Get Your Freak On(omics)

In 2005, economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner caused a bit of a stir with their non-fiction bestseller, Freakonomics. The book tried to apply data mining and the study of incentives to a half-dozen examples of human behavior and sociopolitical issues. In 2010, a number of documentary filmmakers -- including Morgan Spurlock and Eugene Jarecki, among others -- each contributed a short segment to a film adaptation of the book.

Freakonomics does come off a bit like the hodgepodge it is. While the book's authors are featured throughout as interview subjects (and occasional narrators), each of the film's roughly 20-minute segments has a different tone, depending on the sensibilities of the documentary director responsible for that piece. But that's not to say the pieces -- each based around a chapter from the original book -- aren't compelling and provocative.

The first segment analyzes the importance of people's names. It looks at the different trends in naming (particularly among different races), and tries to address the question of whether a baby's name can have an effect on opportunities in later adult life.

The second segment looks at data proving a culture of match fixing in sumo wrestling, a sport noted for its honor and purity. It also draws some connections between this and economic manipulations that brought about the banking crisis of 2008.

The third segment -- certainly the most controversial in the film -- tries to determine the cause for the sudden drop in the U.S. national crime statistics at the start of the 1990s, a drop which the book authors believe cannot be explained by the reasons often cited by politicians and journalists. Their conclusion is sure to open your eyes, and then either tickle your brain or provoke a rage, depending on your sociopolitical leanings. Skip the rest of this paragraph if you don't want the SPOILER: they posit, with rather compelling supporting data, that the legalization of abortion in 1972, leading to fewer unwanted pregnancies, resulted in a crime drop two decades later when a large group of likely criminals simply didn't exist to be at the peak of their criminal activities.

The final segment follows a study that attempts to determine if struggling high school students can be bribed with cash incentives to improve their grades.

Each of these segments attempts to take a dispassionate view of a subject that few people could actually discuss dispassionately. It's the film equivalent of throwing a live grenade into a powder room and slamming the door. The authors and the filmmakers walk away, leaving you and any other friends you see it with to pick up the mess.

I was actually rather entertained by their suggestions, and intrigued by the explanations of their methods. Basically, it's a good movie to see if you want to pick up some provocative dinner party conversation material -- but it should be deployed only in an environment where you believe your fellow guests are either: A) like-minded politically; or B) capable of a civil debate of differences.

In other words, it's probably not the right movie for election season. But if you want to make a mental note and take a look some time after November 6th, I think the documentary is worth a look. I grade it a B.