Freakonomics (2010)

We tend to assume causation where there is none.  There may very well be correlation, but it’s possible that both things have a common cause.  It’s also possible that both things are totally unrelated.  There’s an entire Web site dedicate to this premise.  Freakonomics is a documentary that shows a few examples of this.  There was a case where polio was believed to be linked to ice cream, as both tended to spike during the summer.

The first segment deals with the effect that a child’s name may have on their future.  In one case, a child lived up to an unfortunate name.  In another example, brothers Winner and Loser proved to be the opposite of their names.  The truth is that names tend to be a reflection of your parents and your surroundings.  True, ethnic-sounding names do put you at a disadvantage for jobs and housing.  However, if you have the kind of parent that puts effort into your name, you have the kind of parent who will put effort into other things.

The second segment deals with corruption in sumo wrestling.  The sport is supposed to be pure, but there are incentives to throw a match if it’s believed that there’s some benefit.  Wrestlers get paid extra if they have a certain record.  If two wrestlers go up against each other and one needs the win whereas the other doesn’t, the wrestler needing the win tends to win the match they need more often than they should.  Statistically, it looks like players are throwing matches.   (It turns out that this is, indeed, the case, as several former players have come forward stating as much.)

The third segment shows a correlation between abortions and crime rates.  In a country where women were required to have unwanted children, the crime rate went up 15-20 years later.  Similarly, 15-20 years after Roe v. Wade, the United States had a corresponding decrease in crime.  While this hasn’t been proven conclusively, the theory is that unwanted children tend towards crime more than wanted children.  The authors of the book point out that this isn’t an endorsement of abortion.  They’re simply pointing out that if a woman can wait until she’s ready to be a mother, it helps the children later in life.

The final segment is on attempting to bribe ninth-grade students to do better in school.  The segment is set up with a story about one of the authors rewarding his daughter only to have her game the system.  Two students in particular are followed; the experiment works with only one of the two students.  The results for this one are inconclusive.  (If a student is doing so poorly that they’re already talking about a GED, is $50 per month really going to motivate them?)  The point here seems to be that an economic incentive isn’t always the best thing, especially later in life.  Is it better to motivate them earlier?  Is it better to use other means?  If offered the money, I’m not sure I would have done much better in school.  Most kids tend to live for the here and now.

The movie is interesting.  I watched it having read the book already.  I didn’t really expect anything new.   In some regards, you may be better off reading the book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.  There are more chapters and each goes into more detail.  If you have already read the book, you’re probably not going to find many surprised here.  The segments are based on chapters of the book.

However, if you have the ability to rent or stream the movie, it is interesting.  It gives a basic look at some areas that you might not otherwise think about.  The movie is geared towards an adult audience, but most teenagers should be able to grasp the basic contents.

The PG-13 rating comes from some of the language and a few violent scenes.  If I recall, most of the violence depicted was in the third section, which dealt more with violent crimes.  There was also a scene of a strip club with strippers’ names covering their otherwise bare breasts.  That’s the only scene I’d be embarrassed to watch with my parents.  Much of it is stuff would make for good discussion with your children.  I could almost see this being optional viewing for a college course.  Some of the material is controversial, but I don’t think it would cause anyone’s head to explode.

I was able to get this streaming on Netflix.  I’m not sure that I would necessarily expect or want special features.  As I said, you can get the book for more detail.  There’s also the Web site for Freakonomics, which seems to be for all of the various related media.  It’s definitely worth a watch.

IMDb page

Jesus Camp (2006)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

 

I’m having trouble remembering where it was that I first heard about this movie. It may have been through NetFlix, which occasionally recommends a movie that I might like. One of these movies may have been Jesus Camp, which is about a camp called “Kids on Fire” in Devil’s Lake, North Dakota.

It’s run by the Reverend Becky Fischer, who wants to have a place to teach kids how to live Christian lives. Early in the movie, Rev. Fischer speaks to the camera and tells how Muslim Jihadists are trained young. She feels that she could do the same for Christian kids.

The movie seems to focus on her and three kids: Levi, Tori and Rachael. Levi, who is home schooled, believes that Darwinian evolution is unproven. His mother asks him about how it’s ridiculous. Another likes to dance, but only to Christian music and not “for the flesh” as she put it. Most of the movie takes place at the camp with some time setting up the three aforementioned children. There are also segments with Mike Papantonio, who seems to have his own radio show. However, it seems to really be only to give some sort of narration, for lack of a better word.

While watching the movie, I remember thinking that this is another Fahrenheit 9/11. Those, like myself, that don’t believe will probably look at the movie and think how horrible it is that children are put through this, effectively being brainwashed. Those that agree with the methods may look at this and think that Becky Fischer is a hero, having done the right thing.

This movie seems to be neutral in its presentation of its subject. You don’t have someone trying to put too much of a spin on it. Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, who made this movie, didn’t appear in it as Michael Moore did in his movie. The movie presented Evangelism from the inside. I don’t think the camp was to be presented as good or evil.

If anything, I thought it came off as a little ridiculous. What makes someone think that approaching someone will convert them? Has anyone actually ‘seen the light’ after being approached? Rachael approaches someone at a bowling alley and tries to convert them. She seemed optimistic about it. There was also another case where one of the girls approached some men in a park. As she was walking away, she made a comment about how she thought they were Muslim or something simply because they didn’t seem that interested.

I have to wonder if the kids in the movie will watch it in 25 years and see what they were like. I could see some of them following the pat that Rev. Fischer set out for them. However, I could also see some of them finding a future outside of Christianity and looking back at this, thinking how naive they were. This isn’t to say that they’ll be screwed up or anything. It’s just that they might think to themselves, “What was I doing? Did I actually say that to someone?”

At 85 minutes, it’s not a long movie. I’d definitely recommend watching it. At the very least, it’s a look at what goes on at that particular camp. 

Trailer

Magnolia Pictures page

Detroit Motor City = Trot To Mediocrity (Detropia movie review)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

A while ago, my brother and I were talking about Detroit and how it was possible to buy property for $100 or less.  The down side was that you could very well have had to sink six figures into repairing or building a house.  I don’t know how serious he was about doing this.  I think it was just something he was looking at out of passing interest.  However, this was recent enough to be taken as a sign of the city’s current troubles.  Detroit has been on a downhill slide for years now and has filed for bankruptcy.  Well, someone decided to turn a camera to the streets of The Motor City, resulting in Detropia.  It’s not a pretty picture.

The movie starts with the demolition of a house; one of the demolition men saying how there’s no shortage of lists of similar houses.  He finishes one list and goes back for another.  This seems to be the only boom industry in the city.  (Yes, the bailout of the car companies saved millions of jobs, but we may have serious competition from abroad.)  Detroit went from being the fastest-growing city in the world in 1930 to the fastest shrinking city in the U.S. in 2010.

This leaves a big problem for Mayor Bing.  There are a lot of blocks that are either entirely vacant or have just one house.  He wants the residents to consolidate so that services like fire rescue and mass transportation will have an easier job.  The people living in those houses aren’t willing to move, though.  Mayor Bing points out is that there’s not going to be a pot of gold waiting for those that are holding out, but it may not be that easy.  Some of the people have grown up in that area.

There’s also the cost of moving to consider.  There’s the president of a UAW chapter, George McGregor.  He’s shown telling the members that the plant wants to cut wages.  This could mean a loss of $20 to $150 per week, depending on the person’s job.  The workers are hurting so much that one moves to not even vote on it.  (If they can’t afford to stay where they are, how are they going to move?)

Another person featured in the documentary was Tommy Stephens, owner of the Raven Lounge.  He was able to buy a cheap house, for I think $6,000.  (It did look like he was going to have to do some renovation.)  He’s able to hang in there, but a lot of people aren’t.  He was commenting that a lot of the houses on his block were vacant.  One was even set on fire.

I get the impression from this documentary that Detroit is in trouble, but I know that from reading the newspaper.  I think we all know that.  The documentary just shows the level of decay that the city is in.  We get to see an abandoned train station.  There are also gutted apartment buildings that were probably nice at one time.  This is where the movie is interesting to watch, if you’re in to that sort of stuff.

There really aren’t any solutions offered.  Yes, it’s a complicated issue.  It’s not like anyone has some sort of magic wand they can wave over the city to fix everything.  The movie doesn’t really even seem to point at any one cause of the decay.  There’s a sense that your city could be next, but there’s not much to be learned.  It’s not like if you do A, B and C, you’ll go bankrupt.

The movie does also sort of ramble a little bit.  We see clips of the Stephens at work, then going to a car show.  We also see some tourists at a coffee shop and the woman working there thankful that the opera house across the street occasionally sends her customers.  We also see McGregor fielding calls from union members asking if the have a vision (as in eyeglasses) plan, which had to be cut as part of a deal.

The documentary ends with Stephens talking about a hypothetical neighbor’s house being on fire.  He says that if you don’t help put out the fire, your house could be next.  The thing is, how do you put out a fire when you don’t have the tools?  Yes, it’s a complicated issue, but I would have liked to see more.  The movie served as a good starting point, showcasing some of the problems Detroit has, having to worry about services and even having to cut some back.  I’m wondering if there are other documentaries about Detroit out there. 

Detropia - Trailer

Official Site