What makes a film good or bad is not the sum of it's individual parts. I like to use The Social Network as an example. It's one of the most technically proficient films I've ever seen in all aspects, but the film itself is one of my least favorite I've ever seen. It just doesn't work like that.

I can see that opinion and I've periodically felt that way about Scorsese. Pure technical proficiency is important, but doesn't really extend the art. I see that a lot in music where some musicians aim for an error-free performance, while I prefer one with more soul. In film, Von Trier makes mistakes all the time and falls flat on some of his experiments, but his films are extremely interesting and feel more soulful because he is really trying to push the art forward.

But this doesn't really invalidate analyzing parts--I find that for most directors that is a good way of looking at the film. Honestly the "soul' or "flatness" feels like something that can be analyzed as well.