![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Morgan Spurlock Makes a Scene
Just spotted this news item on Yahoo about documentary filmmaker (”Super-Size Me”) Morgan Spurlock getting into some hot water at a Philadelphia highschool:
The filmmaker who ate nothing but McDonald’s meals for a month for his Oscar-nominated film “Super Size Me” gave a profanity-laced, politically incorrect speech at a suburban Philadelphia high school, but not everyone was lovin’ it. [what a terrible pun!]
Speaking at Hatboro-Horsham High School’s first-ever health fair, Morgan Spurlock joked about the intelligence of McDonald’s employees, about “retarded kids in the back wearing helmets” and teachers smoking pot in the balcony.
The special education students in the back row were led by teachers out of the hourlong presentation. […]
Spurlock said he’s never had a complaint after giving similar talks at other high schools and colleges. He said he had been told shortly before his appearance not to talk about McDonald’s because a board member of the Hatboro-Horsham Education Foundation, which sponsored the appearance, owns a franchise. […]
“The greatest lesson those kids learned today was the importance of free speech,” Spurlock said.
It seems like there must be more to this story. I’d like to see some kind of accompanying transcript or tape of his speech before deciding one way or another about this. Yahoo’s article, culled from the Associated Press, really seems to paint him as totally out-of-line, and seems to make the point that people regularly abuse free speech, and for no apparent reason. Seems almost like it ends up trashing free speech by the way it’s written and organized. And people claim that the news isn’t biased. My ass.
The really curious fact included in here though is this item about a board member owning a McDonald’s and limiting his ability to speak on the topic. Which of course makes no sense, seeing as he got famous for making a documentary about the franchise. How come this journalist didn’t build his story around that angle?
- Speaking of making you fat
- The Transformation of Morgan LeFay
- Cutting off my sun
- Giants Dance
- Holla Back
- Prev: Site Problems
- Next: Police Use MySpace to ID Suspects
March 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I refuse to eat at McDonald’s after reading the great book Fast Food Nation. Also don’t shop at Wal-Mart. Corporations have too much power that is why my talking demonic big toe tells me at least!
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/food/schlosse.htm
March 26th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Someone had some pretty stupid expectation on this one - the guy gained his fame bashing the company, and they hire him as a speaker, then tell him that he can’t preach on his favourite, and famous, topic… What’s wrong with the picture here?
I’d almost guess that this was his retaliation to being hired, then told, after the fact, that he can’t talk on the one topic that he’s famous for because he might offend someone…
…And Yahoo’s portrayal seems like the megacorporation’s version of closing ranks - this dude trashed one of their peers, so they’ll make him look like a shit in their news story.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I totally agree… but if this is the case though, then why did these corporations even let Spurlock’s documentary come out in the first place? Surely a megacorporation like McDonald’s has links to major movie distributors, or at least pull with advertising dollars.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
PS. Somebody just emailed me a link to Morgan Spurlock’s blog where he offers his side of the story. Worth a read as a counterpoint to how the AP portrayed what happened:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/morganspurlock/archives/007620.html
March 26th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
“why did these corporations even let Spurlock’s documentary come out in the first place?”
-Tim Boucher
Because corporations are cannibalistic (actually omniverious) and have absolutely no problem with feeding on one another as long as there is a profit to be made. And from what I understand MacDonalds decided not to sue Spurlock for defamation or libel, because that would have been worse for their image than “Super-Size Me.”
March 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
I’ve always wondered the same thing as Tim and Arjuana 93. As much as I liked Super Size Me, he uses a lot of the same “documentary” tactics that get people like Michael Moore in trouble. But I guess it’s OK because supposedly everyone already knows how bad McDonald’s is for you… even people who eat there regularly!
I suspect that McDonald’s Corp people know it too, and really all Super Size Me does is state the obvious: if you eat nothing but Mickey D’s for a slong period of time, you’ll experience health problems.
Any rapid change in your diet is going to throw your body chemistry out of whack, if you don’t make up for certain nutrients being lost: My girlfriend is a vegetarian, not because of a moral stance but because she doesn’t like the taste of meat. Her doctor told her she had to start eating some sort of meat in order to not become anemic. She started eating fish here and there.
If anything, Spurlock did McDonald’s the ultimate favor: he created a PSA for the corporation wihtout the company having to shell out any money. His movie is the cinematic equivalent of a Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of smokes: it’s an admission by the company that the product they sell isn’t very good for you and you use it at your own risk. But under the guise of an indie filmmaker making some sort of “expose” (which doesn’t expose anything new or shocking) it becomes McDonald’s way of saying, “Hey, we never told you to eat it three times a day every day!”
Compare this with the case of two protesters in the UK who were sued by McDonald’s for libel… the protesters won, after 15 long years of sticking to their guns.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,4484-1486673,00.html
Who says the little guy can’t win against the big corporate behemoths?
March 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
That reminds me. I never saw the documentary, but my friend mentioned that in it there were lots of images of people laughing and having fun at McDonalds. At the time it came out was when McDonalds was trying hard to revamp their public image and appear more healthy and hip. Whether it was intentional or not, this movie probably played into their hands in that regard.
March 27th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
What’s funny is, I bet if the kids were asked, they’d tel you he was good entertainment. Having sat through many, many DRY, BORING, morally acceptable speakers, I would have loved anyone down-to-earth!
As for the profanity, who are they kidding, anyhow? Do they think the kids learned a new word?!
March 28th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I think it was the comments about retarded kids that probably crossed the line. It’s one thing to be irreverent, but what did Spurlock hope to gain by disparaging the mentally handicapped in a school assembly?
March 28th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
agreed. there’s really no need. although, in his apology/explanation linked above, he claims to have only actually called himself retarded and nobody else.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Is it me, or are most of the people offended there offended on someone else’s behalf?!
March 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
When I saw Supersize Me, it’s pretty clear from Spurlock’s opening monologue that the moment he found out about the court case where the judge stated that obese people could sue McDonalds if and only if they could demonstrate that McDonald’s intends for its food to be eaten at every meal, every day… You can just see wicked thought ballons gathering around Spurlock’s head: “Punk… Rock… Concept… Art….”
See, Supersize Me was a piece of art, made by a guy who’s such a jerk (I mean that in a positive way, b/c the only alternative is to be a Nice Guy–did you read the line in the credits, “And a very special thank you to my ex-wife’s insurance. Yeah, co-pay”?–I can respect someone like that) he’ll quit exercising, stop walking, and eat nothing but fast food for a month. And it was hilarious and terrifying all the while based in reality.
In truth, I don’t believe the McDonald’s in isolation is *that* bad, except for the trans-fats in the deep fryers, which are down right terrible… If you exercise intensely regularly or haul lumber for a living and don’t eat ultra-grease-burgers or their equivalent, you’ll be chronically malnourished; if your diet is nothing but tripple-bacan omelet burgers but you’re an olympic athlete whose caloric requirement is 5,000 calories a day, it almost requires you to get a grease IV. But if you adopt the typical American lifestyle, which Spurlock does, going from a typical New Yorker who walks everywhere to a guy who only walks a thousand steps a day, drives everywhere, has to order delivery, and doesn’t exercise at all–you’re in for some trouble, and Spurlock most certainly did get it trouble.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Yes, but even his physician noted that, after the initial shock of changing diets and lifestyle habits radically, his body began to get acclimated to the greasy food.
His liver went into shock not because of bad food, but because he went from semi-healthy to extremely unhealthy in less than a month.
Any American who has ever undergone a divorce, bankruptcy, or a court case that caused stress has probably gone through what Spurlock did. Only difference is, Spurlock had nothing at stake– except for a movie deal.
As a Daily Show report, however, it would have been a true gem… and much shorter.
Maybe Super Size Me can be considered art, but as a documentary (and let’s be frank– Spurlock believes he made a documentary, not a piece of art) it has no real interest other than being the jump-off point for his reality TV series.