The Creative Brain

I have watched this documentary several times. I found that there is some clear guidance on where creativity comes from and some good recommendations for how to spur creativity in people.

I have read the other reviews and I think that they were expecting a doctoral thesis instead of entertainment. This documentary gives guidelines and examples of how humans create. Plain and simple.

As a social scientist, I found this rather painful to watch. There is a total overlook of the social factors that influence the conditions under which creativity is produced. Like any skill, the ability to be creative must also be promoted. That is why biologistic explanations alone are insufficient.

The film seems to be made without the use of a creative brain. No interesting form or content to be found here, just some of the most basic level psychology knowledge presented by an annoyingly slow voice over and lots of cheap dramatic music and the most obvious footage and animations. They interviewed some really creative people, but reduced them to a couple of mostly pretty uninteresting quotes each. This film could have been so much more, it's a shame.

There is very little substance here. I feel like rabbits got the short end of the stick when it came to evolution. It feels like it's trying to give you a hug the whole time which is pretty ok but I'm not sure that's what the title denotes. There's a lot of anecdotal unchallenged assertions that if explored would have been real creative. I feel like it might be best for someone to watch this show and take the doc's advice then redo the show with the same title as if the original never existed. Then go back and find a way to make people who watched it re-watch it at the same historical point they originally watched it so it's almost like the first version never exist. The fact that this is on Netflix should give everybody hope and a inclination that standards have been sufficiently lowered and maybe those who have failed to get on Netflix a little bit of a nudge into the "am I making the right career choice" whiskey bottle self exploration conversation... Cheers!

Eagleman talks at .75 speed the whole time. Its bad. Almost like he's talking to 7-year-olds. The intro drags. Much of the commentary from the features cast is dull or clichéd. That clip of the architect at the desk with the toy made me wonder if he was a paid actor; only a rubix cube in his hand could have made me roll my eyes harder.

Like.. the subject is cool-- that's why I clicked. And some of the featured cast said something interesting (many didn't.) But the narration is... painful. Either obvious, or clichéd, or patronizing, or self-important. How did this get made? Who edited it? Who produced it? Had it been pared down to 20 minutes of the best moments, and dropped 90% of the narration, it could have been worth it. Neuroscience is super cool, but Eagleman made it pretty damn irritating and tiresome. Eesh. Sorry dude.