Originally Posted by Excelsior.
I don't think, when assessing a work, how committed the filmmaker was mentally or physically as he was making it should matter. Or how much of a good time the actors may or may not have had. Only what's on screen should be scrutinized. A filmmaker could have a billion excuses or a crew can have a zillion anecdotes of precise events that led to the formation of an improvised scene that may have weakened the film; none of those really matter, what matters is that it is on the finished work and it is a legitimate mar, no matter where it came from. A film should be judged by itself, separated from whatever production machinery that helped birth it.
Let us not forget that actors often have the most grand time working on the most mediocre romantic comedies, while some of the greatest, most challenging films ever made have had incredibly troubled productions, many involving scuffles between demanding directors and actors. Backstage shenanigans don't really matter. What matters is the finished piece of artifice, and only that.
Then it is enough to simply say that the work failed. It still doesn't justify pointing the finger and making unfounded accusations that the filmmaker didn't care, especially if the backstage side of things supposedly doesn't matter.
I make the distinction because one is attacking the film itself, the other is attacking Nolan's integrity. There's a big difference.