TheAgitator.com
In What Universe Did I Wake Up?
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010How in the hell did Morgan Spurlock end up directing the Freakonomics movie?
26 Responses to “In What Universe Did I Wake Up?”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Maybe as revenge we can get George F. Will to direct a movie version of Nickled and Dimed.
Seems like a pretty natural choice to me. Spurlock has shown an ability to make interesting movies about quirky non-fiction topics. Just because you disagree with his politics doesn’t mean he can’t like the same books as you.
And actually, he’s just one of many directors working on the project: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/a-freakonomics-film-bleg/
I honestly don’t get what your perceived irony is here. Freakonomics is a book about sumo wrestlers cheating and ghetto baby names. It’s not like he’s directing The Fountainhead.
@Socktopi, thanks for the chuckle. I needed that after reading about Ryan Frederick’s appeal denial.
And Sam Mendes may be directing the next Bond flick. I’m not making this up:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-bigpicture6-2010jan06,0,6719344.story
I’m more annoyed he’s directing the Simpsons documentary.
I’m anxious to see Spurlock inject issues of fairness and nannyism into Freakonomics. God knows, the one thing Freakonomics was missing was a softer side.
I don’t think Spurlock is that bad. I disagree with a lot of his premises (no one needs to tell me that eating McDonalds for a month would probably not be the most healthy decision). Even then though (and please correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t recall Super Size Me ultimately advocating some kind of state action to restrict fast food, only that people educate themselves about what they’re eating; something I see absolutely nothing wrong with. There’s no reason he can’t make a movie that does justice to the book.
@ #5 | Andrew Williams
Yeah, I read that too. I thought he was supposed to be developing the Preacher movie. Wonder if that fell through. Again. It’s probably for the best if it did. After the freakout the right had over The Golden Compass, can you imagine what would happen with a Preacher movie?
Anyone want to chime in about Spurlock and his nannystatism? I don’t know enough about him to know what his stances are on anything. Anyone got citations?
Meh. Freakonomics was a good read, but from what I recall (and it’s been a while since I read it) it didn’t really have much of an agenda. The only mismatch I can see here is that Spurlock is an idiot and the book’s not that stupid, but it’s not like Michael Moore doing a remake of Free to Choose or anything.
InMD,
I recall pretty clearly that toward the end of the movie he starts to get on a soapbox about saving poor people from their own bad choices. He doesn’t go so far as to outrightly advocating regulation but there is plenty of implicit advocacy/fanning of self-righteous flames.
Personally I think Spurlock is an over-earnest self-righteous dick-weed. I am pretty sure dickweed is one word but I was on an over-hyphenating kick.
_____
I heard one of your Co-Editors talking about cellphone driving bans on KUOW here in Seattle earlier today, Radley. I didn’t have time to call in on my cellphone from my vehicle and throw in a shout out to you so this has to suffice.
I’m surprised that I’d have to spell this out on Radley’s site of all places. The irony here is that the principle behind Freakonomics is to use objective data to find interesting truths about the world, and that Spurlock’s guiding principle is to manipulate data and lie to push an obvious agenda. One has scientific rigor and ethics, the other completely ignores them. Whether their politics are the same is irrelevant, they have polar opposite views on intellectual honesty.
In honesty I think the problem is with the concept of Freakonomics as a movie more than it is about the choice of director.
Movies are supposed to entertain rather than to educate, and playing fast and loose with the truth is the only way to make a documentary interesting enough to put on the big screen.
Michael Moore and Spurlock are popular with the masses for precisely the reason that they’re unpopular with anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject matter they document. They select a few of the facts and then twist them with enough innuendo, omission or outright fiction to give a single storyline.
Anyone who’d do a better job of representing the facts would make a movie guaranteed to underwhelm cinemagoers. That’s why the movies are best left to proper fiction (rather than fiction masquerading as fact).
At # 12
I haven’t seen it since it came out so I guess I didn’t remember that part. I’m not a fan of the guy or anything I just was kind of unclear on why Radley found his selection so crazy.
If he did go on a rant about saving poor people from themselves then I do think that is foolish. Granted I do find obesity pretty disgusting and from experiences with some relatives and other people in my life I will say that it is not a good way to live. It’s simply pathetic when you’re around people who can’t even walk a couple blocks or get winded going through a parking lot. All that being said though I would never advocate any kind of state action against it. What people eat and do to their bodies is their own business. I guess what it comes down to is I have no problem with private individuals or organizations trying to convince others to embrace healthier lifestyles but I do have a problem with the government forcing it on people and businesses through regulations like the transfat laws and similar measures.
Spurlock and Moore as propagandists, plain and simple. They’re both good at it, and they make amusing, persuasive films. You just have to remember what you’re watching.
Hell, they can’t even get Good Omens made, what makes you think a Preacher movie will be forthcoming?
I’m surprised that I’d have to spell this out on Radley’s site of all places. The irony here is that the principle behind Freakonomics is to use objective data to find interesting truths about the world, and that Spurlock’s guiding principle is to manipulate data and lie to push an obvious agenda. One has scientific rigor and ethics, the other completely ignores them. Whether their politics are the same is irrelevant, they have polar opposite views on intellectual honesty.
This.
Click on the embedded “Morgan Spurlock” link.
I read this about his show, “I Bet You Will”…
“The show’s premise? Find people on the street — passers-by, homeless people, store clerks — and pay them money to do ridiculous things. Usually, these stunts involved eating something disgusting (and, usually, unhealthy). Spurlock paid people to eat dog feces, an entire jar of mayonaise, and to do shots of cod liver oil. He paid one man to eat a clam out of another man’s armpit. He paid one woman to shave her head, mix the shaved hair with butter, than eat the entire concoction. If you think it’s odd that a guy who got famous scolding McDonalds for profiting from bad nutrition first made a name for himself by videotaping people eating disgusting things — well, I guess that makes two of us.”
Ask Spurlock if he ever feels guilty for getting people to embarrass themselves in public and he says: “No way. Everybody knows what they’re getting into. Everybody has a good time. If somebody walks by and doesn’t enjoy it, hey, it’s a free country. Just keep on walking, man.”
Now I see why he’s full of shit.
Thanks for explaining @13 – I wasn’t asking rhetorically; I honestly didn’t get the supposed Irony until you spelled it out.
As to whether that premise holds up; I have my doubts. I wouldn’t describe the SuperFrekonomics chapter on fixing global warming with rain machines as “using objective data to find interesting truths about the world” and Spurlock’s show “30 days” always struck me as an honest attempt to understand the perspective of others. But for those who think Spurlock is a deliberately dishonest propagandist while Freakonomics is the paramount of of rigorous science, then I guess the choice might seem odd. To me those classifications of both seem a little extreme.
@19
Radley, if that embeded link is the best case against Morgan Spurlock, I’m embarrassed. I was prepared to believe that he might be disingenuous, since I hadn’t seen his Mcdonald’s movie in years and didn’t know too much about the guy, but the nonsense that passes for a take down over at Morgan Spurlock Watch makes me think he must be an okay filmmaker or we’d have some real dirt on the guy.
If that website isn’t enough to convince you that Spurlock is a hypocrite, then I guess you aren’t going to be convinced by anything.
Radley, if that embeded link is the best case against Morgan Spurlock, I’m embarrassed.
Huh. Well given that I wrote everything on that site, I guess this isn’t the blog for you, then.
There’s lots on that site that’s “embarrassing,” but not on my part. Should I be embarrassed that I pointed out that he cites sources that actually state the exact opposite of what he attributes to them? That he prints easily debunked urban legends as fact? That he grossly overestimates negligible risk to stir up hysteria about non-threats like Mad Cow Disease?
Tell me, what exactly should I be embarrassed about?
I’m guessing Socktopi just glanced at the layout and projected the aesthetic qualities onto the content
Remember what Einstein once said: “The Universe is stranger then we can ever imagine” That goes double for this Planet!