Very well executed

Best movie ever!

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

It is a non-verbal documentary, no narration, no interviews, and very few clear spoken words. What is this film all about? It is a fascinating look at the meat industry, and shows the viewer step by step the process that goes into making the foods that you love.The shocking imagery of the treatment of chicks, cows, and (the most shocking part, in my opinion) pigs, will disturb almost any viewer, and may even make some consider becoming a vegetarian/vegans! The film, in my opinion, was actually a bit more bleak than disturbing. Yes, a lot of the imagery IS very disturbing, however, a lot of the film is just watching the humans doing their work. You can tell that these humans are sick of doing this job day after day, and have just lost all caring whatsoever.The final product isn't the most fun film I've ever seen, but it certainly is a great documentary film.

Before you consider watching Unser Taglich Broth (Our Daily Bread), be aware that you may experience a loss of appetite for a couple of days that are to follow. This visual documentary (no dialog) is directed and written by Nikolaus Geyrhalter, starring Claus Hansen Petz, Arkadiusz Bydellek and Barbara Hinz. The main idea of this film is to show you how food companies are using technology in order to provide consumers with food, and workers with profit.This documentary takes place in Europe, showing viewers the process which animals and plants go through in order to provide consumers with their meat and vegetables. Each animal is treated cold heartedly while living in cubicles with very limited space. The cows and pigs produce meat while being used for artificial insemination; cows are used to produce milk as well. The chickens are forced to produce eggs and meat. Fish is also shown in the film, where there is a huge tube that sucks fish in from the water and lays them out in a conveyor belt to be cut in to fillets.The process of growing different crops, fruits and vegetables with the use of chemicals and pesticides is shown as well. Some of the fruits and vegetables shown in depth while in production are tomatoes, cucumbers, apples and olives.Most of the film takes place in the farm, but there are other areas shown as well such as the mine used to gather salt. When a meal time approaches, a worker is shown eating their meal in silence. The choice to make this a silent film was a great choice in my opinion. It causes the viewer to create their own interpretations of the film. Unlike a film which consists of dialog, giving away all the answers to the viewer, This film makes the viewer expand their thinking on their own. This film does not guide the viewer to have a certain thought, instead the viewer is responsible to create their own thoughts from what they have just viewed. With no dialog at all, it causes the documentary to become less biased. I personally thought these animals were being treated as if they were not living at all. They were treated worst than man made materials. Not once did I see any of the farmers or factory workers approach any of the living creatures with care or concern. These animals were only there for one reason; forced to eat feed which make them gain extra meat they will be slaughtered sooner or later in order to be consumed by the demanding public. I disagreed with the aspect of how these living creatures were handled. They were treated as if they were objects. What disappoints me the most is that this not only goes on in Europe, but it is happening right now in the United States. I feel that we should be ashamed of our behavior towards these innocent plants and animals. We believe as if since we take part of the human race, we have no need to depend on others such as mother earth. Instead we seem to take everything for granted.In my opinion the camera work is great, all the choices made while producing this film were made to produce a strong impact on the viewer. I am sure this was done to provide the viewer with a rich source of evidence. To make them realize where the food they consume daily really comes from. I mean that steak sitting on your plate has to come from somewhere doesn't it? Or did it just magically appear there? While viewing this film I noticed that there were a few times where they showed the workers sanitizing there area before each break they took or before the day was nearly done. I felt as if they did this in order to brainwash the viewer into thinking they were doing something really good, almost as if they were doing a favor to their consumers. I mean after all, sanitation is very important when it comes to handling materials which come in contact with the food that will be consumed sooner or later. The documentary ended while showing the viewer workers sanitizing their area, using a foam which squirted out from a tube. I feel as if this decision was made in order for the viewer to have one good thought about this whole documentary…"they kept the place sanitary; at least there is one reason I don't have to feel bad about this food I am about to consume."I can keep going on and on about this film, but it's best to go out and create your own interpretation. This film definitely causes the viewer to take a step back and rethink about their personal food ways.

The film has no soundtrack, no subtitles, just the images and that's exactly what it is all about. Our daily bread, what we literally need every day, our every day food, and how is it grown and produced. Sometimes the view is panoramic and the action goes from left to right (or the other way) on screen. Sometimes the view is detailed, often a mechanografic beauty. And that's what is (or should be) shocking us, us as a vieuwer, us as a human being consuming this daily bread. We are witness to the deconstruction of nature into composites, where all ties with the natural are lost. It should wake us up to think about how our daily bread is grown, but on the other hand : the mecanography of the produce of it, is carefully disguised by all publicity about how healthy and delicious and jummy all the things are that we eat and drink...

if by artistic you mean concerned only with aesthetics, and beautiful camera work, and gorgeous film, and incredible color. i gotta take issue with saying that the documentary was cold and dispassionate and too concerned with art for art's sake. i would have to say not by the longest long shot. because....because the movie was equally as much about the people producing the food as it was about the production. and thats where much of the heart of the whole movie lies---you just don't notice it right away because there is no sound track, or you don't hear or understand the conversation between people. the isolation of the producers one from each other, for instance. the silence that they work in. those big ear muffs they wear. the deafening noise. the isolating self0-conscousness of being on camera, the movie maker implicating himself. (i definitely saw that a couple of times.) look at that first shot of the woman eating by herself with the mangled finger. an UNBELIEVABLY compassionate image. describing close to the entire world in thirty seconds. Or the next woman, taking her smoking break. the voicelessness is about isolation. the workers, the animals, the act of filming. the "dumbness" of animals--their inability to speak--and that of the workers on many occasions--is what maybe the movie is all about. (and so the wordless narration is maybe an act of empathy with the animals?? I dunno for sure, but i could make a good argument i was going to write a paper.and what about the shoeless guy in "The Dominator"? AND... did notice how, when the ethnic workers are introduced, as opposed to the white northern working classes of Europe, when the immigrant populations are shown at work, the movie slightly changes?? The first and only shot of people at home, and talking in a group, and cooking at home (rice), are Africans. Refugees of wars, no doubt. For a long time in this film,m, I was wondering where the ethnic minorities who make up so much of Europes' working class had disappeared to. Suddenly, mid way, they show up. i don't think it's completely by accident. not completely. Then, later, the Arabic guys are shown taking there lunch break. they too, are eating and talking with each other. taking there break under a tree, close to the ground that they are harvesting from. these shots if anything rubbed me a little bit the wrong way, thinking a little bit of idealizing of the non-European "other" was going on. but the movie redeems itself on this front--or just proves me wrong--when we see a big table of white Europeans eating together. something is most definitely being said about tribalism, and about race, and consumption habits. i could talk reams about how great this movie is--write a dissertation even like maybe Chris here--but that would totally ruin it. see the movie, its phenomenal. and disturbing..