#25 We just watched this on Netflix streaming.

You should too!: Freakonomics

The Film: Freakonomics

Economics is the fascinating discipline where specialists break down data in order to find patterns and relationships within an economic system. Big key words always come up such as causality, incentives, and correlations.

I read Freakonomics forever ago and the movie isn’t much different, but if you like the book you’ll like the movie. I always love economics because I hate the general assumptions people make between correlation and causation. Everyone is guilty of this. I’ve always been frustrated when my grandmother says that hot weather makes people crazy and angrier, therefore, it increases criminality. It is an odd conclusion to make.

Why to watch it: It is a fun interpretation of a great book.

I wasn’t quite sure how they were going to adapt a controverisial, economics-related, non-fiction book into a movie.

It isn’t perfect. When looking at it stylistically, it has serious problems. However, the writers of the book prove to be great personalities, speak well for being data nerds, and are pretty good at defending their views on things without sounding confrontational.

Now, this is where I take a bit of issue. The movie is a bizarre, episodic montage of different subjects. When the movie focuses on the experts and stops trying so hard to be visually entertaining – it actually is entertaining. The movie suffers from being afraid the subjects aren’t going to keep the audience focused. Bad move.

Pay attention to this: The book’s writers Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt

Their book came under considerable fire when they mentioned the unspeakable theory that perhaps giving women the ability to choose to abort a child actually decreased crime in the long run. A theory loaded with controversy indeed. I was wondering how they would be able to handle the subject and found both economists talented at describing the facts in a very political way. I don’t care where you come down on the subject, but they have a very soft-spoken, delicate approach to the subject that, I think, makes it more palitable for more right-wing viewers.

Still, I loved the book far more than I liked the movie. It remains a bit of a masterpiece for people who want to view the world in a different way. There are parts in the data that deserve to be discussed but were likely edited out for length reasons. Data such as sumos throwing fights after qualifying with eights win and, therefore, cheating with others who haven’t. I assumed that it would be at least mentioned that people who have already qualified for a tournament and gain nothing from a match would likely try to avoid injury and not perform as hard. I’m 100 % certain the evidence overcomes this point, but they have to address these ideas or else lose credibility. Credibility that is almost unbreakable in their book.

-Collin.