I object to the phrase "his work."

Scott is about as far from an auteur as a director can be. He's not a genius, nor an artist, but a craftsman. Watch his body of work from beginning to end, and it demonstrates the hallmarks of a man who simply likes to stay employed. There exists zero thematic connection between his works, and many moments of brilliance are often due to actors and screenwriting rather than to Scott's ability to fuse narrative with image. In fact, he's made more bad or mediocre films than good ones. Scott seems to have the uncanny ability not to be able to tell a good script from a bad one. His only concern is image, and he's never been too great at working with actors. The fact that he can get A-list talent saves his ass more often than not.

Scott made two of the most important, influential sci-fi films of the 20th century, "Alien" and "Blade Runner," followed it with a competently entertaining fantasy, "Legend," then made two of the worst movies of the 80s, "Someone to Watch Over Me" and "Black Rain." (And isn't is really, really odd that he's never made another sci-fi film?)

BR was a perfect example of how great collaboration produces great film; there's a long list of amazing talent attached to that film.

So, if you'll pardon my French, but I could give a crap about "the larger context of his work" and his "personal tid bits." He just doesn't deserve that kind of reverent analysis!