Math Doesn’t Always Add Up in Freakonomics
Does the fixing of Sumo Wrestling matches in Japan show insight into the financial wrongdoing on Wall Street like those conducted by Bernie Madoff? Did the passage of Roe v. Wade play a significant impact upon the nationwide crime drop during the 1990’s? Does the name your parents give you plant the seeds for the type of life you’re going to have? Will paying underachieving Ninth Graders en masse lead to better grades?
It's a name game in Freakonomics © Magnolia Pictures
These questions and more are just some of the ones on the table in the documentary Freakonomics, a film inspired by the book of the same name by University of Chicago economics professor Steven D. Levitt and New York-based journalist Stephen J. Dubner. A diverse group of filmmakers; Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Darkside), Seth Gordon (King of Kong), Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me), Eugene Jarecki (Why We Fight) and Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing (Jesus Camp); attempts to flesh out what Levitt and Dubner did in print, bringing the duo along as they dive headfirst looking into stories from a perspective that’s sometimes a wee bit sideways.
The film is split into the four stories asked about above all of them interspersed by amusing data-driven vignettes directed by Gordon. Gibney goes after the sumo wrestling, Spurlock plays with the baby names, Jarecki tackles the drop in crime while Grady and Ewing get money hungry with the Ninth Graders. Each short has its merits, most of them also have their faults, each still proving to be hugely enjoyable and edifying even if I’m not entirely sure they ultimately make the point about mathematical data driving insight into everyday phenomena.
My least favorite piece here, even if at times it is the most bubbly of the bunch, had to be Spurlock’s. Not because I didn’t buy the ultimate destination (names don’t mean that much, it’s the neighborhood you come from and the education you get that ultimately really matters), but more because it felt the most scripted and fake of all the shorts. Because there are so many actors playing the parts of a lot of these so-called “real” people I had a hard time knowing who was fake and who was legitimate. It casts a shadow of a doubt difficult for me to get past, and even though the info being passed on was interesting it wasn’t enough so for me to get beyond my uncomfortable apprehensions.
I had issues with Jarecki’s mostly animated (beautifully so, I might add) take on the crime drop as well, not because I don’t think Roe v. Wade played a part in it but more because I just have trouble buying it was quite as significant as Levitt and Dubner want to lead us to believe. Maybe this is my own problem, that numbers as big as the one they give us are too just large for me to process, but no matter what the reason there’s a shadow of a doubt as far as this short is concerned I just couldn’t get past.
As for the rest, I kind of loved them all. The paying kids for grades bit would make for an awesome companion piece to Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for “Superman”, while Gibney’s look at the world of sumo and how it related to finance kind of blew my mind. I also loved all of Gordon’s bits, the filmmaker using the studious yet vivacious personalities of Levitt and Dubner in a way that both edified and amused.
Look, I enjoyed Freakonomics, I just can’t really say how much so mainly because I’m still having issues buying all the information past on here as mathematical fact. Maybe I need to read Levitt and Dubner’s book, an idea after watching their film I’m actually finding kind of appealing. But as for the documentary itself thanks to the level of talent involved I can certainly recommend it, just not as much going in I might have pre-surmised.
Film Rating: êê1/2 (out of 4)
Additional Links
