ISSN 2572-5572

UNWINNABLE
MONTHLY Volume 5, Issue 1 - January 2018

BREATH OF THE WILD VS. RAIN WORLD • SOCIAL MEDIA IN GAMES

Documentary Sunday | Megan Condis

That Sugar Film

I f you’ve ever watched a documentary about food and health before then
the format of That Sugar Film (Gameau, 2015) will be familiar. Average Joe
Damon Gameau, an Australian filmmaker, conducts a dietary experiment on
himself by consuming 40 teaspoons of sugar (which, he claims, is the average
amount of sugar consumed by his fellow Australians) every day for sixty days.
A team of doctors and a camera crew follow him, chronicling his rapid decline
in order to convince the audience of the dangers of this ubiquitous food
additive. The twist, if you can call it a twist, comes when, rather than getting
his fix from sweet treats we know to be bad for the body like soda and candy,
Gameau mainly consumes products that we typically consider to be “healthy
alternatives” to junk food: granola bars, fruit juice, yogurt, etc.
At first glance, That Sugar Film seems like a fun, harmless exercise in
preaching to the choir. It provides everything its vague title seems to promise,
including reassurance that we in the audience are secure in our righteousness
regarding our knowledge of nutrition. For example, we are invited to smugly
shake our heads and waggle our fingers at the parents who give their babies
Mountain Dew in their bottles and at the headless, obese stock footage figures
used as anonymous cautionary tales: there but for the grace of Morgan
Spurlock go I. The presentational style of the film is quite slick and enjoyable,
from a Fantastic Voyage-style trip through the human body to a catchy music
video performed by a pimp named Mr. Sugar. But the question remains: don’t
we already know that sugar is bad for us? Even if some of the more bombastic
claims (that overconsumption of sugar causes mood swings, aggressiveness,
and even fatty liver disease) made in the film are questionable according to
scientific research, are we really that surprised by its central conceit?
This line of inquiry leads to an even bigger question: why do we watch
documentaries in the first place? Perhaps the answer lies in the definition of
documentary film itself. John Grierson, the father of British documentary
film, describes the format as “the creative treatment of actuality” while Soviet
documentary director Dziga Vertov believed that his purpose was to capture
“life caught unawares.” Film critic Henrik Juel describes a smorgasbord of
possible roles the documentary might play within society including: “prophet
- explorer - painter - advocate - bugler - prosecutor - observer - catalyst -
guerrilla - performer - therapist - spin doctor.” Each definition suggests a
triangle that connects the audience with both the filmmaker and the wider
world outside of the film. However, the structure of these relationships can
take many forms. While I think we would all like to believe that we watch
documentaries to become better informed about the world around us, movies
like That Sugar Film suggest a slightly different kind of motivation: the desire
to be entertained by well-designed, well-constructed representations of what
we already believe.
In one sense, That Sugar Film is a kind documentary confection. It is good for
a quick burst of energy and self-righteousness. But these feelings quickly fade,
leaving nothing but intellectual laziness and ego bloat in their wake. U