Almost every movie depicting famous artists have the problem that they rarely show the artist actually working - because this is really boring to look at. Perfo

Almost every movie depicting famous artists have the problem that they rarely show the artist actually working - because this is really boring to look at. Performing artists like musicians, dancers etc. are more entertaining to look at, but writers, painters, mathematicians, scientists etc. are not cinematic. Composing is not very cinematic either, unless you use narrative tricks like intercutting with performance of the finished piece. So in order to be watchable, the movies instead focus on the artists personality and private life, and the actual work part is reduced to the cliche of a flash-of-inspiration followed by a short montage of frenzied all-night work, resulting in finished masterpiece. This is of course an unrealistic depiction of the artistic process. The movie Amadeus makes a point out of how effortless Mozart creates as opposed to Salieri who has to struggle and only gets mediocre results. This is really the romantic myth of the inspired genius, and by playing up the silliness of Mozart, the movie shows genius as a divine gift wholly separate from the persons daily life. Showing Mozart practicing, struggle, making false starts, iteratively improving, having to scrap work etc. would undermine the message of the movie. This is the absolute opposite of the modern 10K hours myth which states that anyone can be a genius through hard work and dedication.