A movie review from A.O. Scott and David Edelstein challenges Morgan’s documentary and gives a very detailed analyses of the main ideas of the movie. One of the arguments between A. O. Scott and David Edelstein is whether it is right or wrong to sue McDonalds or other fast food MNCs. David Edelstein encourages the public to fight against McDonald’s empire through endless lawsuits. He believes that it is McDonald’s fault that the nation is becoming obese and unhealthy. He supports the idea that McDonalds is a threat to American nation, and it should be fought in the court of justice.
Anthony Scott on the other hand believes that it is in people’s hands to decide whether “to be or not to be” or in the other words, to eat or not eat McDonald’s food. He believes that McDonalds should not directly pay the price for their harmful food, but it is the responsibility of the society to start paying more attention to its health and stop consuming fast food in the unhealthy amounts. Anthony Scott compares McDonald’s to such MNCs that produce tobacco and alcohol products. His opinion is that the public is informed about the harm of these products but they are not outlawed and McDonalds should not be an exception.(Photo of Anthony Scott)
Though I agree that McDonalds more of disadvantage to the society then advantage, I do not think that it is a right thing to sue the company. I believe that it is more fair and effective to try reaching the public and to inform it about the harm of McDonalds and to encourage people to stop buying fast food. I admire Morgan Spurlock because he tried to achieve this goal and to some extent he seceded, even though most likely it was done for his own profit.

1 comment:
HI Alex,
I see you got this in under the wire! I am glad, as it is a very good essay!
Mrs. B
Post a Comment