It’s an interesting and thoughtful essay. I don’t agree with the author’s assertion that the uneven quality of Scott’s work demonstrates some kind of flaw (though TBF, this assertion serves as a great launching pad for an exploration of his background and career).

I see that “flaw” as evidence of a willingness to take risk, something shared by other greats of the “big canvas” films (Kurosawa and Kubrick): an unrepentantly uneven oeuvre. You also see it in another master, Hitchcock: his framing was typically smaller, his work mixed, but when good, very good. Compare that to, say, Spielberg: excellent workmanship but never quite the risk taker. As a result you get results that are quite good but never sublime. In that sense more Greene than Scott is, despite the author’s assertion.

I think this is true of all the greats: we only have seven of Sophocles’ 100+ plays, but I console myself that they are surely seven of the best. And IMHO Shakespeare had his clunkers.