>Unlike film academics, these two really engage in the medium
>in a way that I think is exceptionally helpful for the writer
>and the director.

Most if not all artists have intentions. In a sense, Bordwell, Thompson, and their ilk reverse-engineer. I'm glad that they're not the only ones, but they are the most prominent and, IMO, the most readable and...best. While none of their books are manuals, they kind of are in that they can be, because, like you said, they're exceptionally helpful for the writer and director.

>They write much less about cultural context and much more
>about the actual craft of how these things are put together,
>what scenes/shots/sequences are trying to convey and how these
>succeed or fail, etc.

That's true. But, at the same time, critics of Bordwell and Thompson are wrong when they say cultural/social/political analysis is totally abandoned. Bordwell's monographs on Ozu, Dreyer, and Eisenstein (especially the Ozu one), place the artworks in cultural/social/politicial/historical context. Have you read Thompson's essay on Late Spring in "Breaking the Glass Armor"? She wrote about how the depiction in the film is radical in Japanese cultural terms. Great stuff.

>Bordwell's book on Ozu could serve as the basis for not just a
>course, but an entire film school curriculum (or at least one
>taught by me).

Co-sign. I wish there were more director monographs like it. Overwhelmingly thorough (in a great way). I hope he writes a Hou or Kiarostami monograph someday.