Freakonomics

At the very end of this documentary, the essence of what they were saying (imo), is to keep your mind open, to many possibilities. Excellent advice.I'd read the book a few years back, and found it interesting and thought provoking. Like many others, there are some realities in our society which are pointed out in Freakonomics, that aren't too comfy for me to accept - nonetheless, there's abundant research backing their findings, which compels me to think more deeply. (And that's a good thing). I don't believe everything I read, either - discernment in all things, is what I think we should all practice.Although I'd read the book, I liked the film, also - in some ways, it added more dimension to what I'd read before. I must have glossed over the severity of corruption in sumo wrestling, back when I read the book. Watching that part of it in the film, had much more of an impact on me. All in all, I'd recommend this film.

unexpected, informational, do recommend

So an enlightening piece on some aspects but so concerned to make a point that it fails to notice and explore what's happing right in front of the camera as they film. It took a failing high school student to summarize the blatantly obvious fact that incentives without a vehicle is a waste of time. The kid said if the oven is broken you'll only get milk despite the fact that I promised you milk and cookies. The kids here began to ignore their education long before the university showed up with dough. There was nothing to build upon, so they quickly realized that they weren't being offered 50 bucks for a few hours of homework they were being offered 50 bucks to go back and learn 3 or 4 years of material on their own just so they could do the homework. These kids weren't to dumb to realize this, they are just too dumb to realize what it means for their future. And, the university? Well, they were too dumb to realize they were conducting a study based on the only thing they knew: college bound kids such as themselves. They never understood the environment, motivations, or thought process of blue collar bound kids. That is the same reason that most teachers give off a superiority complex around blue collar parents despite never having left school to get a real job themselves. Education is important but no one, not Ivy leaguers nor master mechanics should determine which is more valuable. It's great that you can make 150K basically arguing for a living but shouldn't you be able to change the tire of you own car too?

Highly recommended for people looking to for effective ways to stretch their budget and improve quality and performance in personal life and society.

The opening titles of this film say that it’s based on the book “Freakonomics” by “Rogue Economist Steven Levitt” and “Journalist Stephen Dubner”, that the book explored “the hidden side of everything,” was “a literary sensation” and a “global phenomenon,” sold “more than 4 million copies” and introduced readers to “a new way to view the world.” I haven’t read the book. I assume that the precision of the ideas and the coherence of the arguments presented in the book are faithfully represented in the film—nothing that matters is lost in translation.The film consists of 4 short documentaries by different teams of writers and directors. The Freakonomics authors (“Rogue” Levitt and “Journalist” Dubner) supply introductory and linking materials and appear in all but one of the documentaries.THE ROGUE AND THE JOURNALISTTo start things out Rogue Levitt and Journalist Dubner perform a skit which I assume is meant to be emblematic of “the hidden side of everything,” meant to illustrate “a new way to view the world,” meant as how-to. In a mix of kiddie animation and talking-heads explanation a Seller (played by Rogue) puts his house on the market for $300K. He gets an offer for $290K. His Agent (played by Journalist) advises him to accept the offer because it’s a sure thing and “the market is really softening.” But Seller wonders if he should wait a week.You might think that waiting a week would depend on the degree to which Seller is pressed for time, how quickly he needs the money, what are the risks of losing the $290K offer, how big a difference does a possible extra 10K make to him...but here the skit swerves...First, Rogue re-formulates Seller’s choice in a newly rosy way: “If I could wait a week and get an offer of $300K would I rather wait a week?”Next, Rogue and Journalist present an elaborate analysis (complete with animation, graphs, and rock-solid arithmetic) of Agent’s incentives to have Seller not wait a week.Seller chooses to wait a week. The single articulated motive for this choice is the need to oppose Agent’s incentives, and in Rogue’s final formulation of the choice, Seller’s own priorities have vanished, as has uncertainty about the outcome: “No matter what my real estate agent says, I’d rather wait a week and pick up the extra 10K.”This is a bad introduction to “a new way to view the world.” Rogue’s choice is dictated by delusion (his unfounded certainty that an offer of $300K will materialize within the week) and his need (paranoid?) to thwart the real estate agent’s incentives.So we come to the first documentary: “A Roshana By Any Other Name.” It asks whether our given names influence our destinies. The writers word this question fancifully: with the birth of children, say the writers, parents are faced with “one single, ominous decision that could shape the entirety of their children’s future: what is going to be their name?” The fancifulness is off-putting, but the writers quickly make a convincing case for a “yes” answer.They make the case because they show at the outset that they are actually talking about African American parents in American society--or, to put the question in terms the writers use: Could a practice of African Americans giving their children “distinctively black” names “shape the entirety of their children’s future?” Two economists, Roland Fryer and Sendhil Mullainathan, contribute persuasive evidence (Fryer’s concept of “cultural segregation” and Mullainathan’s study of mailed-in job applications).Posing and answering this question takes all of about five minutes. But then there’s the padding. The writers show us a dramatization of the criminal career of a girl named “Temptress,” and they wonder if her name destined her to crime. They show us a soft-core porn segment of female pole-dancers and wonder if their names destined them to pole-dancing. They show us a solemn lady who says, “I’m a baby name expert” (go on, ask her something). They show us two groups of teenage girls, one group with “middle class white girl names” and the other group with “lower income white girl names”...This isn’t just irrelevant padding; it’s stupid irrelevant padding, It stupidly swamps and trivializes the ideas set out in the documentary’s first few minutes. The writers wallow in this triviality, asking one of the economists, “Is there one name you could give a kid that would guarantee success?” And with a stupid shrug they end the documentary with, “Who really knows what parents are thinking...?”The second documentary (“Pure Corruption”) tells about a scandal in Japan in 2011 over the rigging of Sumo wrestling matches. It was a very big deal. Whistleblowers and investigative journalists got killed. Police and civil service were implicated in coverups.The documentary presents different experts and witnesses to tell us about the scandal and its background. Rogue Levitt and Journalist Dubner are also presented. Rogue says he could tell that Sumo matches were rigged just by “looking at the data,” and Journalist says Rogue is really good at this kind of thing because he knows how to “think like a cheater.” The two of them almost make it sound like they were there, helping out in Japan, teaching the investigators how to just look at the data, think like cheaters, avoid assasination... Neither of them mentions a ten-years-earlier study of “the data” that concluded that matches were rigged--think like a cheater.The third documentary (“It’s Not Always a Wonderful Life”) is a simple and clear introduction to the widely studied question about the impact of legalized abortion on crime rates. It’s the shortest documentary in the film, and here’s what it does in about 10 minutes: Show the belief widespread in American media in the 1980’s that the high crime rate at the time portended an even higher rate to come in the 1990’s. Show pundits and politicians scramble to attribute the actual decrease of crime in the 1990’s to pet policies of policing and punishment. Introduce the argument that legalized abortion following the Roe v Wade decision of 1973 contribued significantly to the decrease. Show how Nicolae Ceausescu’s forced birth policies at the beginning of his presidency of Romania created a distinct population cohort of unwanted children susceptible to developmental disturbances and deficits. Slyly suggest a connection between the maturng into adulthood of those unhappy children and the noisy ending of Ceausescu’s presidency. Invite viewers to think about prospects for an unwanted child born into an impoverished American household.The strengths of the documentary’s argument are its appeal to common sense and the emotional power of its focus on unwanted children (rather than on the sociologists’ abstraction “unwanted fertility”). The shortcuts and omissions and simplifications used in its argument could be seen as “dumbing-down”, but that’s not a fault. Dumbing-down is a strategy for getting around ignorance and correcting ignorance, at least in a limited way. Hype, on the other hand, makes its pitch to ignorance. Hype is counting on us not knowing any better. The glaring weakness of this documentary is its hype about Rogue Levitt. Rogue has shown himself to be neglectful of scientific priority, but to submerge the prior work of researchers into something called “Levitt’s controversial theory,” and to cast him as a brave, lone, embattled pioneer isn’t just head-shaking hype, it’s laugh-outloud hype--unless, of course, you don’t know any better.By way of introducing the fourth documentary Rogue and Journalist perform another skit. Like their first skit this one is a mix of talking-heads and kiddie cartoon dramatization. It’s about an experiment in which Rogue incentivized the bladder training of his 3-year-old daughter with a reward of candy every time she urinated in the potty. Her name is Amanda, and within 3 days Amanda learned to budget her micturition in numerous tiny allotments throughout the day and to collect and hoard the numerous payments of candy. Strangely Rogue sees the experiment as a failure; he says that his daughter Amanda “beat the incentive scheme I had developed.”But Amanda didn’t “beat” her father’s “scheme.” His “scheme” succeeded, and Amanda capitalized on it succeeding. Amanda developed hyper-control and hoarding. The skit doesn’t tell us what happened next--how was the experiment ended? how did the experimenter deal with the compulsion neurosis of his subject? But the experiment itself was a success.The fourth documentary (“Can a 9th Grader Be Bribed to Succeed?”) is also about an experiment of Rogue’s, but one much more elaborate and costly and involving many more children than the one with Amanda.THE ROGUE AND THE BOY WITH THE TATTOO GUN“Can a 9th Grader Be Bribed to Succeed” is subtitled “An Economic Experiment,” and it opens with Kevin, a 9th grader in Bloom Trail High School, Chicago Heights. We see Kevin skateboarding, dealing adderall for cigarettes, making bottle-bombs with friends. He tells the camera, “I know I could do good in school, but I don’t. I have a reputation of a bad child.”We learn a bit about the "Economic Experiment" from Glen, District Superintendent, who sits at his desk and tells us: “The idea was for the University of Chicago to see if students could increase their test scores simply by giving them a financial incentive. If it works with just one student then it’s good enough for me because we have no stake in it financially. The University of Chicago is picking up the tab.”It turns out that when Superintendent Glen says "University of Chicago" he means Rogue Levitt and a Team of Economists who are conducting the "Economic Experiment" at Bloom Trail High, and we learn a bit more about it when we watch Kevin being interviewed by a Team Member named Sally: Sally and Kevin go over his report card, what he needs to improve on--”Everything,” says Kevin, and without missing a beat Sally makes the Experimental Pitch: “OK, so you probably want to know what you can get, right?”What Kevin can get is $50 cash each month he earns C’s or better, and a chance to enter a raffle for $500, and a ride home in a town car limousine. There’s a poignant moment when Kevin says politely, “I think a lot of people here are going to start doing their homework then,” and Sally asks, “Yeah, but what about you?”It’s January. The Economic Experiment begins.Kevin’s Mom is supportive. She tells Kevin that she’ll match any money he wins in the Economic Experiment. “A little bit of bribery?” she says to the camera, “what parent doesn’t?” And we cut to another of Rogue Levitt’s children, this one named Sophie, shown counting money. Sophie looks and sounds about 3 years old and clearly uncertain about the denominations of the coins and bills she is awkwardly handling, but Rogue says that the important thing here is “incentives.” The goal of his Chicago Heights experiment, he adds, is “Can we get kids to achieve more as quickly as possible with spending very little money.”Cut to Bloom Trail High, general crowd shots of students. In voice-over Sally tells us that the Economic Experiment's monthly money prizes are awarded in a “Payout Event” and that "there’s a lot of fanfare.” The $500 raffle check is giant-size posterboard. The Experiment's subjects get to inspect the limo’s splendid interior. Fanfare. Sally muses, “I think there’s definitely a limo effect”--and that’s when we meet 9th grader Urail.Urail is totally psyched by the limo. We see him check it out and be bowled over. Urail is witty, very intelligent, and virtuosically articulate. Extra-curricular, he runs a snow-shovelling service. His grades aren’t very good, but he vows that for the sake of the limo he’s going to get “All A’s.”Meanwhile Kevin is at home playing a video game. Friends are lounging in the background. (Mom is apparently at work.) Kevin takes a call on his cell. It’s Sally. “Are you doing something to bring up your grades?” she asks, and with the calm sincerity of a teenager who knows what grownups need to hear he makes quick work of Sally’s call and tosses the phone aside. At this point there’s an unsettling exchange between Kevin and one of his friends--the director even captions it to make sure we don’t miss it. Friend: “Nick brought duct tape. We could duct tape him until he tells the truth.” Kevin (resuming his video game): “Go duct tape him.”There are other odd directorial touches. In one scene Kevin is filmed in biology class, a full shot of him seated at his desk from the left. We see him open his desk drawer and take out what looks like an i-phone. The view now cuts to under his desk looking up into his crotch where he seems to be...texting? You can’t tell, the shot is so poorly lit, but it does put you in mind of the time and trouble the crew had to go to setting it up in that cramped and crowded classroom at Bloom Trail High--all that set-up, art for art’s sake.In another piece of artistic direction--one far richer in ironies--Kevin is shown making his way down a hall packed with students on their way to classes. Over the PA a female voice is making an announcement: “This week instead of using profanity, replace profane words with appropriate ones. Thank you, and have a great day.” It’s like something out of “THX 1138.” Kevin stops to talk to friends. “Look,“ he says, “I made a tattoo gun out of a toothbrush and I gave myself a tattoo during class--” (shot of a murky red drawing on the inside of his left forearm). Then the camera comes in for a tight closeup as he cautions his friends not to let “them” see, and partially withdraws the contraption from his pocket and switches it on: “I made it from a toothbrush [electric]...and guitar string...” As the scene ends Kevin continues in voice-over, “I don’t think I’d take any money for giving up my social life.”It’s March. Kevin’s grades go down. Urail’s go up, but not enough for any prizes. The Team (Rogue, Sally, and a new guy named John) meet to discuss progress. Color graphs and charts are examined. Rogue closes with a homily: “The question is, does a kid who moves from a D to a C this year, are they going to have a better life? I don’t think we know the answer to that, but we’ll find out over time.” The Experiment's subjects having "a better life" is certainly taking the long view of the Experiment’s results; after all, these kids are only 14 and 15 years old...and it’s only March.And then it must be May or June, because it’s all over. Final Grades come out. Kevin fails every class.Urail wins every prize--not just the cash payout, but prizes we never even knew about before--there's a bracelet, there's a black teeshirt...and with fairytale of-course-ness Urail goes on to win the $500 raffle and the limo ride. In soft-focus slow-motion dream ballet we see Urail dressed up in suit, fedora and sunglasses, posing with his prizes, acknowledging his applause, relaxing in his limo...happy ending.But then we see Kevin. Kevin is in the school cafeteria at a table with a friend, cheerful, in his element. But the sound dies away, and Kevin speaks bleakly in voice-over: “If I fail, that’s it, I’m done, I’m dropping out. The Army, Marines, Coast Guard, go to Iraq or something like that. I have no clue.”Now, we all know that Kevin is several years too young to join the military, but Rogue Levitt and the director and writers of this documentary aren't going for reality here; they're going for a fantasy. The director and the writers and the Rogue are pushing a fantasy of Kevin-failure and Kevin-shame. A fantasy of Kevin-punishment and isolation and lostness. Oh, look: see bad Kevin; he didn't win our prizes; he is bad and doomed.So much for Kevin. Next, Team Rogue meets for Summing Up and Looking Ahead. The Team is surprised: turns out the Economic Experiment’s final numbers were far lower than hoped for. Rogue wonders: would offering $50,000 improve the numbers? Sally is pensive: “I don’t know." John (the new guy) is resolute: “We need to attack the problem at a much younger age.” And Rogue and Sally and John agree: "preschool." Rogue asks, “So if we’re talking about preschoolers are we talking about taking parenting out of the hands of the parents, or about teaching the parents how to parent?”, and John says “Experiment with both,” and Rogue says, “That could be fun.” Sally is silent. She doesn't have an opinion about how fun "taking parenting out of the hands of the parent" would be or even about how fun "teaching the parent how to parent" would be.Putting aside Rogue's idea of fun with other peoples' children, here’s a question for their parents: Which would you choose for your preschooler, $50 from Rogue’s grant fund or the talent and brains to figure out how to make a tattoo gun out of an electric toothbrush and guitar string? We know from this sickeningly mindless documentary what the Rogue has already chosen for his own children.THE ROGUE AND THE JOURNALIST ENCOREThe film ends with the two of them taking final bows and pats on the back for their self-described “honesty” and “just seeking the truth,” and their "non-judgmental" neutrality, their lack of an “agenda,” their wanting to "give people permission...” The two of them josh and chuckle and beam at each other, Dumb and Dumber.

a few good examples

not all that interesting...

Some of the theories put forward are interesting. But those, particularly with respect to what might have been the greatest contributor to reductions in crime in early 2000s, are not proving out in the 2020s

Wasn't impressed, A sort of jokey look at economics which didn't add anything of importance to our current serious knowledge.

The book was a good read but the film is a no-no. The section on corruption has various interviews with Japanese guys and there are white subtitles on a largely white(!) background. One of the authors is difficult to understand - too many Americanisms, jargon & slang. Not for Non-Americans.

Great! Many thanks.

good watch

Dieser Film folgt dem Buch genau, wie bei den meisten Buch-Film-Versionen die wenigen Kapitel und Abschnitte, die nicht im Film sind, nicht weg von der Essenz des fim. Ich würde es sehr empfehlen zu kaufen, um besser zu verstehen, was nicht in die Länge des Films gequetscht werden konnte. Es gibt sehr wenig Flaum, fast alle Aussagen und Daten, die in der Fim gegeben werden, können auf legitime Quellen zurückgeführt werden, keine städtischen Legenden hier. Die Qualität ist nicht Hollywood Blockbuster, aber würdest du wirklich einen Dokumentarfilm mit so lebhaften Spezialeffekten riskieren, die die unabhängigen Gedanken und Ansichten der Verantwortlichen für den Film riskieren.This film closely follows the book, as with most book-film versions the few chapters and sections that aren't in the film don't take away from the essence of the fim. I would highly recommend purchasing both to better understand that which couldn't be squeezed in to the length of the film. There is very little fluff almost all statements and data given in the fim can be traced to legitimate sources, no urban legends here. The quality isn't Hollywood Blockbuster but would you really want a documentary with such vivid special effects risking the independent thoughts and views of those responsible for the film.