The Argument of Tone: Chava versus Randi

Intro: Chava: The movie, King Corn is a genuinely-creditable documentary because it is lower budget and the facts presented were facts that people have heard from other places like Michael Pollan and Food INC. The film’s creditability is also due to the adventurous nature of the two main casts’ discovery of planting corn. While they learned about corn’s travels, you learned about corn’s travels as well. The film also shows light on how the farmers cope with producing such low grade product. It shows how the farmer is not such a nefarious guy and it shows them as humble, regular-Joe, human beings trying to earn a living. This adds to the creditability because they interview people who have farmed during the stereotypic-farming lifestyle and now how they farm modernly and they use Green, Iowa to show this steep contrast.

Intro: Randi: King Corn is not a genuinely-creditable documentary because it has the same facts from other sources. They used the same facts that the audience has heard because and can make the viewer uninterested in seeing this film because of the redundancy.  The two main casts make the situation too lightly and do not unveil the severe ailments enough to cause the viewer to feel an urge for change.  Their sense of humor and adventure leads the viewer astray from the main cause making the documentary not as informative as it would need to be.

Compromise: In King Corn, the two main casts do a good job at keeping the audience member’s attention, using their humor and adventurous nature, provoking some thought. The sense of humor, while adding lightness to the film, takes away some of the severity for the issue at hand.  The film’s location does contrast the productivity quite well and the film also utilizes the farmer’s interviews to add to the argument of low grade the corn is.