I think the key to any great art is some sort of emotional resonance for the audience, but I think you're wrong to quantify the audience's emotional investment in a movie with the degree to which the primary artist has "suffered immensely." I mean, don't you think that an artist might suffer deeply over some kind of existential question and then make a movie that is awful about it? Or that someone might begin to investigate some theme or perspective and make a very good movie based on that theme without having to go through the pit of despair to get there? I certainly do. I mean, I see your point, but I think it's dangerous to go down the "authenticity" road to quite the degree you're positing there. I mean, I do not think that I need to know whether a director or a screenwriter suffered over a movie in order to know whether the movie is any good or not. I think you're opening the door to letting in too much extraneous information. I mean, the key elements in deciding whether a work of art is any good or not are still actually in the work of art itself, and not in the biography of the artist. In my opinion.