I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How exactly are they supposed to ring true, storytelling-wise?Mr Sheldrake wrote: ...I don't think he did either, they don't ring true to me, storytelling-wise.
I'm constantly astounded that viewers dismiss Peckinpah's film-making methods so casually and yet these same viewers are so willing to give other film-makers extraordinary leniency just because they share a similar perspective on the topic at hand (this isn't directed at any specific viewer, just a general trend with directors such as Peckinpah). Why are other film-makers allowed to submerge themselves in ambiguity and vagaries when exploring topics that are already ambiguous and vague, while somehow still being considered a genius within their field, whereas a film-maker who creates uncertainty with customary morality is deemed an ignorant, incompetent, amateurish brute? Why are viewers so quick to be dismissive of audacious choices made while cloaked within traditional film-making techniques, instead of perhaps taking some responsibility as a viewer for conceivably not understanding the film-makers intentions?
When I watch the work of any respected film-maker and don't immediately find a common perspective, I usually don't just assume the film-maker to be an idiot, unworthy of my time. Instead, I usually assume some of the responsibility and usually attempt to reduce the distance between my own perspective and the film-maker's viewpoint, which is usually more rewarding than just assuming he/she is a total idiot without any tangible skill.