King Corn a documentary that starts off with two college graduates who happen to be friends Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, at a lab where they discover to have “corn” in their hair. Right away the viewer gets a taste of the charisma these two friends and the closeness of the friendship they share. After this revelation they set out to trace where the corn came from which brings them to a small town in Greene, Iowa where a large percentage of corn farming takes place. Coincidently, that is where both of the protagonists’ great grandparents where from, so the corn growing journey begins. They buy an acre of corn and with the help from local farmers start the process which takes a very fast 18 minutes. The film itself starts off very slow, instead of throwing fact after fact like other documentaries from this genre, it is very light hearted. This slow process is used all thought out the film, and for the most part the audience is not aware they are being persuaded as the rhetorical strategies are hidden under humor. I think King Corn has all the elements of a good film, the two main characters are likeable, cinematography and editing is well done. I do not think these are enough characteristics to make a good documentary since they are not presented clearly enough to be noticed by a naïve viewer. King Corn provides enough information to inform the viewer about the corn industry but not to persuade; it is too subtle.
King Corn does not move quick enough to persuade the audience it moves to slow and seems more like a film that could be used for entertainment. This film spends a great amount of time showing the characters great grandparents past and how corn farming has evolved. Instead of trying to persuade the audience that over growing corn is not healthy and how much we depend on corn. The purpose of the film is not clear the filmmakers did not ever try to show hard evidence or shocking images, compared to other documentaries. King Corn had a different...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document