Review: 'Freakanomics' Doesn't Quite Make The Leap From Page To Screen

“Freakanomics,” the anthology-style documentary adaptation of the bestselling book from economist Steven D. Levitt and author Stephen J. Dubner, is a mishmash of interesting concepts, with less interesting direction. The book, which discussed and analyzed popular culture theories through economic data points, doesn’t lend itself well to a big screen adaptation. Documentaries, when done well, seem to have their “story” evolve throughout, but when adapting a book of this type – the story is essentially written for you. This is one of the many areas where the film falters, as it has the opportunity to go a bit more in depth and express more than just a realized version of text to film.

The “Freakanomics” anthology is divided up into four mini-stories, each directed by respected filmmakers given the task of adapting a specific concept from the book. The challenge here is to effectively intersect these four separate films into a cohesive documentary, which ultimately just doesn’t happen. Morgan Spurlock, director of game changer “Super Size Me” continues his satirical documentary style with his section, where he looks at the direct effect of baby names on children’s lives and experiences (ie. like a child named Destiny is destined to strip). Spurlock’s mini-story is lackluster and the topic seemingly doesn’t need much analysis – it’s not the name but the socio-economic barriers children are put in that have the greater effect.

“Casino Jack And The United States Of Money” director Alex Gibney’s portion “Pure Corruption” is the longest of the four clocking in at 30 minutes, and despite its length feels more like a Dateline special than an actual documentary feature. Gibney, who thrives when he covers corruption of any kind, takes a deeper look of the wealth and cheating behind sumo wrestling in Japan. Gibney brings light to the abuse that goes on the industry and the mafia style back end deals, but once again the topic doesn’t seem that shocking because as Americans it’s almost impossible not to think of any major sport that is without physical abuse, misuse of funds and cheating.

“Why We Fight” director Eugene Jarecki’s portion looks at possible catalysts to the dropping crime rates of the 1990’s, including the idea of legalized abortion playing a massive role. Unfortunately, this idea is never proven or dismissed, as Jarecki seems terrified to take an actual stand on the issue. Cartoons fill in where real analysis could have been useful.

The highlight of the film is the last section, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady doc (“Jesus Camp”) responsible for the chilling which focused on education. Based on an actual study Levitt conducted, they attempted to figure out if kids would learn and apply themselves more in school if being paid to do so, in essence bribing them. They focused on two kids, and were able to showcase that wanting to succeed within education and being able to actualize isn’t always simple. This portion was able to do what the other three couldn’t; it took the concept from the book, interjected a documentary look at its subjects and entertained the audience. It was easy to be intrigued in the process and the kids, and felt authentic to the actual point of the film.

The film’s overall lack of cohesion between the director’s ideas and its quite literal adaptation of the source material makes it hard to champion. If you have read the book, there isn’t much else to see or learn with this. And if you are unfamiliar with the source material, you might have your interest peaked for further information after viewing. Unfortunately it did a whole lot of nothing, with a whole lot of possibilities. [C]