Omnivore's Dillema, clearly I need to post more often

My apologies to all my group members who have not been able to get in the correct amount of comments per week due to my lack of recent posts. I'm going to pick today's blog post up from our writing activity we did on Monday. Hopefully now my thoughts will be more coherent, now that I've had more time to think about it. Before I delve into that, I would like to point out how seriously this book has affected me. I have found myself only shopping in the organic sections of Kroger, only buying meat and chicken from animals that are free range and injection free, and planning my next visit to the farmers' market. I've also found myself actually anthropomorphizing corn by sending it negative thoughts when I pass corn products... although I have not been able to stop by addiction to soda. But, all of that aside, moving on to Monday's writing prompt and my response:

In TOD, Pollan argues that there is a huge opposition between natural, evolutionary logic and the logic that governs the industrial farm system. An example of this is Naylor's farm in chapter two. When the farm began, as a family personal feeding system, there was four feet of topsoil and the corn that was raised was edible for immediate human consumption. This corn had naturally adapated to its environment and had evolved to the stasis state which it could remain in.

This suffers a sharp contrast to the logic that governs the industrial farm system. The industrial farm system's logic is demonstrated in what Naylor's farm is today. While previously the corn grown was able to feed the family while supporting a lively-hood, it no longer can. He grows more corn than ever before, on a less substantial soil. This corn is treated with all sorts of chemicals in order to produce more in a shorter time (very unnaturally). And, most importantly, this corn cannot be directly edible for humans. This corn is used in a number of other ways, broken down and stripped for different uses. Although this corn cannot be eaten as is, it winds up being consumed through different means. Pollan uses this opposition in order to portray how unnatural our way of life currently is.

This argument is also continued when one looks at Pollan's study of steer 534. On page 84, how he discusses changing the cow to "industrialize the miracle of nature that is ruminant, taking the sunlight - and prairie grass powered organism, and turning it into the last thing we need: another fossil fuel machine.This one, however, is able to suffer." When someone uses such a strong word as 'miracle' its terrible to think how that miracle will no longer exist.

Closing notes: "You are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil."

Michael Clayton

I feel as if I should start this off by explaining that I tend to watch a lot of movies. I do this, not because I like a particular director or a particular genre, but because I am so easily amused that I enjoy watching a simple plot line that reflects Propp's 31 Narrative Functions in different ways. It is the same for me for books - although I tend to use those as more of a getaway than I do movies.

So, as noted by several of my peers, Michael Clayton does not have a very original plot line... single man takes down the evil corporation by defying all odds. Yet I genuinely enjoyed the way that they executed this in an interesting setting.

Starting with the evil corporation itself, U-North. U-North is supposed to be a company that is all about bettering the environment and the people living in it, as seen in the video which Arthur loops over and over again. While this is supposed to be the company bettering the lives of people, this cheery facade hides a company run by a woman who will do anything to keep her job and the company's name in good esteem. From poisoning the crop fields, to hiring two hitman to take out Arthur and Michael... the audience is left to believe that this may not have been the first time, as the hitman seem to be known by others in the country. So good = evil... that storyline is established.

Cue Lawfirm representing U-North. Knows what really happen, knows what is going on, yet chooses to ignore all of it for money. So, institution of law = evil.

Enter Michael Clayton, from the beginning framework of the story we come to understand that he helps cover up problems with the law (he's called the cleaner). While he is expected to be this almost sleazy individual, he is the one who saves the day. From an environmental activist standpoint, it is difficult to own up to what this movie is trying to say. Is it saying that we put too much faith in the institution of law? Or that we need to stand up for others? Or is it just a movie that thought of an interesting twist on an already done plotline?