Freaky Geeky: Seth Gordon, Co-Director of Freakonomics and King of Kong

  • Share
  • Read Later

He took on the controversies in the gaming world with his documentary King of Kong, and now Seth Gordon is taking on real world problems in Freakonomics. The documentary is based off the best selling book which takes everyday situations and uses economics to explain them, including cheating in sumo wrestling and how it compares to data about cheating teachers and how legalized abortion might have actually decreased crime. It’s much more thrilling than any college textbook, and the documentary is taking the same message and bringing it to the filmgoing audience.

Seth Gordon, who is one of the directors and one of the executive producers on the film, talks about how the Freakonomics movie works and makes the “boring” economics subject something people are buzzing about.

Michelle Castillo: How is it returning to documentaries?

Seth Gordon: It’s what I love. Docs are better. They just don’t pay the bills. They are way cooler. It’s what I like watching when I have time. The best movies are rooted in reality.

MC: Did you have any economics knowledge going into the movie?

SG: My folks teach economics among other things. So, the concepts have been around the dinner table since I grew up. When the lead producer got in touch with me, I liked it. He told about the approach where they would use these different directors to do an omnibus directing of the book. I thought it was a phenomenal idea. I got a chance to assemble the team and deciding how I would fit in the team since I was also wearing a producer hat on the team.

[youtube id = “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56k1xVAq290”%5D

MC: One of the beauties of Freakonomics is that you don’t have to understand everything about economics to enjoy the book. How did you translate that to the movie?

SG: I put a focus on anecdotes, because I thought that that’s more relatable than research. It showed that those issues – that are not thought of as economic problems – are nevertheless that are best analyzed with those principles in mind. (The authors) did a really good job of making those issues intelligible, relatable, and understandable through issues of economics. When we approached it, we thought about how they approached the book. That’s why we chose an animation style for most of the sections. Not only does it take the edge off, it makes it easier to understand. It all makes sense once you see it.

MC: What was your favorite chapter in the Freakonomics book?

SG: That Roe versus Wade chapter. I think that’s part of what the book got recognized so far and wide. That is such an intense thing they’re saying. That proposal for what really led to the drop in crime is profound. It’s pretty hard to dispute their findings because they’re so well researched. That was why it is my favorite. I like a lot of the shorter anecdotes…. Reading an economics book is not off putting. Freakonomics is pretty readable and intelligible, which is why the book has done really well.

MC: I know that the movie uses different directors. What did your part focus on? Did your parent’s economics background help you?

SG: My sections were focused on (the book authors Stephen) Levitt and (Stephen) Dubnar. I know that the way that I approached the interview was with years and years of talking about that stuff (with my parents). Regression isn’t a normal conversation in most homes.

MC: Freakonomics is serious compared to your more lighthearted, but incredibly enjoyable King of Kong. Do you change mindsets from project to project?

SG: I think King of Kong is incredibly serious. A lot of the social science that drives my approach to Kong is in Freakonomics. The pursuit of the video game score might seem inherently dynamic, but the social dynamics that occur, like backstabbing and cheating, are serious.  We tried to reach deeper themes that anybody could relate to.

[youtube id =”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMJZ-_bJKdI”%5D

MC: What about adjusting for your work on television, like on Modern Family, to your documentaries?

SG: For me the two types of work are sort of the antidote to each other. Documentary allows me to get into a different story telling style that is very rewarding creatively. The more commercial stuff… sometimes it’s just great to go to a movie and laugh.

MC: What’s next for you?

SG: I just finished Horrible Bosses for Warner Brothers.

I just follow my gut. If it’s something I find interesting, if I pursue it rigorously enough, it will work out.

MC: That sounds like it could be a documentary.

SG: It’s not, but it’s certainly based on real world stuff!

  1. Previous
  2. 1
  3. 2