Perhaps the biggest "move" that the filmmakers of Freakonomics used was the technique of presenting data. Simply presenting statistics is helpful when one goes about making an argument, but the way the protagonists used humor and cartoon-like visuals made it particularly easy to get across. This way the viewer thinks, "well, if they can handle it with humor, it must be legitimate!"
Which brings me to the second greatest move they used, the use of skits. Reenacting real life situations and stories that helped better their arguments takes place of giving the viewers a first hand experience. If 'seeing is believing', then a viewer is sure to buy a premise that is faithfully recreated.
Finally, I believe the third strongest technique or "move" that the filmmakers used was the focus on specific subjects, such as the two students during the segment about getting paid for grades. This creates a more intimate experience between the viewer and the subject he is watching, because in this case the subject (for all intents and purposes) IS real! This will lead the viewer to believe one of two things: they wish they were getting paid for grades, or they are glad that they are not in their shoes.
Sources
It seemed to me that while many of the sources of information that the filmmakers of Freakonomics used were historical statistics accumulated over time, they for the most part (to me) leaned on the side of the "expert opinion and experience" sources such as life stories. The statistics certainly help (especially in "It's Not Always Such a Wonderful Life", where it was all about nuance), but I found my opinions to me molded toward what people were saying and the stories the filmmakers were telling. This was notably successful when one of the protagonists related to his daughter. This might just mean that I am gullible, but I just found the abstract more convincing than the hard numbers.
Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices.
Absolutely! This picture took what I thought I knew, and brought a dynamic to several subjects that we all passively think about but never look into. As they brought up each segment, such as the one about paying students, I found myself to already have an opinion. This wasn't because I had open discussion with my peers about it beforehand, but simply because of my world views and what I consider acceptable. Many people, especially when it comes to the segment on names, are quick to judge, but never quick to analyze, which Freakonomics did elegantly. In much of the same way, very few of us delve deep into studying the habits and foodways of the United States people, but when the subject is brought up, most of us have things to say. Nothing about foodways seems weird on the outside, just like naming a child or a drop in crime rate, but when we study why things are the way they are and just how they got to be most of us have that special moment where nothing makes sense. This is what the filmmakers strive for, and in my humble opinion, they succeeded!
Evan,
ReplyDeleteOn your extremely strong blog, this seemed the sharpest and vividest of your posts.
I've selected you as "good model" for others to emulate.
One suggestion for improvement - on some of the precises that you did on Pollan, you slightly distort the author's perspective to something that sounds more like your perspective. Be careful to be accurate.