A Question for advocates of the film

Imagine a hypothetical scenario: the film is the same in every way, but it is directed by an American director and the cast are all Americans, speaking English.

Now the question is, does that change how you perceive the entire experience of UBWCRHPL, not only in terms of its hidden meanings and symbolism, but generally your perception of its artistic value overall: acting, cinematography, narrative, dialog, etc?

I read several threads on people's theories about the meanings of UBWCRHPL, the philosophical concepts and Buddhist underpinnings, the references, etc. I do get it. I have no problem with a non-linear storyline, or a slow pace. I even love reading subtitled films. BUT....for me, the glaring faults of the artistic realization of the ideas of this film, ruined the overall experience.

What do I mean by "glaring faults"? Basically, the horrible, wooden acting and unimaginative camerawork..these displayed little talent or vision. The dialog could have been improved also, though there's some to be said for a loss in translation no doubt. Simply put, we (Westerners overall) would not allow an American director for instance to get away with such poor directing, or American actors to get away with such poor acting. But, because this film is set in an exotic (to us) foreign country and directed by a foreign director, we cut him much more slack.

In my view; regardless of national origin of a film, director, actors, etc., the same aestetic standards should still apply. By that measure, UBWCRHPL was poorly done and no amount of profound source material or philosophical theme should excuse a badly done film.

Your thoughts?

_________________________________
"I'm sorry, but.." is a self-contained lie.