Netflix’s Rotten Is Mandatory Viewing for People Who Buy Food in the U.S.
Photo: Netflix
Our food supply system is broken, corrupt, dirty, inhumane, and riddled with fraud. If you are not aware of this, you need to be. If you are, chances are good that Netflix’s new true crime series, Rotten, will contain at least some stories you’re familiar with, and probably a few things you didn’t know. Either way, I’m designating it mandatory viewing for people who buy food in the United States. And I say that despite the fact that the series is not a breathtaking work of art. The subject matter’s simply that crucial.
Produced by Zero Point Zero, the company behind many of Anthony Bourdain’s ventures, Rotten offers a true-crime take on a series of food-industry hijinks, looking at, among other things, the production and consumption of chicken, milk, honey, garlic and seafood. Exposing food frauds ranging from the confusing to the flat-out lethal, the episodes investigate various ways in which the literal food chain is screwed up by the corporate food chain, and the ramifications for people who farm, and people who eat. Which I’m pretty sure includes all of us.
The show suffers somewhat from an interview-based recipe where the interviewees are not necessarily all that scintillating. There are standouts: Restauranteur Ming Tsai in the peanut episode exudes energy and intelligence. A chicken farmer named Sunny Nguyen is utterly captivating as he describes the joys and sorrows of raising chickens for Pilgrim’s Pride. And a rather poetic New Mexico garlic farmer named Stanley Crawford sums it up beautifully with the remark, “I consider growing your own food to be a revolutionary act.” But in this format, when you don’t have a roster totally packed with exceedingly articulate and relatable folks, the message can get a little tired. Some of the farmers and businesspeople selected for the episodes are lackluster on camera. Some are… kind of whiny. Some are not as smart as they think they are. It’s reality, but it’s not very riveting.
Similarly, the artistic direction could be snappier, the editing more edgy, the voiceover narration less generic (where was Tony? He could have upped the ante big time just by being the guy at the mic), the narratives less congested. The series seems unsure of whether it’s a true-crime program or a food-industry docuseries, and that uncertainty squanders some potential as well. In several episodes, there are multiple crimes, and some are specific while others are systemic. For instance, in “Lawyers, Guns and Honey,” there’s a storyline about mass-produced “fake honey” and the lengths to which people go to locate it and get it out of the marketplace. There is also a storyline about a specific theft of millions of honeybees from a specific farmer in a specific time and place. Both stories are fascinating, but they are co-presented in a way that depletes both narratives rather than letting them reinforce each other. The “Cod Is Dead” episode can’t quite decide whether it wants to focus on the curious case of “The Codfather,” Carlos Rafael, a Massachusetts fisherman accused of a panoply of crimes—or on government regulation to control overfishing and its unintended consequences. The “true crime” in an episode about dairy farming involves some people getting seriously sick from E. coli complications, but half the episode is focused on a nice-guy family-owned dairy in Pennsylvania and its struggles to stay operational, and the two stories really never converge at all. Long story short, each episode presents a food-related crime, but the signal-to-noise ratio is all over the place. There’s too much information about some things, not enough about others.