Takes a number of different ideas, based in and around economic/statistical concepts and attempts to communicate those formulated thoughts to the audience. Some are used are “fillers” to set the theme for the upcoming short or to explain that what we think to be true may not necessarily be true.
Gibney’s Pure Corruption – by far the most interesting and informative of the segments that also wasn’t trying too hard.
I liked the opening and closing credits.
The research behind Spurklock’s piece.
I really didn’t like Jarecki’s style – dealing with issues such as crime and abortion with a hipster narrator and base animation didn’t do anything for me.
Drawing on people’s own racist mindsets for jokes.
Relying on schadenfreude.
Ewing and Grady’s over managed incentive piece on education.
Look, it isn’t a bad film per se, it just didn’t have that cohesion that a good multi-directorial documentary needs. They tried to do it, but it didn’t really come off. To me, the to camera banter felt like add ins on a DVD that had all the segments on it – they didn’t really tie them together or engage me.
Further to this I felt that most segments lacked resolution – if they were meant to be a mini movie in the greater movie/documentary within a documentary – surely the basic structures need to be followed. I think that is why I liked Gibney’s Pure Corruption so much. It set the scene – I met the protagonists, I felt empathy for the players, it related back to something I knew and then tied it all up neatly – all while being beautifully shot and lyrically narrated.