Pin It


Economics gets perhaps a little too freaky.

click to enlarge art16160.jpg

The boring professor drones on about how correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation. Ah, the popular economist counters, but what if it does?

That’s the premise of Freakonomics. It’s all about finding unexpected connections, and then exploring why those things appear to be connected.

When Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt first wrote Freakonomics, the book, it was cleverly tailored to be controversial — lucratively controversial. The most widely discussed argument postulated that the rise in abortions after Roe v. Wade — by removing the number of unwanted children — was the primary cause of the dramatic drop in the crime rate during the ‘90s. Other chapters explored the less provocative questions: How do children’s names affect their lives? How can we use data to determine if cheating is going on in SATs or sumo wrestling?

Last year, a documentary adaptation covered the same ground, with a $10 million budget, a lineup of star directors, and the full arsenal of stylistic tricks that “docutainment” masters like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock use to create smash hits. (Spurlock writes and directs episodes here, too.)

But Freakonomics may be too entertaining. Important points are illustrated through goofy cartoons or exaggerated reenactments. Jaunty ain’t-we-goofy music underscores many scenes. Sound effects — about as subtle as a wacky morning drive-time DJ’s — are pervasive. The camera whip-pans with a whooooosh, 3D text pops up with a blooop, a horn parallels a thought screeching to a halt. Each chapter boasts a different style of visual gimmickry, but when CGI and It’s a Wonderful Life clips pop up during the chapter on the correlation between abortion and crime rates, it seems tacky and grotesque.

The documentary adds new flavor — but very little new meat — to an already entertaining book. Evidence is glossed over, and Levitt doesn’t even use his own methodology fully.

In the five years since the book was published, Freakonomics could have explored Levitt and Dubner’s research more deeply or interviewed the many economists and pundits with objections to Levitt’s claims. Instead, you get only a CliffsNotes pop-up version of the book. (Rated PG-13)


  • Pin It

Latest in Film

  • Real Disaster
  • Real Disaster

    Deepwater Horizon feels trapped between tragic facts and genre conventions
    • Sep 29, 2016
  • The Kids Aren't Alright
  • The Kids Aren't Alright

    Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children can't quite strike the balance between whimsy and darkness
    • Sep 29, 2016
  • Enemy No. 1
  • Enemy No. 1

    Oliver Stone's Snowden doesn't break new ground but is still a thrill ride
    • Sep 22, 2016
  • More »


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Today | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu

All of today's events | Staff Picks


More by Daniel Walters

Most Commented On

  • Feminist First

    Through her music, Dolly Parton has always shown women how to stay strong
    • Sep 15, 2016
  • Art of the Deal

    Local indie labels offer artists another marketing option, but not everyone is convinced they're necessary
    • Sep 1, 2016
  • More »

Top Tags in
Music & Film


Readers also liked…

  • Where Are the Women?
  • Where Are the Women?

    A critic's year-long deep dive into the way movies portray half of humanity
    • May 12, 2016
  • Behind the Music
  • Behind the Music

    The Grammy Awards are about much more than what you see on TV
    • Feb 11, 2015

© 2016 Inlander
Website powered by Foundation