Eating Green

Hello and welcome back. A couple times a year, a movie is released that I enjoy watching. Every once in a while, a movie comes along that outright shocks me. The shock factor can be caused by different qualities of a movie, such as "mind blowing" twists, life-like animations or effects, or superior storytelling. Only occasionally does a movie come out that shocks me because of horrible production value, talentless actors, and a cringe-filled script that I enjoy regardless. Troll 2 fits all the criteria for this type of movie, as it is considered by many to be the worst movie of all time (as it stands with a 6% rating on rottentomatoes.com), but blew up over the past couple years as a definite cult-classic and still has regular theater showings 25 years after its initial release. Although I love mindlessly sitting and laughing at this special little indie horror flick, I can't help but contemplate different meanings behind the film, especially in regards to food and the environment. If so many people enjoy it, myself included, there must be something else going on. For this post, I will analyze food and the environment as depicted in Troll 2, as I think there is more to this movie than most people realize.

Today I will be watching Troll 2 with one other friend in the same lounge I watched Idiocracy for my last blog post. Since we both have seen the film before, we are going to pay specific attention to the food and environment, as well as other hidden messages that may tie into these categories. A bowl of mixed nuts from Costco sits on my lap with another bowl beside me to trash all of the Brazil nuts into; I always wonder how those disgusting, meaty nuts force themselves into the presence of the much adored almonds and cashews, but I digress. My friend has a large bag of baked veggie chip straws, which taste identical to and contain the same basic ingredients as potato chips, though they include a small amount of various vegetable colorings to give them the allure of healthiness (though I enjoy pleading ignorance and indulging).

Troll 2 centers around a family vacationing in the small, rural town of Nilbog. Those who go into Troll 2 expecting a sequel to the 1986 film Troll will be disappointed, as the "2" was just added to try and get people to think it is a sequel, thus bringing in more money (Best Worst Movie). In fact, there are not even any trolls in Troll 2, only goblins, and interesting ones at that. Nilbog, while not a traditional dystopia, offers a similar dystopic view as Soylent Green (you can find more details about Soylent Green in my first blog post). Similar to Soylent Green, only one type of food is left in the entire civilization of Nilbog, and it is as green as green can get. At some points, yes, it is even made of people. The major difference between the two centers around each film's choice of humanity's and the environment's respective roles. In Soylent Green, the classic "humans destroy environment" tale is told. In Troll 2, the roles are shifted in order to parody the classic case in Soylent Green. Troll 2 puts the environment in the reins of control, as it seeks revenge against humanity for all of the damage done to it.

The family, besides the youngest son Joshua, try to make the best of the peculiar town of Nilbog. Joshua, since before the vacation, has been having constant visions of his deceased grandfather warning him of the Goblins and the town of Nilbog. Joshua's family won't listen to him though, so Joshua must do everything he can to stop his family from eating the goblin goo and interacting with the citizens whom only Joshua can see as goblins.

The Goblins and their leader, a powerful witch creature, are embodiments of the environment around them. They lure people into the thickly forested town of Nilbog, "goblin spelled backwards," and trick them, by taking on the bodies of the local townspeople, into eating a green goo reminiscent of pudding (Fragasso). This goo appears as everything in the town from cakes, to milk, to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches; the goblins are adamant about feeding it to the humans. This goo will turn anyone who eats it into a plant: the next meal for the Goblins, who are strangely vegetarian. The environment is getting back at humanity for destroying it. Irony is present during a scene where a character experiences a slow and painful transformation; branches rip through his skin and he becomes a tree. All these years, the human race has been in charge and hasn't thought twice about excess deforestation and pollution. Now, the environment is letting the humans take a run at being plants, to die slowly at the teeth of the gnawing goblins.

Going along with the parody of environmental control over humanity, Troll 2 points out the importance of a natural diet. Since the goblins only accept people-turned-plants and other vegetation as adequate food, they shun all types of meat and animal dishes. I believe this is present in the film because the director wants to shine light on the meat industry and its impact on the food industry and the environment. With the massive meat market nowadays, much of the environment is getting destroyed with pollution from the industry farms and meat processing plants. The feed of most of the animals is corn, a crop that while natural in its basic form, has been modified and regularly dosed with chemicals, destroying the land on which it grows and rendering a different product than the corn it resembles. The American "natural diet" is made up of food that consists of so many chemicals, it can hardly be considered natural anymore. The director calls for humans to return to the roots of eating: the roots, aka no chemicals, pesticides, or processes. In most cases, nature offers a better choice than that of a processed food item. Whole foods in nature are present for our direct consumption, not consumption a year later in the form of meal replacement bar filled with forty unpronounceable ingredients. When humans use the environment correctly, both will thrive and nature will return to a much more natural state.  

At this point in my blog post, I know what you are probably thinking, "why would the director antagonize the environment if he wanted to send positive environmental messages?" The answer is found in the story of Joshua, the youngest son of the family that the movie revolves around. Although the goblins seem "evil," they are catalysts in Joshua's, and the viewers', quest for answers and leave of Nilbog; Joshua and his parents are in danger and must leave. The goblins and the witch are symbolic of an environment angered by the humans. As Joshua portrays through leaving Nilbog, the world can escape dystopic community and return to live in harmony with the environment. Neither Joshua, as he portrays humanity, nor the goblins should be looked at as "evil," but confused. They must realize the problem between themselves and quell their anger through mutual respect.

About halfway into the film, Joshua's name stuck out to me. It's an older name that is usually shortened to "Josh" nowadays. The other characters kept calling him the full "Joshua" and called him a lot, to the point where it seemed they were forcing his name. This got me thinking that there might be some symbolism here, and I immediately thought of Joshua from The Bible. Now I know this may seem a little hard to grasp at first, but with my scripture knowledge and a little extra research, I think I may be on to something. Joshua, in The Bible, is the heir to Moses and leads the Israelites out of the barren desert and into the Promised Land. Throughout the journey, God directs the Israelites with signs and feeds the Israelites Mana: divine food that satisfies any hunger (Wikipedia). In Troll 2, Joshua leads his family out of Nilbog and back to his own life that he cherishes. In Nilbog, the only church in town is occupied by the witch and the goblins; the church and religion has been taken over by the environment. Because of the church's occupation by the environment, Joshua and his family receive green goo instead of Mana. Throughout the movie, Joshua is visited by visions of his dead grandfather, an omnipotent being that watches over him and tells him what to do. The similarities are quite striking.

The director uses this parallel of the Joshuas to connect the present with the beginning: the creation of the world and the start of humanity. The world and environment should exist in harmony with human kind. In the book of Genesis, the first book of The Bible, God calls for humanity to treat the environment with respect. In the Book of Joshua, God is giving a new promised land to the Israelites: a near perfect piece of land to prosper and grow. As depicted in Troll 2, humanity has not been treating the environment in the way God intended over the years. The dilapidation and growth of the church and the goblin and witch's residency symbolizes the angry environment's overtaking of religion. A key similarity to Soylent Green is seen through the parallel of the fall of environment with the fall of religion. Industrialization and science have pushed people away from religion and the environment, deeming them expendable. The director uses the grandpa as a God-like figure who has lost control of the physical church. The grandpa gives Joshua advice, but cannot help him in the physical ways God could for the biblical Joshua like parting the Jordan river (God separated the water for Joshua and the Israelites to let them cross into the Promised Land). The director wants the viewer to know that the environment isn't going to magically change, the human race must work to save it.

In the end, Joshua closes a stone gate in the church that his Grandpa led him to and the goblins and the witch disappear. This symbolizes Joshua's success in making peace with the environment; the goblins and witch return to mother nature from which they came. The final scene that drives the message even further reveals Joshua seeing a glimpse of a goblin at his house, a couple days after the whole family returns home. This symbolizes the need for constant human interaction to quell the environment and keep peace between the two. As part of an industrialized world, humanity must always be working and keeping the environment in its thoughts.

Troll 2's highly fictionalized dystopia could not happen in real life, though it's messages are still relevant. Humans must work to preserve the environment and live in peace with it. When humanity came into being, the planet cared and provided for humans, allowing prosperity and growth. Nowadays, humanity is becoming disconnected from nature and the environment through science and technology; why work harder for something when it's cheaper and easier to make in a lab? This question has countless viewpoints, though only one makes sense to me. The world must work harder because "cheaper and easier" does not counteract the loss of nature; the world must shift our industrial meaning of food and move towards a more natural approach. With each hormone injected, pesticide sprayed, and chemical added, the world is ignoring the  natural cycle of life. With each of these man-made supplements, humans are becoming less "human." The human race is becoming a shell of artificiality: a vessel of man-made chemicals. On top of this, as the environment is ignored, it becomes "disposable" as natural is not needed. The environment that has raised and cradled humanity now faces destruction at the forks of the masses, those who want their food cheap and accessible. This must stop. The world must become in touch with the environment once again and turn back to nature for substance. Food must be grown in a tree, not in a lab.

As I look at my bowl of unwanted Brazil nuts and a couple of vegetable chips that my friend has graciously given me, my stomach growls and I find myself in a predicament. The vegetable straws are taunting me with their colorful appearance, but at the same time turning me away with their fakeness. I decide to pass on their salty, artificial goodness and take a careful bite of my enemy. It tastes like dirt, but it does not taste fake. It tastes like the ground from the field where it was grown, which is oddly comforting. Nothing was added to this nut to make it taste better, it is fully representing itself. Though I do not like the Brazil nut, I can now respect it. Its big, meaty, and gross, but it's natural. On the other hand, I will not be eating vegetable straws anytime soon.

So, my readers, make an effort to start eating more natural. Maybe you don't need to shift fully to an all natural diet, but start to introduce a couple all-natural items every once and a while. I am positive you will feel better and at the same time be helping in the shift to save the environment. Now I'm not saying Goblins will come to your house and turn you into a tree if you don't...

...or will they.       

                                                           Works Cited

Best Worst Movie. Dir. Stephenson Michael. Prod. Stephenson Lindsay, Klopman Brad, and Klopman Jim. Perf. Michael Stephenson and George Hardy. Netflix. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

"Book of Joshua." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Solylent Green. Dir. Richard Fleischer. Screenplay by Stanley R. Greenberg. Perf. Charlton Heston and Leigh Taylor-Young. Youtube. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

Troll 2. Dir. Claudio Fragasso. Screenplay by Drake Floyd. Perf. Michael Stephenson and George Hardy. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1990. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

Living a Commercial

            After a long week of midterms, I am excited to start working on my blog again. I feel relieved knowing that my only work for the night is to watch and analyze a movie I enjoy; it's a pretty good gig. This week I am taking a look at Mike Judge's Idiocracy. The film tells the story of an average Joe, appropriately named Joe, who is frozen by the military and wakes up 500 years in the future. In this ultra-consumerist, dumbed-down, falling apart dystopia that has consumed the United States and the rest of the world within these 500 years, Joe is the smartest person on the planet. As he wanders around looking for a so-called "Time Machine" that will bring him back to the 21st century, he runs into countless struggles, many of which are directly related to the consumerism, fast food culture, and the absence of fresh food in this dystopia.

            After dinner, my six friends and I decide to watch the movie in the 1C lounge of Graham Hall (my dorm) at Santa Clara University. Since I had just gotten back from dinner, I choose to go snack-less, though one my friends grips a large box of Skittles while another munches from a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos. In the time we impatiently wait for the movie to buffer, my friends curse at the internet speeds, jokingly saying, "we pay $43,000 to go here, and we don't even get a decent network connection." Americans are always wishing for faster and better; we all yearn for convenience. As I muse upon my friend's conversation and the movie finally starts, I can't help but think that the dystopia in this film, with the present American mindset, could actually become real.

            The first scene of the dystopia is quite unsettling, while at the same time disgustingly comedic. Trash fills the world in large piles, most of which consist of fast food hamburger packaging and super-sized soda cups. Basically, the population has become so stupid, it cannot solve the problems it has inherited. The narrator credits the problems to science shifting towards making products for individuals happiness rather than trying to fix worldwide epidemics like trash pileup and the environment. The shift in science together with the movie's premise that uneducated people have a lot more children than educated people (basically saying that smart individuals eventually died off) has led to this dystopia. The narrator informs the audience of "The Garbage Avalanche of 2555," which sent garbage hurling down towards cities . I love the way the director sets up the first camera angle, which zooms in on a colossal junk mountain with a tiny yellow dot. As the frame creeps towards the putrid peak, a lone dump truck, silhouetted in smoggy light, sends another days worth of a civilization's sins and excess rolling down into oblivion . This scene does a great job at initially painting the picture of the civilization in its current state.  

            The next scene that really hits home is the first depiction of the citizens. When Joe walks into someone's house to try and get information on a possible "Time Machine," he meets a man named Frito. Yes, you read that right, his name is Frito; the guy is named after a chip. Frito embodies the whole of society, as he lays in a chair, drinking a mountain dew-like substance from a giant tube while avidly watching a TV show titled, "Ow My Balls." The television program in question is literally a man getting hit in the crouch over and over again on half the screen, coupled with another half screen of bright flashing advertisements for various restaurants and products. I like how Frito is not even concerned that someone has walked into his house, he is too captivated by the television. Joe struggles to communicate with Frito, as well as every other citizen, without sounding overbearing. As the narrator describes it, "the English language has deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang, and various grunts." The United States seems foreign; Joe feels out of place in his own country.

            The advertisements play a vital role in the world of Idiocracy. One that caught my eye, and put my friends and I into a fit of laughter, was a Billboard advertisement for cigarettes that reads, "If you don't smoke Tarrlytons...Fuck you!". First to point out, the cigarettes are basically named "tons of tar," which strikes me as hilarious, as no one in today's world would name a product after its unappealing qualities. It would be like naming a candy, "cornsyruplots" (I know you all expect something more catchy from me; I am a disappointment). Going along this same line, at one point a character dresses in a shirt that reads, "Nas-Tea, it's good."  I could not help but snicker at this miss-play on words; the oblivious, consumerist population has lost almost all understanding. Going back to the cigarette ad, it uses a much similar ad technique to those used in the present day United States. Ads are crafted to pull at a specific audience and work their brain to make them crave a product. In our day and age, this method requires science and research studies; it necessitates a long process to create a successful ad. In the world of Idiocracy, it's the same process, though a lot less work (or at least it seems like less work, those who create the ads may not think so) because everyone exemplifies stupidity; tossing an insult and some profanity on a board with a product takes companies a lot farther in Idiocracy than it would in today's world.              

            Going along with advertisements and corporations, companies present in today's world are quite differently portrayed in Idiocracy. Carl's Jr. acts as the main piece of symbolism for "hamburger and fries" type fast food in Idiocracy. Throughout the film, Carl's Jr. shows up in the background, on T-shirts, and even in the White House, where everything the members of the government utter is "sponsored by Carl's Jr." In today's world, fast food rules through cheap, quick, great tasting food. In Idiocracy, fast food has political power and is a driving force in everything happening. A comedic, but no less frightening scene, consists of a mother slamming into a Carl's Jr. vending machine to feed her starving children. The machine goes onto say, after spraying the mother with a tranquilizer, "You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr." My friends were quite confused with how to react to this scene; should we laugh at this?

            A world where Carl's Jr. has the authority to take children seems so "out-there," but thinking about it, haven't they already started taking control over children's lives in our present day? The amount of ads that are aimed at kids today is disgusting; fast food companies use highly researched methods to "catch" children. Kids are easy to manipulate, so they focus resources at associating happiness and bliss with a hamburger and fries. It seems that the director is drawing a connection to the control that fast food companies have over the American population and children's health and well-being. As a final comment on Carl's Jr., the slogan, "Carl's Jr....Fuck you, I'm eating" offers commentary on the overeating American population . In America, we eat too much fast food; it has become a nationwide addiction. The shrill tone of the slogan insults as well as gluttonizes a whole population of hamburger-stuffing morons that Carl's Jr. has crafted and created.         

            A final point in the movie considers the effects of the world shifting towards man-made food: the whole world has forgotten how to farm. The company Brawndo, a Gatorade-like company, bought the FDA and FCC, proceeding to replace the whole water supply with Brawndo. When Joe is called upon to help fix the crops (and the dustbowl that destroyed the land as a result), he tells them to stop watering the plants with Brawndo. Everyone disagrees because "Brawndo got electrolytes! It's got what plants crave!" Whenever I watch this portion of the movie, I am sickened. Farmers crafted the United States of America.; my grandparents and great grandparents were farmers. I would not be where I am today without farming. I attribute farming as one of the most important and vital  pieces of a society, no matter how old or young said society might be. In Idiocracy, the director scrutinizes the science of creating man-made food, much like the director of Soylent Green, of which you can find out more by reading my first blog post. The director of Idiocracy calls for a return to the basics; a return to the natural path that connects man with the earth. I believe that everyone should grow up learning and practicing the process of building a simple garden. Where it may become special tradition and hopefully kindle a greater appreciation of food, it can also prove quite useful in light of a disaster. If a civilization collapses and needs to be rebuilt, it must have a steady supply of food. If no one can supply that food, civilization will crumble.

            In the end, Joe solves the plant issue and stays in the future to help get the United States back on track . The credits roll and my friends are left uneasy, leading to a post movie discussion: is this prediction of the future plausible? In summary, we think yes. Although labeled a comedy, when looked at with a critical eye and attention to detail and symbolism, Idiocracy is horror. I then proceeded to bring up the complaining my friends were doing before the film and we all laughed. The United States is becoming impatient, even we were unconsciously taking part in this shift. With a society and market in need of something, companies come to the rescue with a silver platter of science and research -- a  platter that will make something that took 10 minutes take 9. Next year, this 9 will go down to 8, then 7, and so on. For each minute of  "extra time we get," we are letting these companies grow larger and larger. At some point, as seen in Idiocracy, a company will make something that used to take 10 minutes, take 0 minutes. We are on the silver platter now; we are being rushed and weaved through advertisements and interests at the convenience of the company; we are literally controlled by them.  It does not matter what we think, so we choose to not think at all. This is the low point, and this is where we are headed; this is Idiocracy.  

            Idiocracy offers a satiric, yet troubling look into the 26th century. The world portrayed in the movie is a world where companies rule and everyone has become so stupid, that they have no choice but to submit. Not many will view this movie with a watchful eye for symbolism, as it is disguised as a vulgar comedy. Nevertheless, Idiocracy is a rational prediction of the world in 500 years.

            And with that, I would like to implore you, my readers, to always be aware of the repercussions of convenience. Just because something can be done quicker doesn't mean it should. Remember that tradition is lost if not practiced, and most tradition has been past down because of its proven success.

            So go plant a garden.      

                                                                           Works Cited

Idiocracy. Dir. Mike Judge. By Mike Judge and Ethan Coen. Perf. Luke Wilson. Cienemax. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.

Solylent Green. Dir. Richard Fleischer. Screenplay by Stanley R. Greenberg. Perf. Charlton Heston and Leigh Taylor-Young. Amazon. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

The Future of Food

The first film I will analyze is Soylent Green from 1973. In the world of Soylent Green, or Earth in the year 2022, the streets are crowded and the environment is almost totally destroyed. The world is in an awful state, and because of this, it has become near impossible to find food. The population lives off of "Soylent," a large corporation's food products, like the meat substitute, "Soylent Green." What the population does not know is that Soylent Green is actually made out of people.   

What I have just typed above is all I knew about the movie before I watched it for the first time today (I know what you're thinking, "why is he analyzing a film he has only seen once?") The reason I chose this movie is because of old stories my father used to tell me about it. I thought this was the perfect opportunity to watch it as it is a fantastic fit for the topic. I decided to watch the film from the comfort of my own bed, as I was sick today and didn't want to leave my room. I also decided to snack on some all natural basil turkey jerky. While it isn't the best jerky, it provided a sufficiently salty replacement of popcorn, of which I had none.

The film opens with a short clip of American society throughout the ages. It starts from the times of The Pilgrims, and works its way to the Industrial Era, to corporate America, and beyond to the world of Soylent Green. The clip is quite startling as it depicts the world we live in today as the step before the dystopian world being chronicled. Usually when I think about the future, I think about a world hundreds of years out, with no real resemblance to the Earth I live on right now. The year 2022 is less than 50 years from the date of production. The writers obviously thought this future state was imminent.

The words "New York City, Population 40,000,000" grace the screen with a smoggy neighborhood background (Fleisher). A voice starts talking, presumably one from the Soylent company, advertising the different types of Soylent. The city is in shambles; buildings are dilapidated and people are everywhere. Within the first couple minutes of the film, I noticed that all the frames have a strange green tint to them. This green is a symbol of pollution, but also can be paralleled with the Soylent Green that everyone is eating. The Soylent Green is a constant reminder of the state of the world. Another interesting piece of symbolism with the color green is its common connotation with life and vegetation. In Soylent Green, the color connotes pollution, destruction, and lack of vegetation.

The movie focuses around a detective, Thorn, and his scholar (his sidekick who does all the research for his cases), Sol. Thorn is investigating the death of a rich man, who he believes to have been associated with Soylent. Thorn is a flawed hero and the director does a good job at humanizing him to paint a better picture of the city. When Thorn investigates the rich man's house, the first thing he does is raid the refrigerator. I love that the director chose to do this; it really shows how important food is in 2022. Although Thorn is one of the only people in New York with a steady job, he still can't afford anything other than Soylent. Real food is so significant to him, he contradicts his lawful nature to steal it. The significance of real food is best shown the following 5 minute scene of Thorn and Sol enjoying the stolen food. There is no dialogue, just 5 minutes of them eating common food that I could find in my dorm refrigerator right now. At times they are crying, overwhelmed by the taste of real food. This message is powerful and caused me to pause the movie and contemplate how readily available food is to me.

While this scene offers an in depth glimpse of two individuals, there are a couple key scenes that offer commentary on the masses' struggle with food and hunger. The first scene is a trip to a nearby church that Thorn visits with a lead that someone there might know something about the murder. People are sprawled out everywhere; Thorn must watch where he steps as to not hurt those staying at the church. In a time of hardship, people turn to religion. I found it interesting that Soylent Green puts religion on such a high pedestal in the future. Right now in the present, the world seems to be turning away from conservative religion as science is, for many, providing explanation for what they used to associate with faith. In this dystopia, science has been proven wrong; science ultimately led to destruction. The masses look to God for sustenance (food) and meaning, but as portrayed by the exhausted, overwhelmed priest, God is absent and the church too looks to be controlled by science; the church relies on Soylent to feed the hungry and dying. Instead of the body of Christ, it's the body of Soylent; the body of friends and family, and no one is getting to heaven with that.   

The other important scene that depicts the hunger struggle of the general population is at the Soylent exchange where only a couple people get Soylent, because of an apparent lack of supply. Everyone mobs and riot men have to keep them in check. Eventually, back hoes come out of nowhere and start storming the mobs of people, running them over and picking them up like a garbage truck picks up trash. This scene is pretty sickening to watch as the desperation in the eyes of the people is quite frightening. Why can't they give everyone food and work together.

The answer is simple: Corporate America gone crazy. All of the people associated with the murder of the rich man have something to do with Soylent. The rich man had figured out that Soylent was made of people and Soylent took him out, and eventually go after Thorn for his work trying to expose Soylent. Even the governor is in on it; Soylent is worth a lot of money, so company secrets will be kept at all costs. Today this is apparent (on a smaller, but still noteworthy scale) with many companies, especially food companies like Monsanto, a large corn production company. With all the lobbyists and insiders that Monsanto has in the government, things often gets swept under the rug for the sake of the company. If the world got to a state where corn was the only large source of food, Monsanto could control the world, much like Soylent. The writers are speaking out against large corporations, especially ones dealing with food, and their government influence.

The movie ends in two scenes, one at a hospice and one at the Soylent factory. The hospice scene is interesting as Sol leaves a note for Thorn and checks himself in, as he found out that the bodies for Soylent come from the hospice. Sol sacrifices himself because he knows Thorn will follow Sol's body to the factory and get proof of what's happening. Sol dies in an enclosed room with a TV showing clips from the past; clips of nature and life. Where the green symbolizes death, the orange tint of the hospice room symbolizes life. I find it interesting that it is once someone chooses to die that they get to experience the natural beauty of life. The body is then transported to the Soylent factory and Thorn finally proves his theory that Soylent Green is indeed made of people, by watching Sol turn into it. This scene is my favorite because up to this point, it is never explicitly stated that Soylent Green is made of people, it is just assumed from the clues Thorn discovers. Watching the people turn into Soylent Green right before my eyes was startling. Maybe I just couldn't picture it before, but the actual process took me off guard. Large tubs of hot water and melting flesh were scattered around the factor, slowly but surely turning each human into a pile of Soylent Green, to then be transported down a conveyer belt for packaging. Just the thought of this process makes my stomach upset. The movie concludes with a chase scene and Thorn dying from a bullet wound from a Soylent hit man as he yells to a group of bystanders, "Soylent Green is made of people!" (Fleischer).

 Does this dystopia seem possible in our world? Could we one day be living in a world with one main food source controlled by one company? My answer to these questions is yes, but probably not. With the quick and powerful rise of food corporations in the past couple decades, it does not seem unlikely that a company could get to such a high level of power and influence. On the other hand, people are already working against large corporations, trying to get the word out that most big scale food companies are bad. Right now, food corporations are playing it sneaky and most of America is uneducated on the subject. I believe that there enough people who care about eating right and value their food choices that a food company could not get as far as Soylent. I also believe that there are enough people who understand the repercussions of destroying the environment and how that would affect food supply.  In regards to overpopulation, it could cause some problems, but nothing in the immediate future. Overpopulation could definitely negatively impact the environment and affect the food supply, but it's hard to say how long it will take, say, New York to reach 40 million people. With technology rapidly expanding, it seems more likely that we will make colonies on other planets before that happens

All in all, Soylent Green offers a brutal view of the future; a future controlled by a corporation controlling the flow of food, shaped by science, and inhabited by a massive, starving population. Although it may be a bit exaggerated in my opinion, it offers a lot of great commentary and social critiques that are as relevant today as they were in 1973. This is world of horror; an eat or be eaten world: live to eat the little that is given to you and suffer constant hunger and agony, or starve and be fed to someone else. This is a place where one has no solace in a religious afterlife; even death does not allow escape. Death allows one the opportunity to take part in the system; to feed the hungry with flesh. Death offers a pseudo escape that will cycle over and over again, as people die and become substance for someone else who will one day die.

As I glance over at my empty bag of green basil glazed beef jerky, I start to feel a little sick. 

Bibiliography

Solylent Green. Dir. Richard Fleischer. Screenplay by Stanley R. Greenberg. Perf. Charlton Heston and Leigh Taylor-Young. Amazon. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

Hello, my name is Dante Dalla Gasperina and I am a Computer Science and Engineering major at Santa Clara University. One thing I love to do is sit down and watch a good movie. Whether it be Science Fiction, Comedy, Documentary, or any other genre, movies, to me, are an escape from the tedium of life. My favorite movies are ones that make me think; ones that are deep and heavy with information, messages, and social critiques. Besides movies, another passion of mine is food. Being in an Italian family rich with food culture, eating a good meal means the world to me. With this blog, I hope to blend two of my favorite things and learn about how they operate together. While these first couple posts will have one topic in mind, I may branch out and continue onto other topics in the future. Join me on my adventure; come back every week for a new post and a new movie. And with that little introduction, let me introduce you to the topic that will encompass my next four posts.