King Corn

The 2005 documentary King Corn tells the story of Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis, two friends who abandon their Northeastern livelihoods for the wide-open spaces and, you guessed it, cornfields of Iowa. Their mission is deceptively simple, grow an acre of corn and follow is dispersion into the American food system.

Upon initially reading the plot synopsis I pictured a film about two awkward Bostonians stumbling around in the mud in a comical impersonation of farmers. Reality, as is usual, was quite different. Because of government subsidies on certain crops more product grown equals more money. So, as King Corn depicts, the farming process is largely automated giving Cheney and Ellis large amounts of downtime which they fill with side-trips to cattle ranches and universities and (pardon the pun) corny animations in an attempt to show what happens to America's favorite crop once it is harvested.

The main thing that differentiates King Corn from most documentaries is that there is no clear agenda on the part of the filmmakers. They simply present the corn-growing process (along with some alarming facts) and let the viewer decide what to take from it all. Do we trust the diabetes alarmists, or do we trust the guy that helped jump-start this era of farm subsidies? They both make interesting points.

Despite some of the intriguing journeys the movie takes the subject matter is ultimately rather dull. The main protagonists are vaguely entertaining, but unlike someone like Michael Moore I wouldn't have wanted to spend the movie's full running length watching them pontificate on the importance of their cornfield. I'd much rather have spent some more time with the supporting characters that dot the landscape. Also, possibly in an attempt to remain fair and balanced, they don't explain some of the movies larger mysteries. Why, for instance, is their host selling off his property at the film's conclusion?

In the end this film is a lot like the place it's set in. There is nothing earth-shattering happening there, but the little things certainly make a lot of ripples.

7.5/10

Street Fight

Systematic corruption, political intrigue and electoral espionage. It may sound like Michael Mann's newest big ticket political thriller about the money men in Washington but I am instead referring to Marshall Curry's 2005 documentary about the 2002 mayoral campaign in Newark, NJ.

In one corner we have incumbent Sharpe James. He's slick, charming and able to throw one hell of a block party. He's also not above using his city's services to hinder the attempts of anyone running against him. In the 2002 election that someone is upstart city councilman Corey Booker, a well-educated idealist who takes up residence in one of Newark's worst tenement halls to better understand his constituency.

Despite that fact that both candidates are black democrats the campaign depicted here is cutthroat politics at its finest (or dirtiest). While Booker campaigns door-to-door until the late hours of night James uses the city health inspector to shut down Booker's fund-raising dinners. Booker soapboxes about health, education and crime while James insists that Booker isn't black enough to run Newark and accuses Booker of having connections with the KKK, the Republican party and the (gasp) Jews.

This is the movie's strongest point. It takes a detailed look at the strategies and ramifications of two different political ideologists while raising serious questions about race and our basic political system. We all know how elections are supposed to be run but rarely do we get a chance to see how they are really run.

This brings me to the movie's one main weakness. Like any good political campaign it lifts up one side while burying the other. Booker is depicted as a shining beacon of light while James is reduced to a slimy gutter snake always going for the low blow. In the movie James is a multi-term mayor but we never really see why he has such a mass appeal. Curry initially wants to make the movie a balanced examination of the race but (perhaps because of James own reluctance to participate in filming) James most egregious missteps seem to be a bit convenient.

In the end, however, it is easy to forgive these flaws because Street Fight is a captivating, impressively intimate peek into the shady corners of the American political system. The final results of this particular election (a relatively small occurrence when looking at the big picture) told me more about American politics than years of reading newspapers, watching CNN and slaving at school. It is a benchmark documentary, a must-see and a film that, in a perfect world, would be required viewing for every high school political science student.

10/10