The Biggest Little Farm

My daughter saw this film at the Philadelphia Film Festival and has been telling me for months that I MUST see "The Biggest Little Farm". Well, the documentary somehow got excellent distribution and I had a chance to see it in the theater just before its release to DVD (which is later this week).

The film is about an unusual farm near Los Angeles. What makes it unusual (apart from being so close to LA) is that instead of a monoculture, the farm takes a more holistic approach to farming. So, instead of one huge crop of almonds or citrus (pretty typical of this area), the farm grows many, many different things and tries to do them using older techniques which are better for the environment. The story takes place over a period of about 8-9 years.

While on the surface this story sounds VERY dull, it's amazing that it isn't. The filmmakers were able to tell a captivating story and did it very well for many reasons. Humanizing the story helped but what really helped was the lovely cinematography and music....and it helped to make the movie very relaxing and sweet. I highly recommend this film.

In 2010, John and Molly Chester left city life and bought land in southern California to establish the Apricot Lane Farms. This documentary (co-directed by John with Sandra Keats) was filmed over a period of eight years, showing the beginning of their venture and the hardships and victories along the way.

It was wise to have documented the farming project over many years as it shows the many ups and downs of the period thus making this film almost seem like a traditional comedy/drama. Some of the farm animals are even highlighted as special characters including a phenomenally fertile sow named Emma.

As non-farmers, the Chesters did something wise: they hired a farming expert, listened to him, and put into practice what they learned. A basic lesson is re-learned here (listen to the experts) yet what they were taught is something that most people would have ignored; some would have chosen to shut down the project entirely.

The key is diversity in everything: all possible forms of livestock, fruit, and vegetables. This may seem bizarre at first, but throughout "The Biggest Little Farm", this method proves that if nature has created a problem, another part of nature can solve that problem. Apricot Lane Farms proves itself to be a fascinating ecosystem. And Lord knows our damaged planet can use as many of those as possible.

Overall, "The Biggest Little Farm" is entertaining, enlightening, and ultimately encouraging. - dbamateurcritic

I watched the pre-screening a few days ago and wow, this is just a really good documentary. I'm in filmmaking and the production value of this just oozes out! Awesomely shot. I cried a lot during this, multiple times, it's an engaging ride.

The story is very compelling, especially for people who are already into connecting with nature and for sustainability. And it's very inspiring for those who are new to the subject.

(Only criticism would be that there is a little bit too much explaining by voiceover narration, but it's okay, American films and docus tend to do that for viewers).

If you want to see a well paced and beautifully filmed documentary about an ethically-driven farm, please watch and enjoy. I'm no biologist (or farmer), so I offer no critiques about how they handled day to day issues concerning their animals and crops.

What was missing, however, was information about the ongoing finances of the farm - how much it cost to get it running, and how they obtained the capital to keep it going until they could generate income. What were the specific terms for repayment to investors? They were pouring money into animals, crops, and equipment even after acquiring the land. I was also interested in how or whether they paid and housed employees, and how much operating income they were generating from crops versus animals.

I understand that "dollars and cents" may not be the most interesting issue, but if the point of the documentary was to encourage others to pursue the same dream, then it would have been helpful to devote 5-10 minutes explaining how they kept it all going, financially.

It's a documentary-promotional, and as such it's a success story as long as we don't ask for details. There is little to discuss about the film's undeniable cinematic qualities. The biological richness achieved is also remarkable. The problem is that it is unachieved. As such, it will satisfy a young audience, or an audience of naive adults, but does not satisfy the curiosity of an adult audience capable of critical thinking. I do not deny the biological success achieved. But I do believe that the authors owe the adult audience more transparency about the ins and outs of their project. Notably:

• What was the initial project as endorsed by the investors? Purely agricultural, or eco-tourism, or even cinematographic (this film being then the completion of the project, the farm itself being then only a by-product of the financial project)?
• what is the financial track record of the operation? In this balance sheet, what is the share of income from agriculture and what is the share of eco-tourism?
• what is the production (measured in tonnage per unit of area)? What is the balance sheet in man-work units?

In other words, what is the cost of success? My question is not a sly one. Personally, I sincerely believe that this type of agriculture is bound to develop. But if we are serious about getting our fellow citizens interested in it, we must be honest about the consequences of the proposed changes. The consequences are a larger farming population (a movement that is the opposite of the historical movement of mankind). Less calibrated agricultural products. Lower per capita yields. None of this is embarrassing to me. I simply regret that the authors of this film preferred ease to pedagogy. By showing a little more transparency, they could have made an excellent movie from a simply good movie. 7/10