BEFORE: Morgan Spurlock directed one of this film's four segments, so it's a natural fit to watch this after "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold". And if he narrates the segment, which I'm sure he did, then my actor linking is preserved.
THE PLOT: A collection of documentaries that explores the hidden side of human nature through the use of the science of economics.
AFTER: A number of concepts from the book "Freakonomics" are explored here, and I never read that book - which I think is a good thing, because if I had, these concepts would be familiar and therefore boring. The problem is, even though it was new to me, it was still pretty boring. I fell asleep midway through the 2nd segment, and woke up during the 4th, so I had to go back and watch the 3rd after that.
Spurlock's segment takes a look at people's names, specifically the difference between how white and black Americans name their kids - and whether these names have an impact on their social standing and earning power later in life. I guess this is tangentially related to economics, but it seems to come more from a racial place, and there's just no way to discuss this without sounding racist - someone, somewhere, wondered if people named DeShawn and Sherniqua were set up for failure in the business world, and by definition, that's a racist concept.
You might as well commission a study to find out if people with Asian names are better at math or worse at driving - obviously there are many other factors at work, and a simple analysis of names vs. income would never tell the whole story. Besides, who decides what constitutes a "black name"? Whatever name a black person has, that's a black name. And who's to say naming a black daughter "Temptress" or "Unique" is any different from naming a white daughter "Britnee" or "Madison" with a silent Q in it?
Whatever point was made in the 2nd segment about corruption in Sumo wrestling, I missed it - and I'm not really interested in going back. And the 4th segment (since I watched it 3rd) was also a little hit or miss - it was about paying 9th graders to get better grades (or bribing kids to study, as some might say). Kids with grades that were all "C's" and above qualified for a $50 payout, and then those kids were entered into a lottery for a $500 prize. And for added emphasis, they put the names of ALL the students into the drum, so they could pull out a kid's name - "Jimmy Johnson! You won! Oh, wait, you got a "D" in science, so let's draw another name." Damn, that's harsh.
This project apparently got mixed results - grades were up overall the next semester, a number of "D" students became "C" students, but the number of "A" students didn't change (probably because they weren't on the bubble, and therefore not motivated to study more) and some kids seemed to resent being bribed to study, and then lost all motivation. Fear not, these enterprising economists are going to start bribing grade-schoolers next.
ASIDE: Damn, what the hell happened to my generation, and the Gen X-ers that followed soon after? We were supposed to be the first generation that was immune to marketing, since we were so surrounded by it that (theoretically) it would lose its effectiveness on us. But we still have commercials, in fact we have even more on the internet now. Damn, what the hell happened to the internet? It was supposed to be a place for everyone to get AWAY from advertising, free for all to explore and order all the stuff we wanted without interference from Madison Avenue. No lie, if you go to YouTube now and want to see that hot new commercial, you'll probably have to watch a DIFFERENT commercial before you can see the one you wanted to see. That ain't right. End of ASIDE.
The segment that interested me the most, although I didn't really like the way the information was presented (low-rent animation, poorly directed voice-over) was the third segment, the one related to crime in major U.S. cities. There's no dispute that crime is down in NY (though probably up in other cities like Detroit) from where it was in the 1980's, when crack was king and Times Square still had hookers. And while our elected officials and police commissioners will give the credit to better police techniques and tougher jail sentences, this film suggests that because abortion was made legal and readily available in the 1970's, there were fewer people in the poorer neighborhoods who were likely to commit crimes in the late 80's, simply because they were never born.
If this is true, it's something of a political game-changer. All those stuffed-shirt conservative Republicans, who are opposed to abortion in all its forms simply because of the moral/religious angle (yet they're also opposed to reasonable alternatives, like birth control, which makes no sense) could be wishing that they had taken a different stance years ago. If they had spoken out more against abortion in affluent (white) neighborhoods, but allowed it in poorer (minority) neighborhoods which are more likely to be liberal Democrats, think of how many more Republicans there would be now!
However, I sense a couple of problems with this theory on the lower crime rates. While I agree that the NYC government has probably, to some degree at least, taken credit for things they haven't done, you can't discount the efforts of the police to bust up drug rings, and the "Three Strikes" law. You also can't quote statistics on a theoretical situation - there are no numbers available for what the crime rates would be WITHOUT Roe vs. Wade. Finally, there was a huge scandal in NYC a few years back when the media found out that crime was being under-reported - and this probably also has a lot to do with dropping crime rates. Police in some precincts were encouraging people to NOT report crimes, because doing so would affect the stats, which would affect tourism, business, and their own bottom line. "Really, how many of these murders get solved, at the end of the day - let's just call this one aggravated assault, which is a misdemeanor..."
So, what "Freakonomics" is all about appears to be quoting theoretical stuff that can't be proven, but which the authors happen to find interesting. But for the most part, it's still pretty boring. And some of the theories are only half-developed. "We found no correlation between first names and income levels" - well, then why bring it up at all?
Also starring Melvin Van Peebles, Steven Levitt, Stephen Dubner, with cameos from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Dan Rather.
RATING: 3 out of 10 report cards
No comments:
Post a Comment