Originally posted by Chris Knipp
The issue in my mind is, that Our Daily Bread is based on a concern about how food is produced on a mass scale. My argument is that this is a cause, that the filmmaker wants to convince people food production should be put back on a more human scale

"The most important thing is how the animals can be born, raised and held as efficiently and inexpensively as possible, how to treat them so they're as fresh and undamaged as possible when they arrive at the slaughterhouse, and that the levels of medications and stress hormones in the meat are below legal limits. No one thinks about whether they're happy. If you want to call that a scandal, which is more than justified, then you have to take your thinking one step further. Then it becomes the scandal of how we live, because this economic, "soulless" efficiency is in a reciprocal relationship with our society's lifestyle. There's nothing wrong with saying: :Buy organic products! Eat less meat!" But at the same tuime is a kind of excuse, because we all enjoy the fruits of automation and industrialization and globalization every day, which affect much more than just food". (Nikolaus Gayrhalter)

"The intention is to show actual working situations and provide enough space for thoughts and associations in long sequences. The viewers should just plunge into this world and form their own opinions". (N.G.)

I cannot conclude based on both the film and the statements made by Mr. Geyrhalter that he "wants to convince people that food production should be put on a more human scale".

I found that this quote from your review (highlighting by me) could facilitate a discussion of documentary styles:

"It's true that some documentaries "work" brilliantly without voice-over commentaries. The French To Be and to Have, which describes a year in the life of a rural schoolteacher, is deeply affecting without a word of interjected commentary. But when we are in the world of public social issues, or matters for concern and debate, it is more usual for the filmmaker to inject words into the debate. Examples of that kind of documentary are Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 or the more recent global warming film featuring Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth." (Knipp)

I notice that you state that "injecting words" is "more usual" not better. Is it better though? The senior documentary filmmaker on public social issues, at least in the USA, is Fred Wiseman. I attended a "master class" he gave at a local college in 2005. It was quite a treat as I've been a fan for many years and he used extensive clips to illustrate his philosophy and techniques. Wiseman doesn't do research before or during shooting, he doesn't interview anybody, and he provides no narration or commentary. I have no idea how familiar you are with his work, which dates back to the 1960s and what you think of his films. But I'm curious particularly after reading the statement I quoted from your Our Daily Bread review. I am as excited about Moore's Sicko as I am about the PBS broadcast of Wiseman's State Legislature on June 13th at 9 p.m. (put it in your calendar docu-lovers)