be as great as Mr. Butz views it. I did like that they were respectful in their treatment of him during their interview, but a few more fast pitches (no need to throw a spitball) would have been nice.
Go see this film.
why am I not surprised?
anniekanien23 April 2010
yet another slap at American farmers under the guise of making folks feel guilty for being unable, in today's economy, to buy high priced products raised by some ex Berkley hippie in a 50' backyard garden for $15 a lb.
I'm not sure when it became so popular to vilify American agriculture, but here you have it. anyone who was raised in the midwest knows about 'feed corn'- it would be stupid to try to eat it yourself, it's high in complex starches so that ruminants can extract more nutrients from it. it's easy to forget when you really know nothing about farming that people and animals process foods differently.
we have 390 million people in this country and farmers are forced to produce more and more with less and less. the two guys acting as if they were babes in the woods was insulting to the people who do this for a living every day. go starve yourself for a day or so or live only off the foods you yourself can grow and maintain before seeking out movies like this meant to portray our farmers as greedy minions of the evil empire of corporations.
as for all these references to Omnivore's Dilemma- don't let that title mislead you. it's a pro vegan book. any one referencing it and reviewing this movie as a terrible spotlight on how slaughter animals are fed is trying to spook or guilt you into never eating meat again.
get off your asses, America and go visit some real farms instead of watching a lousy crock-umentary like this.
I'm not sure when it became so popular to vilify American agriculture, but here you have it. anyone who was raised in the midwest knows about 'feed corn'- it would be stupid to try to eat it yourself, it's high in complex starches so that ruminants can extract more nutrients from it. it's easy to forget when you really know nothing about farming that people and animals process foods differently.
we have 390 million people in this country and farmers are forced to produce more and more with less and less. the two guys acting as if they were babes in the woods was insulting to the people who do this for a living every day. go starve yourself for a day or so or live only off the foods you yourself can grow and maintain before seeking out movies like this meant to portray our farmers as greedy minions of the evil empire of corporations.
as for all these references to Omnivore's Dilemma- don't let that title mislead you. it's a pro vegan book. any one referencing it and reviewing this movie as a terrible spotlight on how slaughter animals are fed is trying to spook or guilt you into never eating meat again.
get off your asses, America and go visit some real farms instead of watching a lousy crock-umentary like this.
Interesting Food Documentary at Peak of an Era
mikayakatnt13 January 2020
A solid insight into the abundance of corn in American society.
The makers of this documentary took great care to cover every angle of corn in America. I did enjoy their fun experiment with buying an acre of corn to highlight the struggles of farming.
4/5. An interesting and fun food documentary in the post-Supersize Me era.
The makers of this documentary took great care to cover every angle of corn in America. I did enjoy their fun experiment with buying an acre of corn to highlight the struggles of farming.
4/5. An interesting and fun food documentary in the post-Supersize Me era.
A Corn-Fed Documentary Of The Corniest Kind
strong-122-47888512 February 2015
So, guess what cornstarch, corn syrup, and, yes, America's massive, fast-food industry all have in direct connection with each other? (Believe me, the answer to that question should be pretty obvious to most thinking viewers)
To be honest - It wasn't this documentary's subject matter (which certainly held some noteworthy potential) that this viewer found to be supremely dull and forgettable - No - It was, above all else, King Corn's pedestrian presentation and the lacklustre personalities of its 2 producers/stars (who injected themselves into the story) that promptly lost some serious points for this real-life investigation into fast-food's #1 ingredient.
To say that King Corn could have been a helluva lot better, on all counts, would truly be an understatement of the highest order.
By the time that King Corn's producers, Ian Cheney & Curt Ellis, had made their monumental revelation about corn and its connection with fast-food, this bored viewer had already figured things out for himself and had lost significant interest in this tired documentary well within the first 30 of its 90-minute running time.
To be honest - It wasn't this documentary's subject matter (which certainly held some noteworthy potential) that this viewer found to be supremely dull and forgettable - No - It was, above all else, King Corn's pedestrian presentation and the lacklustre personalities of its 2 producers/stars (who injected themselves into the story) that promptly lost some serious points for this real-life investigation into fast-food's #1 ingredient.
To say that King Corn could have been a helluva lot better, on all counts, would truly be an understatement of the highest order.
By the time that King Corn's producers, Ian Cheney & Curt Ellis, had made their monumental revelation about corn and its connection with fast-food, this bored viewer had already figured things out for himself and had lost significant interest in this tired documentary well within the first 30 of its 90-minute running time.
"King Corn" is a fun (and disturbing) look at Corn, and how it affects the world... negatively.
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness13 January 2011
The film "King Corn" is a strong piece of cinema. It gives us a deep look at corn. Yes, corn. Many might think that something as simple as corn can hold no real relevance to the world, or any of its people. This film proves otherwise.
It follows Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, as they are followed by director Aaron Woolf and his crew. After a scientist analyzes hair samples from both men, they find something pretty startling- their hair is made of corn? (Well, not exactly. But it's in there.) They go on an odyssey, traveling to Iowa, in order to grow an acre of corn their own, and trace it from first being planted, through its growth, to the harvest, and finally, to how it's processed and how it ends up in our hair.
The film is remarkable in its accessibility. Both of the lead on-screen talent are very engaging and likable. The film also tends to shy away from putting its foot down in the matter. It doesn't say "This is good" or "This is bad", or "blame this person or that organization" it merely presents the evidence and the reaction of Cheney and Ellis to said evidence and the situations that occur. It remains in the middle to an extent, and while it does present the modern corn industry in a negative light (rightfully so, I might add), it isn't too preachy about it. In addition, the filmmakers really try to make the documentary easy to watch and to comprehend, using simple tactics and design to illustrate some of the more abstract points, especially the political jargon and dealings that are brought up. Graphs and stop-motion animation are used to drive home these tough-to-understand concepts in a unique way. When talking about how political farming programs help larger farms grow and can negatively affect smaller farms, rather than seeing something as complex as the talk going on, we see stop-motion-animated Fisher Price toys scurrying about, visually representing what the narration is explaining. It was endearing, and actually quite effective in driving the point home. Quite brilliant, and without spoiling anything, especially touching when a poignant scene later on adds relevance to these stop-motion images.
The film also takes a hard look at the negative side of some of the impacts and bi-products of the corn industry. It does show us how government farming programs encourage the mass production of corn by industrial farms. The sheer scope of this industry rewards the larger industrial farms, but over time seems to phase out and eliminate smaller farms, in essence nearly destroying the classical image of the family farm. It is also explained that corn isn't just used for consumption by humans- it's used for other purposes, such as feeding livestock that will eventually be slaughtered for consumption. However, the corn-based feed negatively impacts the farm animals, who aren't "built" to consume such foods, and harms the value of the meat, by dramatically increasing the fat content. Corn is also used for making artificial sweeteners (such as the infamous High Fructose Corn Syrup, which holds virtually no nutritional value), which are used as a sugar substitute in many different foods. The sheer volume of High Fructose Corn Syrup, while making foods cheaper, is arguably also poisoning people. It's financial perks are matched or even outweighed by the health problems it can cause. The parts of the film dealing with HFCS are deeply troubling. I find it hard to stomach that this topic doesn't get more coverage than it already does- our cheaper foods are killing us.
For all that "King Corn" does properly, the film does do some wrong, though. It could be argued that a large portion of the movie is a moot point and ultimately pointless in the end- and that is Ellis and Cheney's growing of the acre of corn. While it was a nice statement and image, it is revealed that tracking their corn is a fruitless effort- it can not be tracked due to the sheer volume of corn harvested and processed. And so, Ellis and Cheney are left to mathematically figure out what likely happened to their corn. (They likely knew up front before planting that the corn would be untraceable, it seems unfathomable that they wouldn't have known) While seeing them grow their corn was interesting, the fact of the matter is, it could have been cut down somewhat (I would argue it is important enough to keep in the film, but at least five minutes could have been trimmed from the segments involving their planting, caring for and ultimately harvesting the plants), and the spare time used to further educate the audience on the subject. It just felt like a failed potential to myself.
Also, the film does hit a few moments where everything dulls down for a couple minutes, and it drags on, but then again, this seems to happen with most documentaries I've seen, so I can forgive it.
But these errors really don't detract much, they're more nit-picks from me, on how I would've changed the movie, and I will say, they didn't really affect my love for everything else. I adored this documentary!
I felt "King Corn" was a great educational piece. It teaches much, and is also a fun experience. I give it an 8 out of 10.
It follows Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, as they are followed by director Aaron Woolf and his crew. After a scientist analyzes hair samples from both men, they find something pretty startling- their hair is made of corn? (Well, not exactly. But it's in there.) They go on an odyssey, traveling to Iowa, in order to grow an acre of corn their own, and trace it from first being planted, through its growth, to the harvest, and finally, to how it's processed and how it ends up in our hair.
The film is remarkable in its accessibility. Both of the lead on-screen talent are very engaging and likable. The film also tends to shy away from putting its foot down in the matter. It doesn't say "This is good" or "This is bad", or "blame this person or that organization" it merely presents the evidence and the reaction of Cheney and Ellis to said evidence and the situations that occur. It remains in the middle to an extent, and while it does present the modern corn industry in a negative light (rightfully so, I might add), it isn't too preachy about it. In addition, the filmmakers really try to make the documentary easy to watch and to comprehend, using simple tactics and design to illustrate some of the more abstract points, especially the political jargon and dealings that are brought up. Graphs and stop-motion animation are used to drive home these tough-to-understand concepts in a unique way. When talking about how political farming programs help larger farms grow and can negatively affect smaller farms, rather than seeing something as complex as the talk going on, we see stop-motion-animated Fisher Price toys scurrying about, visually representing what the narration is explaining. It was endearing, and actually quite effective in driving the point home. Quite brilliant, and without spoiling anything, especially touching when a poignant scene later on adds relevance to these stop-motion images.
The film also takes a hard look at the negative side of some of the impacts and bi-products of the corn industry. It does show us how government farming programs encourage the mass production of corn by industrial farms. The sheer scope of this industry rewards the larger industrial farms, but over time seems to phase out and eliminate smaller farms, in essence nearly destroying the classical image of the family farm. It is also explained that corn isn't just used for consumption by humans- it's used for other purposes, such as feeding livestock that will eventually be slaughtered for consumption. However, the corn-based feed negatively impacts the farm animals, who aren't "built" to consume such foods, and harms the value of the meat, by dramatically increasing the fat content. Corn is also used for making artificial sweeteners (such as the infamous High Fructose Corn Syrup, which holds virtually no nutritional value), which are used as a sugar substitute in many different foods. The sheer volume of High Fructose Corn Syrup, while making foods cheaper, is arguably also poisoning people. It's financial perks are matched or even outweighed by the health problems it can cause. The parts of the film dealing with HFCS are deeply troubling. I find it hard to stomach that this topic doesn't get more coverage than it already does- our cheaper foods are killing us.
For all that "King Corn" does properly, the film does do some wrong, though. It could be argued that a large portion of the movie is a moot point and ultimately pointless in the end- and that is Ellis and Cheney's growing of the acre of corn. While it was a nice statement and image, it is revealed that tracking their corn is a fruitless effort- it can not be tracked due to the sheer volume of corn harvested and processed. And so, Ellis and Cheney are left to mathematically figure out what likely happened to their corn. (They likely knew up front before planting that the corn would be untraceable, it seems unfathomable that they wouldn't have known) While seeing them grow their corn was interesting, the fact of the matter is, it could have been cut down somewhat (I would argue it is important enough to keep in the film, but at least five minutes could have been trimmed from the segments involving their planting, caring for and ultimately harvesting the plants), and the spare time used to further educate the audience on the subject. It just felt like a failed potential to myself.
Also, the film does hit a few moments where everything dulls down for a couple minutes, and it drags on, but then again, this seems to happen with most documentaries I've seen, so I can forgive it.
But these errors really don't detract much, they're more nit-picks from me, on how I would've changed the movie, and I will say, they didn't really affect my love for everything else. I adored this documentary!
I felt "King Corn" was a great educational piece. It teaches much, and is also a fun experience. I give it an 8 out of 10.
An indictment of HFCS
EinRand-117 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone seems to have missed the whole point of this eye-opening and noteworthy documentary. Folks in the corn belt will view this film as an attack upon their livelyhood. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will only see this as an indictment of meat. Both hit the board but miss the bullseye by a mile.
We have an obesity epidemic in America that is spreading to the whole world, and already some two-thirds of Americans are going to die an early death because they are either obese or overweight. The negative effect of obesity on productivity and enjoyment of life is monumentally more damaging to the soul of America than most can easily surmise.
High fructose corn syrup is killing America. When carbohydrates are consumed your pancreas is signaled to produce insulin, and every calorie is stored as FAT. If you eat a high fat, moderate protein, and very low carbohydrate diet, you will lose about .2 lbs per day, and will become exponentially healthier. Take the zero carb not Peppsi challenge. Go to your local mart and actually look at how little food is low or zero carb. The government food pyramid is made of carbs. High fructose corn syrup has virtually replaced sugar because it is cheaper for the farmer to produce due to subsidies, and therefore has a higher profit margin.
The Corn industry justifies its subsidized existence by touting how little money the average consumer has to spend to acquire sufficient daily calories (never minding the fact that a subsidy to a parasite is a tax on a producer). But as Gary Taubes in his new book Good Calories Bad Calories - using rigorous science and documentation, and as any follower of Atkins knows, one tends to eat dramatically less on a low carb diet to the point of almost rectifying the price imbalance.
Had Morgenschiester from Super Size Thee, only ate Meat and Cheese at MickieD's he would have been sated far too early to finish the bun, fries, and high fructose corn syrup. How can we fault the farmer, FastFood, or the Consumer for taking the easy way out?
We should place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Government for its communistic social engineering of our society that yields big bucks for big industry on the backs of a populace that will die an early death. But if you view the American population as one giant herd of cattle, then it makes sense that our reproduction and early death is preferred for its effect on GDP?
Ketogenisis, D3 (4k+ I.U. /d), and SlowBurn weightlifting have the capacity to virtually end early death in America. Google it, do the research, stop relying on MSM and give this little gem of a documentary a chance. This film was brought to you by entrepreneurs working in the free market - reward them with your viewing dollars.
As an aside; there is mention in the film about how healthy free ranged grass fed cattle are. That is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Some in the know have warrant for the belief that if we turned all corn acres into grass land for cattle, its effect on carbon sequestration would IMMEDIATELY remove enough carbon green house gas to completely reverse global warming. That is if you believe in that socialist wealth redistribution scheme. ;-)
We have an obesity epidemic in America that is spreading to the whole world, and already some two-thirds of Americans are going to die an early death because they are either obese or overweight. The negative effect of obesity on productivity and enjoyment of life is monumentally more damaging to the soul of America than most can easily surmise.
High fructose corn syrup is killing America. When carbohydrates are consumed your pancreas is signaled to produce insulin, and every calorie is stored as FAT. If you eat a high fat, moderate protein, and very low carbohydrate diet, you will lose about .2 lbs per day, and will become exponentially healthier. Take the zero carb not Peppsi challenge. Go to your local mart and actually look at how little food is low or zero carb. The government food pyramid is made of carbs. High fructose corn syrup has virtually replaced sugar because it is cheaper for the farmer to produce due to subsidies, and therefore has a higher profit margin.
The Corn industry justifies its subsidized existence by touting how little money the average consumer has to spend to acquire sufficient daily calories (never minding the fact that a subsidy to a parasite is a tax on a producer). But as Gary Taubes in his new book Good Calories Bad Calories - using rigorous science and documentation, and as any follower of Atkins knows, one tends to eat dramatically less on a low carb diet to the point of almost rectifying the price imbalance.
Had Morgenschiester from Super Size Thee, only ate Meat and Cheese at MickieD's he would have been sated far too early to finish the bun, fries, and high fructose corn syrup. How can we fault the farmer, FastFood, or the Consumer for taking the easy way out?
We should place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Government for its communistic social engineering of our society that yields big bucks for big industry on the backs of a populace that will die an early death. But if you view the American population as one giant herd of cattle, then it makes sense that our reproduction and early death is preferred for its effect on GDP?
Ketogenisis, D3 (4k+ I.U. /d), and SlowBurn weightlifting have the capacity to virtually end early death in America. Google it, do the research, stop relying on MSM and give this little gem of a documentary a chance. This film was brought to you by entrepreneurs working in the free market - reward them with your viewing dollars.
As an aside; there is mention in the film about how healthy free ranged grass fed cattle are. That is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Some in the know have warrant for the belief that if we turned all corn acres into grass land for cattle, its effect on carbon sequestration would IMMEDIATELY remove enough carbon green house gas to completely reverse global warming. That is if you believe in that socialist wealth redistribution scheme. ;-)
The King of Corn documentaries
doctorsmoothlove13 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
King Corn is a wonderful documentary. I haven't enjoyed watching a documentary this much since An Inconvenient Truth. Like that film, King Corn informs us of a contemporary problem and analyzes it thoroughly. However, unlike Al Gore's movie, King Corn doesn't attempt to induce pity for its stars. This movie address a contemporary economic topic in a format more people will be willing to experience.
The film is a photo journal of Curtis Ellis and Ian Cheney's efforts in raising an acre of industrialized corn in Greene, Iowa. The two friends are from Boston and were startled to learn that their hair cells appeared like corn. They proceed to enter a hamlet that seems lost in transition. Ancient silos tower over endless corn fields. It's odd.
Curtis and Ian find a farmer willing to allow them to his land and begin. Their one-year process begins and they soon have healthy corn growing. Both of them take the time to locate distant relatives and learn more about Greene. Each finds buried ancestors. Once the corn is nearly ready to harvest, the two men determine a path their corn where they think it will go. They visit Brooklyn and learn about the dangers of high fructose corn syrup from a taxi driver, and they learn about modern beef cattle farming in Colorado. In both instances, I noticed a lack of relevance in the interviews. The taxi driver says that he became overweight from consuming soft drinks, and the farmers discuss poor treatment of animals. Again, both sessions are informative but they seem tangential to the film's argument (modern farming is degrading to both farmers and crops). They become filler for the last part of the movie when Curtis and Ian harvest their corn.
When the dust settles after a long twenty minutes of collection, the guys have their 300+ bushels of corn. They sell it for about fifteen dollars less than what was required to break even. Never fear, government subsidies are here to save the day! After they have their money, the two decide to buy that acre of land. Near the very end, many vestiges of old Greene are demolished to create additional corn fields.
Both men were involved in scripting this film and directing it. The interviews do not appear sporadic, and special effects are surprisingly presentable. The stop-motion segments are scattered about with enough distance and don't become gimmicky. I liked them especially well for the humor they provide. They models appear to be made of modeling putty or PLAY-DOH and are haphazardly edited to create the appearance of motion.
As you've read, King Corn has a unique narrative structure. Much like Al Gore's movie, it tells a story with many elements often found in films of other genres. The protagonists are heroic, the antagonist (or the system) is faulty, and symbolism is obvious. I found it amusing to watch it unfold. Imagine taking a Roland Emmerich film (let's say The Day After Tomorrow) and removing the fantastic elements. You'd be left with a movie about how global climate change (or some other phenomenon) could cause another ice age (insert catastrophe here). In King Corn, you have a movie about how current agricultural techniques undermine centuries of human eating habits, which could be expanded into a crazy film. It's this similarity to narrative films which I admire in documentaries. I think that it gives them an advantage over other nonfiction films because they are more likely to entertain.
The film isn't without flaws but, fortunately, they are presentational and not structural. If you're educated about modern Western farming techniques, then the movie isn't going to teach you anything new. Think of this documentary as a cinematic adaptation of a Michael Pollan book. Pollan even appears at various points to provide additional analysis when Curtis and Ian cannot. I have read In Defense of Food (Pollan's most recent work), and learned nothing new from this movie. I won't discourage informed persons from viewing it, but I can recommend it. However, since most people are not aware of these issues, King Corn has large appeal.
Final Consensus: **** and ½* out of *****
The film is a photo journal of Curtis Ellis and Ian Cheney's efforts in raising an acre of industrialized corn in Greene, Iowa. The two friends are from Boston and were startled to learn that their hair cells appeared like corn. They proceed to enter a hamlet that seems lost in transition. Ancient silos tower over endless corn fields. It's odd.
Curtis and Ian find a farmer willing to allow them to his land and begin. Their one-year process begins and they soon have healthy corn growing. Both of them take the time to locate distant relatives and learn more about Greene. Each finds buried ancestors. Once the corn is nearly ready to harvest, the two men determine a path their corn where they think it will go. They visit Brooklyn and learn about the dangers of high fructose corn syrup from a taxi driver, and they learn about modern beef cattle farming in Colorado. In both instances, I noticed a lack of relevance in the interviews. The taxi driver says that he became overweight from consuming soft drinks, and the farmers discuss poor treatment of animals. Again, both sessions are informative but they seem tangential to the film's argument (modern farming is degrading to both farmers and crops). They become filler for the last part of the movie when Curtis and Ian harvest their corn.
When the dust settles after a long twenty minutes of collection, the guys have their 300+ bushels of corn. They sell it for about fifteen dollars less than what was required to break even. Never fear, government subsidies are here to save the day! After they have their money, the two decide to buy that acre of land. Near the very end, many vestiges of old Greene are demolished to create additional corn fields.
Both men were involved in scripting this film and directing it. The interviews do not appear sporadic, and special effects are surprisingly presentable. The stop-motion segments are scattered about with enough distance and don't become gimmicky. I liked them especially well for the humor they provide. They models appear to be made of modeling putty or PLAY-DOH and are haphazardly edited to create the appearance of motion.
As you've read, King Corn has a unique narrative structure. Much like Al Gore's movie, it tells a story with many elements often found in films of other genres. The protagonists are heroic, the antagonist (or the system) is faulty, and symbolism is obvious. I found it amusing to watch it unfold. Imagine taking a Roland Emmerich film (let's say The Day After Tomorrow) and removing the fantastic elements. You'd be left with a movie about how global climate change (or some other phenomenon) could cause another ice age (insert catastrophe here). In King Corn, you have a movie about how current agricultural techniques undermine centuries of human eating habits, which could be expanded into a crazy film. It's this similarity to narrative films which I admire in documentaries. I think that it gives them an advantage over other nonfiction films because they are more likely to entertain.
The film isn't without flaws but, fortunately, they are presentational and not structural. If you're educated about modern Western farming techniques, then the movie isn't going to teach you anything new. Think of this documentary as a cinematic adaptation of a Michael Pollan book. Pollan even appears at various points to provide additional analysis when Curtis and Ian cannot. I have read In Defense of Food (Pollan's most recent work), and learned nothing new from this movie. I won't discourage informed persons from viewing it, but I can recommend it. However, since most people are not aware of these issues, King Corn has large appeal.
Final Consensus: **** and ½* out of *****
Did they smoke weed and come up with this documentary?
sillygilly2519 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
So you analyze your hair and naturally this takes you to your ancestral corn roots in Iowa so you can grow an acre of corn and track where every kernel goes. But you don't research anything prior to going to Iowa, even showing up when there is no reason to and waiting months to finally do some corn growing. Still, no research into your primary question - where would every kernel of corn you grow go after you harvest it? You get the answer (you can't track corn after it goes to the corn elevator) so you finally do some research using wiki and put up some percentages where you "think" it would be used. The only thing I got from it is that cows need to stay far away from corn. Seriously, how did the real farmers put up with two guys who have no problem wearing sandals while discussing their corn production? That's like showing up at a ranch and wearing a white cowboy shirt. You just don't do that. This was made in the style of Michael Moore but unlike Mr. Moore, this documentary was not even smart, witty, or informative. Skip it.
Eye-opening and entertaining
EDShanelec16 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Film makers and amateur corn farmers Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis do a great job of examining the corn industry. They provide a very original, interesting film about the making and movement of corn.
After moving from Iowa to Boston, Ian and Curtis find out what the corn industry is really about. They decide to become corn farmers over the course of a year. Intrigued by where their crop may end up they follow a few leads. They find themselves interviewing cattle farmers and owners of factories that make high fructose corn syrup.
Both Ian and Curtis know little about the corn industry and learn with the viewer. They don't overplay the fact that they are making a documentary and demonize the corn industry by any means. They offer new information to those outside of the industry.
The documentary was filmed well and the music fit well. Ian and Curtis have personal connections to the town that they farm near and bring these up in the film a little too much for my taste. Other than that the film was very well made.
After moving from Iowa to Boston, Ian and Curtis find out what the corn industry is really about. They decide to become corn farmers over the course of a year. Intrigued by where their crop may end up they follow a few leads. They find themselves interviewing cattle farmers and owners of factories that make high fructose corn syrup.
Both Ian and Curtis know little about the corn industry and learn with the viewer. They don't overplay the fact that they are making a documentary and demonize the corn industry by any means. They offer new information to those outside of the industry.
The documentary was filmed well and the music fit well. Ian and Curtis have personal connections to the town that they farm near and bring these up in the film a little too much for my taste. Other than that the film was very well made.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
