Spanning three continents and countless countries, LAND GRABBING, directed by Kurt Langbein, documents the effects that the large-scale farming industry exerts on communities and people alike. From Cambodia to Romania and everywhere in between, Langbein offers a removed and impersonal perspective, one that engages the audience emotionally the more it strives to remain objective.

LAND GRABBING is intent on shining a light on the corruption that drives the food industry. In Asia villages are razed and land is converted into a sugar plantation. In Eastern Europe small farms are forced out of business by larger companies, despite vocal opposition from landowners and local businesses. Everyone Langbein points a camera at is simply trying to fend for themselves. While they originate from all over the globe, the things they say are remarkably similar.

Despite the large number of interviews in the film, LAND GRABBING is undoubtedly at its most effective when the talking stops and time is allowed for the viewer to immerse themselves in the scale of industrial-grade farming. A towering chimney looms over the desert; a monstrous scar on the landscape. A crane shot pulling high above the jungle canopy from one labourer’s endeavour reveals an endless natural sprawl that’s ripe for exploitation. Statistics are constantly thrown around in LAND GRABBING, but they feel meaningless until paired with Langbein’s visual artistry.

Businessmen talk profits and figures almost exclusively, utterly oblivious to stolen territory and destroyed communities

Instead of stopping at portraying the hardships of the farmers, Langbein often follows the produce to its final destination, further contextualising the gulf in wealth between employer and employee. An Ethiopian woman works for 24 euros a month picking vegetables, all of which are shipped to restaurants in Dubai which serve them alongside oysters smothered in gold leaf. By focusing on both the size and injustice of the system, LAND GRABBING avoids becoming one-sided, and instead refocuses its attention on those responsible for such poverty.

Langbein’s decision to shift focus onto the businessmen and corporations turns out to be the film’s greatest strength. By interviewing said people as they sit in their skyscraper offices, the disregard for people’s wellbeing becomes even more apparent. They talk profits and figures almost exclusively, utterly oblivious to the stolen territory and destroyed communities they’re responsible for. What’s just as heinous is another company which claims to have arranged contracts with those whose land they took, claiming equality and legality in their actions. They exclude the part about poisoning the village’s water supply through their industrial colonialism – of course, such things would undoubtedly be bad for business.

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_AZMxqiAEs