Well, it was only a matter of time I guess. McDonald’s Australia has taken it upon themselves to respond to the documentary ‘Super Size Me” by creating ads that will run on the tele and in the theatres.
Here’s the nice lovely article
Here’s what I find interesting about this plan. In the ads, McDonald’s admits that eating their food all the time is irresponsible and unhealthy. Although they insist it can still be part of a healthy diet. Boy, that thin “grey area” of “define healthy” sure is getting REALLY REALLY WIDE, isn’t it? I will admit, I can’t remember the last time, actually forget “the last time”, I can’t remember EVER one of the largest corporations in the world publically admitting that one shouldn’t buy their product too much. At least it’s a start. As of late, I simply think McDonald’s should switch their advertising methods. Alcohol and the Lottery do it: just slap a “Eat/Drink/Play Responsibly” to the end of the ads. — No seriously, why not? McDonald’s has spent too many decades accepting the fact that everyone knows it’s garbage food, why try and spend millions of dollars trying to convince everyone that they’re “sudden healthy”… OoooOOooOohhhh… Gimme a break.
Here’s the actual beef (Groan): Like Bowling for Columbine, this movie isn’t necessarily “Anti-McDonald’s” and Bowling for Columbine wasn’t “Anti-Gun”. No really, it wasn’t. Both movies simply have issues that both of these trends (gun-loving/garbage eating) are welcomed into society with such unconditional acceptance, that when they actually become a problem, the situation is practically too large to cure. Mr. Spurlock says right off the top, he could have gone anywhere to any restaurant, but since his FOCUS was the HORRIBLE EATING TRENDS OF NORTH AMERICANS, he decided to focus on the single largest food distributor — which makes perfect sense if you ask me.
Agree or disagree, you can guarantee that if these ads make their way to the States, Supersize Me’s ticket sales are going to go WAY up.
POOPY D DOOP
Was thinking about the whole Morris versus Moore thing today and this is what I came up with.
I think Morris’ films are every bit as personality driven as Moore’s are but in a far more subtle way purely because you never see the man on camera. But his stuff has such a distinctive feel and there’s no denying that he has his pet issues that he likes to return to over and over. The big difference, though, is that Morris is almost purely observational. He likes to just let people talk and the observations he’s making with his films are almost all on human nature rather than political issues.
When Moore is at his best he’s tapping into some of that same sense of humanity. All of his best bits are when he’s dealing directly with people and trying to express their stories on camera. I think this is why The Awful Truth started so well, but became stale fairly quickly (at least for me) … those first few episodes spent at least half of their time dealing with one particular person and the specific wrong that had been done to them. There was a human heart to it that got lost as Moore moved more into preacher / stunt mode. Another good rule of thumb is to approach him as a political satirist. I think he very much works in that mold, which is part of why he’s embraced so much more readily in Canada and the UK (where political satire has been entrenched and accepted pretty much forever) than he is in the US where satire has generally not been accepted / understood quite so much.
Why isn’t Gates of Heaven on DVD yet? That’s his one on pet cemetaries and the people who use them … it’s a mystery to me. They’ve all been OP for a long time, so I can’t believe it’s a rights issue … I’m amazed people haven’t been rushing these out to capitalize on the Oscar …
How come Thin Blue Line isn’t on DVD yet?! I haven’t seen that or the Brief History of Time. Fog of War is fantastic. Gave me new insights into Johnson and McNamara.
Rob … I’m right with you on Errol Morris. That man is an outright genius. I still really need to see The Fog Of War but I’ve seen pretty much all his other stuff other than A Brief History of Time and they’re all incredible … The way he draws connections between such odd stuff in Fast Cheap and Out of Control is pretty stunning … he just finds such odd people and ends up making some really interesting observations on the nature of humanity through them. I love Morris. Hopefully they’ll release his tv show on DVD sometime soon … I emailed them about that well over a year ago and they said it was in the works, but no sign yet …
And yeah. Spurlock sounds horrible in that interview. Can he really have been so naive that he didn’t realize that he’d be challenged somewhere down the line and prepare accordingly? Apparently so …
To be completely honest, I’m shocked as to how much debate that clip of Heston has received regarding its placement in the film…
Never for a split second did I think that clip was being used to make it look like he said that in Denver. Even based on the simple fact that IMMEDIATELY following that clip and sub-sequent voice over of Michael saying that Heston Came to Denver — Do we see Mr. Heston in Denver: A completely different convention wearing completely different clothes looking an awful lot older. Assuming that clip was edited to look as if it happened in Denver is to overlook the very obvious.
I never took that clip as anything more than showing a stark contrast of opinions between one side of a debate and another.
Watching many people (who never had a problem with Moore until they thought he was attacking the gun they own) get so riled up over interpretaion is pretty interesting.
As far as Mr. Spurlock goes: He was very plain with his goals and his rules. He was a nobody filmmaker who thought up a cool film idea – He filmed it. That’s it.
The only difference I see is Mr. Spurlock made his movie with people’s health in mind.
The Fast Food industry is rebuking him with their company’s profits in mind.
— Believe whichever you like, but McDonald’s food is still really bad for you. And Americans are free to make a movie about whatever they want.
Mind you I applaude your ability to wait until you see the movie first. — a MASSIVE chunk of the movie is spent on examining schools, their cafeterias and the health of the public. This movie is not McDonald’s for 2 hours straight.
First off, I’ll be seeing his film. I’m not one to plant a moral flag without actually seeing a piece. I view stuff like this as entertainment, however. Same with Moore, for me. I have a hard time considering him on equal footing with Morris, for instance. Moore lets too much of his own agenda force a conclusion on his audience with clever editing. As an example: using Heston’s notorious “dead, cold hands” speech at an unrelated rally to insinuate that he was speaking to Denver.
I have a feeling (again, I haven’t seen Supersize Me yet) that Spurlock has used similar tactics with his film, given his inability to defend his premise very well in interview. His own words speak for him.
Rob, pointing to a source partially funded by McDonalds (which TCS is) to discredit Spurlock isn’t the soundest way to build an argument … the TCS stuff largely amounts to McDonalds funded mudslinging to try and drown the guy out. We’ve got a whole other thread on the validity of the film going here:
https://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2004/06/is_supersize_me_a_con.html
Also I’d say blaming Spurlock for people drawing the wrong conclusions when even you admit that his premise is sound, and when he states clearly in the film that McDonalds is not the issue is pretty ludicrous. If people can’t pay attention to what the guy’s actually saying that’s their problem, not his. It’s the same thing as how people branded Bowling for Columbine an anti-gun film when the film itself went on explicitly and at length on how gun ownership was not the problem.
Spurlock’s a hack:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/052704G.html
At best, he’s crafted an entertaining piece of fiction like any good Michael Moore movie.
Of course McDonald’s food is bad for you. So is 5000 calories of health food per day. His premise may not be wrong (people eat bad and never exercise), but the obvious conclusion that people will draw is: McDonald’s is the antichrist. Just like Big Tobacco. We’re all victims and the big corps have to pay!
Mmmm. Breasts.
I find it interesting that their latest ad campaign has absolutely no images of their food – they’re a food chain trying to divert attention from their principal product! The campaign in question has a series of attractive females and we see a different t-shirt logo on each, with one of the logos saying ‘I’m loving it’. I’m going to have to see that ad A LOT before I start associating Mickey D with slim attractive females.
Or love for that matter.