39 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :- Enlightening but Gloomy, 28 janvier 2006
Author:
James McNally de Toronto, Canada
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. I
would call this film a Mondovino for food. By which I mean it is an
examination of how globalization and the growth of the power of
corporations has affected the production of food. The director
dispassionately takes us to farms in Romania and Brazil, a fishing boat
in Brittany, a greenhouse in southern Spain, and a chicken processing
plant in Austria.
In all these places, we see traditional practices being abandoned in
favour of giant factory operations. In each place, someone on camera
asserts that flavour is not as important as price or appearance. So we
see hothouse tomatoes being driven 2500 kilometres to be sold, we see
rain forest cleared to grow soybeans, even though the soil is
unsuitable, and we see the entire eight-week life cycle of thousands of
chickens, raised to supply the incessant demands of the world for cheap
food. Watching factory-farmed chickens being "processed" might be
enough to turn some people into vegetarians. Except for the fact that
our vegetables are really no better.
There is some interesting information about GM (genetically modified)
crops which are resistant to herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup and the
growing use of hybrid seed. Unlike regular seed, which farmers used to
save from year to year, hybrid seed cannot be used to raise a second
crop, forcing farmers to keep buying seed from large seed firms like
Pioneer. This raises all kinds of issues, and I really think the film
could have spent more time here.
The film ends with an interview with the CEO of Nestlé, the largest
food manufacturer in the world, who muses on "attaching a value" to
water, and calls the position of the NGOs, that access to clean water
is a human right, "extreme". After bragging how many jobs his
corporation is creating, and how many families it is supporting, he
glances at an informational video of one of Nestlé's Japanese
factories, and marvels how it is so roboticized. "Hardly any people,"
he crows.
The only significant weakness to this documentary was its unrelenting
gloom. I would have liked to have been given some ammunition or to have
seen some success stories, or at least some rebellion. But there wasn't
any. Since I have an interest in this area, I can point you to the Slow
Food organization, which is trying to encourage more consumption of
local products and the preservation of disappearing foodstuffs. But I
really wish the director had done it instead.
16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :- Good, yet sometimes a little bit shallow., 2 janvier 2007
Author:
C DA de Romania
Shallowness refers to contents, I don't have any special request for
the presentation, this is a documentary meant to inform, not to
impress.
Sad thing: I am old enough to remember how things were, at least in
Romania, and we're actually not doing better. On the contrary, from the
quality of food to the quality of beliefs and life itself, we lost a
lot and we're bound to continue losing. Under the cover of getting rid
of communism, we're actually getting rid of a lot more. But who cares,
as long as there's cheap stuff to put in our mouths... As for the human
right to water, I believe that the Nestle CEO aims to sell to us air in
the next decade, and we're stupid and lazy enough to let him and others
like him do exactly that. The only thing that's effortless on this
planet is stupidity.
It looks that I'm rather tempted to comment the information released in
the movie than the movie itself, and IMDb is not the place for that. I
will then say only that sometimes more means less, in the end.
17 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :- Review from 2005 TIFF, 10 septembre 2005
Author:
Richard de Toronto
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival.
We Feed the World, by filmmaker Erwin Wagenhofer, had its world
premiere at the festival. The film, two years in the making, takes a
look at the production of food and the effects on it from globalization
and commercialization.
The film is divided up into sections, each of which focuses on a
different part of the industry. It jumps from fishermen in Brittany, to
massive greenhouse operations in Spain, to the use of hybrid seeds in
eastern Europe, to the production of soya in Brazil, to chicken
production in Europe, and finally to Switzerland, the home of Nestle,
the biggest food corporation in the world. Each section talks about the
challenges facing people and the impact felt around the world. There is
no narration; the people interviewed in the film simply tell their
stories and give their opinions.
There is the fisherman in Brittany, talking about the effect of
European Union regulations on his livelihood. There is the senior
manager with agriculture giant Pioneer, who gives his own personal
views at odds with the company line. And then there is the CEO of
Nestle, who matter-of-factly states his own opinions about food which
may seem shocking to many. Interspersed are interviews with a food
expert from the UN who provides insight into how the things shown in
the film are affecting, often adversely, people around the world.
The movie is not overly didactic, but it does cause you to think about
how the food you eat is produced and how so many people in the world
can be starving when so much food is produced and wasted in the
industrialized world.
Erwin Wagenhofer attended the screening and did a Q&A after the movie:
- When asked about how or what we should even eat, Wagenhofer said you
should think about where your food comes from and how it is produced,
and buy locally-produced food.
- Asked how he managed to secure the interviews, especially with people
who might not normally participate in such a documentary, Wagenhofer
said the first time he approaches someone, he never brings a camera. In
fact, he doesn't for the first 4 or 5 times, by which time people see
he is not out to make fun of them, and they eventually agree to be
filmed.
- When asked about the comments the head of Nestle, Peter
Brabeck-Letmathe, makes, Wagenhofer said that he believes those are
Brabeck's actual feelings about the subject, and that he probably would
not be upset about the film in any way.
- Why food? Wagenhofer said that food is something close to everyone,
that everyone has to eat every day.
- On his next project, Wagenhofer couldn't say what it is, other than
it is a step forward from this film.
- The film was finished only one month ago.
- When asked what we should take from this film, Wagenhofer said the
film is called "We Feed the World", not "They Feed the World," meaning
that we are all part of the system, and that it is up to "us" to change
it, as "they" have no desire to.
15 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :- A Nutshell Review: (SIFF) We Feed the World, 14 avril 2006
Author:
DICK STEEL de Singapore
So I begin my selection of this year's SIFF with a documentary.
Directed by Erwin Wagenhofer, We Feed the World begins by highlighting
a very fundamental wastage. That of overnight bread, tons of it being
offloaded, meant for the incinerated, when there are thousands left
hungry.
The documentary focuses on various aspects on the supply side of the
food chain, giving some insight to the various industries which produce
food, like fishing, vegetables and poultry. It also provides a glimpse
into the political side of supplying food, that of the profit
maximization strategy of any public company (here, it's Nestle), of the
genetically modified seeds which supposedly produces superior crop as
opposed to better tasting, natural ones, and various EU plans and
initiatives which seem to go down the wrong path instead of fulfilling
its supposedly planned objectives.
While it covers a lot of ground, some segments proved to be a little
draggy and preachy. I particularly enjoyed the segment on the fishing
industry, where there are plans to wrest knowledge from the small
timers operating smaller fishing operations, and to eventually
merge/close them down when the bigger boys come into the picture. As
demonstrated in the movie, there are reasons why big trawlers doesn't
equate to fresher and better catches.
The other segment which moved was on the Brazilian's poor north-eastern
parts, where on one hand, you have very poor people going hungry all
the time, yet Brazil's one of the major exporters of maize to Europe.
Maize which are used for burning for fuel generation. It just boggles
the mind, and makes you feel sad at the way things work, illogical as
it may seem, in the name of profit - watching the kids drink untreated
murky water, and the adults resorting to unnatural means of keeping
their children alive, will gloom your day.
And I could have swore off chicken come the final segment. Nowadays
lifestock are treated as an 8-week cycle of a production line, from
incubating, hatching, fattening, until the final days of slaughtering,
where they're hung upside down by the legs in conveyor belts, before
passing through a circular bladed discs where their throats are slit,
and left bleeding till death. For those which are missed by the blades,
there is a butcher on standby with a knife to do the deed.
But while the movie tried to made its points, what I found lacking are
the many ways in which to link the message to the issues. Many times it
felt a little sporadic, or the linking done quite weakly through
intertitles. That aside, perhaps I'm already attuned to the more
in-your-face style of Michael Moore, nevermind if there are echoes that
his style is manipulative. For a topic like this, perhaps it could gain
from that bit of controversy to hammer its opinions through.
6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- A film that wants to change the way you look at food, by telling the facts, 26 novembre 2006
Author:
stigmw de Norway
The special quality of this documentary is it's factual consistency and
cyclic rhythm. It is very evident that the director is doing his best
to stay with the facts, illustrate them in an appropriate way, and get
the right people to say what is on their mind, without pushing his
personal opinion in your face. The film invites the viewer to take part
in the filmmakers fact-finding trip. It is clearly divided into
different but interlinked themes, and each of these chapters are built
up in the same way: filmed on the road to wherever the action is taking
place, introducing whoever is going to be interviewed and in the end
adding a comment by the UN representative. This gave me a strong
feeling of taking part in the process and not being just showed the
edited mash-up of someone like Michael Moore. It might seem a bit slow
and tedious, but it makes the people and settings so much more real,
and makes me finally want to start buying those organically grown
tomatoes and stop eating factory produced meats.
Enlightening and Revealing, very useful perspective for change, 26 avril 2008
Author:
pchelp-2 de United States
Often beautiful cinematography. Quite stark at times, but necessarily
so. This is a very valuable film from an point of view not often heard.
This is a close look at the current production methods for what we eat.
It reveals much that is hidden from the consumer. It shows factory
farming up close, the source of most of our supermarket offerings.
All of the solutions to the issues raised in the film are not
presented, but the concerns and need to come up with solutions is
persuasive. Clearly, considerable effort is required, but there are
many ways to get there and they all start with opening the eyes to that
is going on.
The film illustrates how the overriding pursuit of profit affects the
nutritional values, chemical and genetic hazards in our food.
A good starter on intelligently approaching food. I suggest watching it
to figure out what to do next.
9 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :- Overly Gloomy And Not That Enlightening, 9 mars 2007
Author:
Karl Self de Yurp
This documentary was the talk about town for a while in my corner of
the world, so I was quite keen to see it. It turned out the be the type
of movie which would have thrown me into the thralls of delicious
juvenile mal de vivre when I was still juvenile; nowadays I see it less
benevolently as subtle manipulation on part of the filmmaker. Basically
the movie delivers a pastiche of interesting images and statements, and
then juxtaposes them in an unnerving way. We see large soy bean
plantations being cut into the Brazilian rainforest (or is it just
Brazilian forest?), some talking head says that the ground there is
totally unsuitable for soy bean production (whatever that means), there
is a text insert stating that an enormous amount of Brazilian
rainforest has been cut down (although it doesn't say whether this was
for soy bean production), then we see images of desperately poor
Brazilians who don't have enough food to eat or access to clean water
-- all this with images of tons of slightly stale bread being dumped in
Vienna still lingering in the viewer's mind from the opening scene. OK,
what do we make of this, apart from the fact that the world is an
imperfect place? How do we get those loaves of bread from Vienna to the
Brazilian wastelands? The movie has no intention of telling you, it
contents itself with subtly upsetting its viewers -- it leaves you in
no doubt that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, but doesn't
tell you exactly what it is or how to fix it. Maybe one way to help
those peasants would be to give them work on the soy bean plantation,
but then the movie is against the global food trade -- so no dice. It
is also against farm subsidies and protectionism, and suggests that
food is generally too cheap and that local farmers should earn more,
while the multinationals are making far too much money -- all of which
is certainly well-intentioned, but also contradictory. If you have
smartened up and turned away from buying the cheapest and most
processed foodstuffs, if you try to buy regionally and seasonally, and
are paying more attention at taste rather than looks, then you are
already past this movie. However if you are a less discerning consumer
then this movie is probably a good starter.
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosinterprètes et équipe techniqueanecdotesofficial sitesphrases célèbresOverview
infos principalesinfos complètesinterprètes et équipe techniquesociétés de productiontv scheduleRécompenses et critiques
avis des utilisateurscritiques externescritiques des forumsawardsnotes des utilisateursparents guidedans la lignéemessage boardSynopsis et citations
résuméplot synopsismots-clésrésumé du Amazon.comphrases célèbresCuriosités
anecdotesbêtisierinfos B.O.F.clins d'œil dans génériqueinfos sur d'autres versionsliens avec d'autres uvresfoire aux questionsAutres infos
en ventebox office/businessdates de sortielieux de tournagecaractéristiques techniquesinfos laserdiscinfos DVDbibliographieNewsDeskMatériel publicitaire
accrochestrailers and videosaffichesphoto galleryLiens externes
horaires dans les sallesofficial sitesdiversphotossound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
We Feed the World (2005)
39 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-

Enlightening but Gloomy, 28 janvier 2006
Author: James McNally de Toronto, Canada
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. I would call this film a Mondovino for food. By which I mean it is an examination of how globalization and the growth of the power of corporations has affected the production of food. The director dispassionately takes us to farms in Romania and Brazil, a fishing boat in Brittany, a greenhouse in southern Spain, and a chicken processing plant in Austria.
In all these places, we see traditional practices being abandoned in favour of giant factory operations. In each place, someone on camera asserts that flavour is not as important as price or appearance. So we see hothouse tomatoes being driven 2500 kilometres to be sold, we see rain forest cleared to grow soybeans, even though the soil is unsuitable, and we see the entire eight-week life cycle of thousands of chickens, raised to supply the incessant demands of the world for cheap food. Watching factory-farmed chickens being "processed" might be enough to turn some people into vegetarians. Except for the fact that our vegetables are really no better.
There is some interesting information about GM (genetically modified) crops which are resistant to herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup and the growing use of hybrid seed. Unlike regular seed, which farmers used to save from year to year, hybrid seed cannot be used to raise a second crop, forcing farmers to keep buying seed from large seed firms like Pioneer. This raises all kinds of issues, and I really think the film could have spent more time here.
The film ends with an interview with the CEO of Nestlé, the largest food manufacturer in the world, who muses on "attaching a value" to water, and calls the position of the NGOs, that access to clean water is a human right, "extreme". After bragging how many jobs his corporation is creating, and how many families it is supporting, he glances at an informational video of one of Nestlé's Japanese factories, and marvels how it is so roboticized. "Hardly any people," he crows.
The only significant weakness to this documentary was its unrelenting gloom. I would have liked to have been given some ammunition or to have seen some success stories, or at least some rebellion. But there wasn't any. Since I have an interest in this area, I can point you to the Slow Food organization, which is trying to encourage more consumption of local products and the preservation of disappearing foodstuffs. But I really wish the director had done it instead.
16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-

Good, yet sometimes a little bit shallow., 2 janvier 2007
Author: C DA de Romania
Shallowness refers to contents, I don't have any special request for the presentation, this is a documentary meant to inform, not to impress.
Sad thing: I am old enough to remember how things were, at least in Romania, and we're actually not doing better. On the contrary, from the quality of food to the quality of beliefs and life itself, we lost a lot and we're bound to continue losing. Under the cover of getting rid of communism, we're actually getting rid of a lot more. But who cares, as long as there's cheap stuff to put in our mouths... As for the human right to water, I believe that the Nestle CEO aims to sell to us air in the next decade, and we're stupid and lazy enough to let him and others like him do exactly that. The only thing that's effortless on this planet is stupidity.
It looks that I'm rather tempted to comment the information released in the movie than the movie itself, and IMDb is not the place for that. I will then say only that sometimes more means less, in the end.
17 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-

Review from 2005 TIFF, 10 septembre 2005
Author: Richard de Toronto
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival.
We Feed the World, by filmmaker Erwin Wagenhofer, had its world premiere at the festival. The film, two years in the making, takes a look at the production of food and the effects on it from globalization and commercialization.
The film is divided up into sections, each of which focuses on a different part of the industry. It jumps from fishermen in Brittany, to massive greenhouse operations in Spain, to the use of hybrid seeds in eastern Europe, to the production of soya in Brazil, to chicken production in Europe, and finally to Switzerland, the home of Nestle, the biggest food corporation in the world. Each section talks about the challenges facing people and the impact felt around the world. There is no narration; the people interviewed in the film simply tell their stories and give their opinions.
There is the fisherman in Brittany, talking about the effect of European Union regulations on his livelihood. There is the senior manager with agriculture giant Pioneer, who gives his own personal views at odds with the company line. And then there is the CEO of Nestle, who matter-of-factly states his own opinions about food which may seem shocking to many. Interspersed are interviews with a food expert from the UN who provides insight into how the things shown in the film are affecting, often adversely, people around the world.
The movie is not overly didactic, but it does cause you to think about how the food you eat is produced and how so many people in the world can be starving when so much food is produced and wasted in the industrialized world.
Erwin Wagenhofer attended the screening and did a Q&A after the movie: - When asked about how or what we should even eat, Wagenhofer said you should think about where your food comes from and how it is produced, and buy locally-produced food.
- Asked how he managed to secure the interviews, especially with people who might not normally participate in such a documentary, Wagenhofer said the first time he approaches someone, he never brings a camera. In fact, he doesn't for the first 4 or 5 times, by which time people see he is not out to make fun of them, and they eventually agree to be filmed.
- When asked about the comments the head of Nestle, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, makes, Wagenhofer said that he believes those are Brabeck's actual feelings about the subject, and that he probably would not be upset about the film in any way.
- Why food? Wagenhofer said that food is something close to everyone, that everyone has to eat every day.
- On his next project, Wagenhofer couldn't say what it is, other than it is a step forward from this film.
- The film was finished only one month ago.
- When asked what we should take from this film, Wagenhofer said the film is called "We Feed the World", not "They Feed the World," meaning that we are all part of the system, and that it is up to "us" to change it, as "they" have no desire to.
15 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-

A Nutshell Review: (SIFF) We Feed the World, 14 avril 2006
Author: DICK STEEL de Singapore
So I begin my selection of this year's SIFF with a documentary. Directed by Erwin Wagenhofer, We Feed the World begins by highlighting a very fundamental wastage. That of overnight bread, tons of it being offloaded, meant for the incinerated, when there are thousands left hungry.
The documentary focuses on various aspects on the supply side of the food chain, giving some insight to the various industries which produce food, like fishing, vegetables and poultry. It also provides a glimpse into the political side of supplying food, that of the profit maximization strategy of any public company (here, it's Nestle), of the genetically modified seeds which supposedly produces superior crop as opposed to better tasting, natural ones, and various EU plans and initiatives which seem to go down the wrong path instead of fulfilling its supposedly planned objectives.
While it covers a lot of ground, some segments proved to be a little draggy and preachy. I particularly enjoyed the segment on the fishing industry, where there are plans to wrest knowledge from the small timers operating smaller fishing operations, and to eventually merge/close them down when the bigger boys come into the picture. As demonstrated in the movie, there are reasons why big trawlers doesn't equate to fresher and better catches.
The other segment which moved was on the Brazilian's poor north-eastern parts, where on one hand, you have very poor people going hungry all the time, yet Brazil's one of the major exporters of maize to Europe. Maize which are used for burning for fuel generation. It just boggles the mind, and makes you feel sad at the way things work, illogical as it may seem, in the name of profit - watching the kids drink untreated murky water, and the adults resorting to unnatural means of keeping their children alive, will gloom your day.
And I could have swore off chicken come the final segment. Nowadays lifestock are treated as an 8-week cycle of a production line, from incubating, hatching, fattening, until the final days of slaughtering, where they're hung upside down by the legs in conveyor belts, before passing through a circular bladed discs where their throats are slit, and left bleeding till death. For those which are missed by the blades, there is a butcher on standby with a knife to do the deed.
But while the movie tried to made its points, what I found lacking are the many ways in which to link the message to the issues. Many times it felt a little sporadic, or the linking done quite weakly through intertitles. That aside, perhaps I'm already attuned to the more in-your-face style of Michael Moore, nevermind if there are echoes that his style is manipulative. For a topic like this, perhaps it could gain from that bit of controversy to hammer its opinions through.
6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-

A film that wants to change the way you look at food, by telling the facts, 26 novembre 2006
Author: stigmw de Norway
The special quality of this documentary is it's factual consistency and cyclic rhythm. It is very evident that the director is doing his best to stay with the facts, illustrate them in an appropriate way, and get the right people to say what is on their mind, without pushing his personal opinion in your face. The film invites the viewer to take part in the filmmakers fact-finding trip. It is clearly divided into different but interlinked themes, and each of these chapters are built up in the same way: filmed on the road to wherever the action is taking place, introducing whoever is going to be interviewed and in the end adding a comment by the UN representative. This gave me a strong feeling of taking part in the process and not being just showed the edited mash-up of someone like Michael Moore. It might seem a bit slow and tedious, but it makes the people and settings so much more real, and makes me finally want to start buying those organically grown tomatoes and stop eating factory produced meats.
Enlightening and Revealing, very useful perspective for change, 26 avril 2008

Author: pchelp-2 de United States
Often beautiful cinematography. Quite stark at times, but necessarily so. This is a very valuable film from an point of view not often heard.
This is a close look at the current production methods for what we eat. It reveals much that is hidden from the consumer. It shows factory farming up close, the source of most of our supermarket offerings.
All of the solutions to the issues raised in the film are not presented, but the concerns and need to come up with solutions is persuasive. Clearly, considerable effort is required, but there are many ways to get there and they all start with opening the eyes to that is going on.
The film illustrates how the overriding pursuit of profit affects the nutritional values, chemical and genetic hazards in our food.
A good starter on intelligently approaching food. I suggest watching it to figure out what to do next.
9 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-

Overly Gloomy And Not That Enlightening, 9 mars 2007
Author: Karl Self de Yurp
This documentary was the talk about town for a while in my corner of the world, so I was quite keen to see it. It turned out the be the type of movie which would have thrown me into the thralls of delicious juvenile mal de vivre when I was still juvenile; nowadays I see it less benevolently as subtle manipulation on part of the filmmaker. Basically the movie delivers a pastiche of interesting images and statements, and then juxtaposes them in an unnerving way. We see large soy bean plantations being cut into the Brazilian rainforest (or is it just Brazilian forest?), some talking head says that the ground there is totally unsuitable for soy bean production (whatever that means), there is a text insert stating that an enormous amount of Brazilian rainforest has been cut down (although it doesn't say whether this was for soy bean production), then we see images of desperately poor Brazilians who don't have enough food to eat or access to clean water -- all this with images of tons of slightly stale bread being dumped in Vienna still lingering in the viewer's mind from the opening scene. OK, what do we make of this, apart from the fact that the world is an imperfect place? How do we get those loaves of bread from Vienna to the Brazilian wastelands? The movie has no intention of telling you, it contents itself with subtly upsetting its viewers -- it leaves you in no doubt that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, but doesn't tell you exactly what it is or how to fix it. Maybe one way to help those peasants would be to give them work on the soy bean plantation, but then the movie is against the global food trade -- so no dice. It is also against farm subsidies and protectionism, and suggests that food is generally too cheap and that local farmers should earn more, while the multinationals are making far too much money -- all of which is certainly well-intentioned, but also contradictory. If you have smartened up and turned away from buying the cheapest and most processed foodstuffs, if you try to buy regionally and seasonally, and are paying more attention at taste rather than looks, then you are already past this movie. However if you are a less discerning consumer then this movie is probably a good starter.
Add another comment
Related Links