The primitive allure of movies is a thing of light and shadows.A bad film is one which doesn't flicker and move through lights and shadows, contrasts, textures by way of light.If I have these I don't mind phoniness (or the sincerity of clever actors), simple minded plots (or novelistic "good" plots), nonsense or seriousness (I don't feel non-sense in movies as a threat to my mind since I don't go to movies for the ideas that arise from sensibleness of ideas).
Images evoke feelings and ideas that are suggested by feeling.Nonsense on one given night might arouse contemptuous feeling and leave me with ideas of resolution which I might extend to personal problems and thus I might be left with great sense.It's a very personal process-thoughts via images and therefor very varied.More interesting to me than discovering what is a script writer's exact meaning.Images always give rise to a complex of feelings, thots, conjectures, speculations, etc. Why then place any value on good or bad scripts-since the best of scripts detracts most from the visual import.I suspect we are less comfortable in the visual realm than in the literary.Visual truths are blunt, whereas thots can be altered to suit & protect.
The eye falls into disuse as a receiver of impressions & films (images) mean nothing without word meanings.
[Jack Smith, Historical Treasures]