To you, why think the medium is bad when you could've simply thought maybe you have wildly different standards on optimal preference?
>Un Flic by Jean Pierre Melville is the perfect example of a film deprived of all the ills that plague the medium
A poor example due to many of the characters showcasing a moral example.
One of the robbers, an ex-banker, lived a relatively peaceful life with a caring wife and had to make her live in total shame when it was discovered he was one of the culprits, he ended himself in their room when this happened. This is explicit intent by the director.
And of course the flic himself, who did his job the best he could, almost flawlessly but still finished it half-assed because they got to complete another job, didn't get the money back AND pulled a trigger too soon, practically executing an unarmed man in broad daylight. Even his partner belittled him, all the work went to the trash because in France that meant a demotion or a stain in your reputation/curriculum file. Obviously his cold-faced and frustrated gaze at the end is explicit director's intent.
Then you have the main thief's girl, who cucked the man and betrayed his interests (to help him get a bargain easily, lol women) but was paid in spades when the flic executed him on the street with her as witness. Her disgusted and hopeless reaction, displayed on a close-up, is explicit intent by the director.
The "example" our good old Hack Melville might've wanted to tell us (might
because he was known to throw shit into the wall to see what sticks) is that crime doesn't pay like always (all his movies show this) that one should not play with people we care for if one cannot withstand the consequences (ex-banker, bar whore, the old man with homo tendencies, the flic) and that everything can go to hell in the end with one mistake (the thief, the flic, the thief that got killed in the beginning)
Obviously these need a viewer who can interpret facial expressions as well as knowing that some scenes and reactions don't appear magically on the editing process, if a close-up of a sad person appears it means the director instructed the actor to show that, told the camera crew to move the rig to create the frame and told the editor to include it IF he was a free worker because sometimes productions/executives are the ones who control the editors. Still i don't blame you for disliking preachy scripts via dialogue choices, i tolerate them when they speak to my morals but dislike them when they don't so quite "hypocritical" from my part. Perhaps you would like a more visual narrative style?
>Only films like these are the ones I can watch without feeling repulsive afterwards.
Somewhat this standard of yours is a good thing, because it makes you a potentially interesting artist if you dared to write, draw or direct a project. I like Melville's methodical montages very much so i would def pursue seeing a work from an artist with such a rigorous taste.