Entertainment one vs "cerebral" one - what would you pick?

Tools    





Registered User
It's all for entertainment, but that definitely fails when a director tries to make a "cerebral" movie. 2001 is a great example of that. It tries so hard, but at the end of the day, nothing is really explained except that a rock turned apes into humans. It's a great movie to fall asleep to, but if you're looking for something to think about, there's not a lot to go on. The matrix tried hard, but in order to make it work, they had to come up with one of the most perplexing plots ever. The only time it becomes cerebral is when agent Smith is explaining that the original matrix failed because it was too perfect. That's a clear reference to Calhoun's mouse utopia experiments. He set up a perfect environment for a few select mice. It had everything mice could want, with no predators to contend with. The result is that after a few generations, the mouse population died in what can only be described as a dystopian mousepocalypse.



zodiac, blade runner, space odyssey
I havnt seen both of the others to compare.
im assuming i picked all cerebral, i love art films and atmosphere.



Inception vs Memento

Fight Club vs Zodiac

The Terminator vs Blade Runner

Goodfellas vs The Godfather

Star Wars vs 2001: A Space Odyssey
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



2001 is a great example of that. It tries so hard, but at the end of the day, nothing is really explained except that a rock turned apes into humans.

This is the equivalent of saying a dog is nothing but four legs and a nose.

You might be overlooking a few things.



Welcome to the human race...
Yeah, you can't always expect a film to explain everything, especially if it risks compromising itself artistically. When it comes to "thinking about it", 2001 trusts its audience to pick up on certain motifs that recur throughout the film and formulate ideas as a result - the apes evolving into humans is part of a theme of progression reflecting in humans creating artificial intelligence with HAL 9000 and culminating in humans themselves evolving into a new life form at the end. Likewise, I'm not sure what exactly makes the plot of The Matrix one of the most perplexing plots ever - it's certainly not out of structural complexity because it's a stock-standard hero's journey. But again, that's just another reason why trying to divide films into a binary system of "entertaining" and "cerebral" is kind of a fruitless endeavour.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



I have trouble understanding any talk of 2001:ASO not being a first-viewing masterpiece.
I saw it the first time, I was floored by it and also left feeling like I had not completely grasped it, in a good way, the way that invites future viewings and more thought.
When I think of the shortest list of Great American Films, I cannot imagine it without 2001. I would almost say that its absence from any such list would cast extreme doubt on the validity of the list for me.



I'd rate 2001 a 5/5, but I'd say one has to be in the right mood to fully enjoy it. It's not a movie you can watch on your phone while eating dinner and still love the movie. It requires full attention and big screen in a darkened room is a big plus for enjoying the vastness of 2001.



Lol @ the people saying the original star wars trilogy is "stupid and empty", I have watched that series since I was a kid, I recently downloaded and watched it again and it was just as cool. The only problem with it is the failure to explain the fantasy world: how do they build stuff so fast?? Where do they get their resources from?? Its not as good as dune but star wars OG is ****ing fun as hell, great scripting and acting!


However, after the final three in the sequence (the earliest 3) it does become total crap immediately. I have not seen mandalorian but it seems like garbage.


I'm gonna have to watch space odyssey again now...



Lol @ the people saying the original star wars trilogy is "stupid and empty"

No one here has said this.


It's almost like when people start labelling some movies cerebral and other movies entertaining, these reflexive misunderstandings start popping up.



Lol @ the people saying the original star wars trilogy is "stupid and empty", I have watched that series since I was a kid, I recently downloaded and watched it again and it was just as cool. The only problem with it is the failure to explain the fantasy world: how do they build stuff so fast?? Where do they get their resources from?? Its not as good as dune but star wars OG is ****ing fun as hell, great scripting and acting!

However, after the final three in the sequence (the earliest 3) it does become total crap immediately. I have not seen mandalorian but it seems like garbage.

I'm gonna have to watch space odyssey again now...
No one here has said this.

It's almost like when people start labelling some movies cerebral and other movies entertaining, these reflexive misunderstandings start popping up.
CringeFest didn't say people here on this thread, he just said people (which could mean people anywhere). So in fact you're labeling CringeFest for saying something you call false, while your own claim might be false.



Personally, I think it's fine to say that some movies are cerebral while other films are more concerned with entertainment, because this can, in fact, be the case. Where this gets fuzzy is when people use this metric to criticize entertaining films on the basis that they're not cerebral. I don't think films which are primarily interested in entertainment are innately dumber or less impressive than thematically complex films. Arguing between highs and lows in art is a wormhole of a discussion. Complexity is a point of value, but so is entertainment. That should also be classified when determining greatness. Spielberg, for example, isn't a worse director than, say, Bresson because his films aren't as thematically complex. He just has different ambitions in mind and isn't interested in achieving what Bresson achieves, just as Bresson isn't interested in achieving what Spielberg achieves. Both are excellent filmmakers. Just different sides of the stylistic coin.

With that being said though, I don't think Ezrangel or anyone else in this thread is arguing that entertaining films are worse than cerebral films. Or vice versa. I think this thread is simply asking "Which one do you like more?"



Anyways, here are my opinions:

Inception vs Memento

Fight Club vs Zodiac

The Terminator vs Blade Runner

Goodfellas vs The Godfather. Still haven't seen The Godfather. Need to get on that soon.

Star Wars vs 2001: A Space Odyssey



I will cautiously say I tend to pick cerebral films. Primer, Moon, most Moorhead and Benson stuff (though by now I expect to be disappointed by Synchronic) and Coherence are some of my favourites. I do enjoy commercial films. However, I think the distinction is warranted. Tenet was definitely ‘cerebral’ by Nolan’s standards, even in comparison to Inception.

What I liked about Tenet, upon a few months of reflection, is the sheer bravery of the idea. Yes, the film doesn’t quite work. Yes, there’s too much going on and it’s too complicated for its own good. But I think I’d like it a lot less if it were ‘cleaner’ and more user-friendly like Inception. Therefore, I’d cautiously put myself on the cerebral side.

I think cerebral films tend to be low-budget and hence they can afford to explore ideas. That also means, by extension, that they sometimes spend less time on relationship arcs, and people end up being less invested in them for that reason. Personally I very much like films on concepts/ideas, so cerebral works for me.

The thing I liked about Tenet, even though I understand, analytically, that it’s more of a weakness, was that no relationship ever developed between the Protagonist and Kat. Tenet was criticised for its emotional ‘coldness’, like a lot of Nolan’s work, and I think that emotional detachment is what attracts me to cerebral films.

As for the examples here, I don’t know if I’d classify Zodiac as ‘cerebral’ per se. It’s long and it requires patience, but it’s not a puzzle as such. You don’t have a mind**** moment. It’s not like Coherence or even Mulholland Drive where you think,
WARNING: spoilers below
Oh, Dianne and Betty might be the same person...
. I think Zodiac lets you watch the protagonist piece the ‘proof’ puzzle together while it signals quite unambiguously who it takes to be the killer. It might seem boring to some people, but it’s not something that forces the viewer to work like Primer does.



CringeFest didn't say people here on this thread, he just said people (which could mean people anywhere). So in fact you're labeling CringeFest for saying something you call false, while your own claim might be false.

It's totally possibly they are bringing up the attitudes of people out in the 'real world', and its in reference to nothing actually in this thread. But using the terms 'stupid and empty' are almost directly pulled from the first line of my post


I just don't like creating this dividing line where the implication seems to become something like Star Wars is the opposite of cerebral (ie. dumb, empty)

It seemed to me to be an understandable misreading of what I was trying to say, and that it was me calling it stupid and empty, when I was implying the opposite.



Could I have misread their post? Sure, of course. I'm pretty sure the internet was almost exclusively designed for people to misread eachother. Which is why I have hesitations using the kind of labels we are talking about in this thread. They pull people into separate camps from the get go, when we're essentially all talking about the same thing: watching movies. Let's at least just start on that common ground, and then work towards finding all of the things that will inevitably start dividing us.



Inception vs Memento

Fight Club vs Zodiac

The Terminator vs Blade Runner

Goodfellas (more entertaining for sure) vs The Godfather

Star Wars vs 2001: A Space Odyssey

Interested to see what people think here
Inception
Fight Club
Blade Runner
The Godfather
2001



It's totally possibly they are bringing up the attitudes of people out in the 'real world', and its in reference to nothing actually in this thread. But using the terms 'stupid and empty' are almost directly pulled from the first line of my post


I just don't like creating this dividing line where the implication seems to become something like Star Wars is the opposite of cerebral (ie. dumb, empty)

It seemed to me to be an understandable misreading of what I was trying to say, and that it was me calling it stupid and empty, when I was implying the opposite.
CringeFest might have misread your post and been responding to you, but who knows for sure? Let's ask him @CringeFest were you responding to crumbsroom's post?

Could I have misread their post? Sure, of course. I'm pretty sure the internet was almost exclusively designed for people to misread each other.
Agreed, it's almost impossible to determine exactly what someone's intent is, that's why I suggested CringeFest might be talking about other people (in the real world, or maybe even on another thread here), who knows? as he didn't quote anyone.

Which is why I have hesitations using the kind of labels we are talking about in this thread. They pull people into separate camps from the get go, when we're essentially all talking about the same thing: watching movies. Let's at least just start on that common ground, and then work towards finding all of the things that will inevitably start dividing us.
If we can't use labels in an attempt to communicate to others what our feelings are for any given movie...it then becomes even more difficult to discuss films.

Terms like: esoteric, action-packed, slow-burn, blockbuster, sleeper, snooze fest, outdated (that's the one I hate!) and many other commonly used descriptive terms help to relay one's movie opinion.



CringeFest didn't say people here on this thread, he just said people (which could mean people anywhere). So in fact you're labeling CringeFest for saying something you call false, while your own claim might be false.

Lol, no, crumbs room is right: this is what happens when I read **** online without sleeping much: I take **** out of context.


Frankly I agree with crumb: that the distinction is not incredibly useful but does make for some silly conversation. It's kinda like when ur a kid and you play 20 questions. Bogus human stuff but it's nice to fart in the wind.


Nice to see me accidentally creating drama/bogus arguing again!



I can understand comparing films in similar genres, but I'm not sure I get Fight Club vs. Zodiac.

Zodiac is a movie about the hunt for a real-life serial killer (it's basically a "real crime" movie) while Fight Club is... well... let's not even try to talk about Fight Club. (If I remember correctly, those are the rules.)