Meditation on Genius

In Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers" he advances the theory that 10,000 hours of practice seem to be the magical number to achieve the level of a genius. So, contrary to popular thinking, talent is no guarantee of greatness, but grind (plus a bit of genetic disposition) is. An extract of the book giving some examples can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/15/malcolm-gladwell-outliers-extract

This got me thinking about filmmaking and some of its geniuses. The more I looked for filmmakers which I considered good, the more I found long formative periods that would certainly account for the 10k hours or more in some cases. This would dispel the notion that artists are born, not made, at least for making films...

Starting with Classic Hollywood, those 10k hours would be fairly easy to achieve for most filmmakers. After all making films was a day job for them with punch-clocks and monthly wages. Let's look at John Ford's career for example: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/. That's 20 years and a bit between the first movie and Stagecoach. Similarly, Billy Wilder (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000697/) 20 some years between debut feature and Sunset Blvd, although one can make a point he achieved greatness before that. What they do have in common though is how often and how much they worked day in and day out at their craft, unlike contemporary filmmakers who direct a film every 4 or 5 years (if they are lucky).

Speaking of contemporary filmmakers, some of them share too this practice period before the first great work.
* Ming-Liang - 11 TV films during a period of 6 years before the breakthrough "Rebels of a Neon God"
* Mike Leigh - 9 TV plays over a decade before "Meantime"
* Ozu - 12 features over 7 years before "Floating Weeds"
* Tarr - 5 features over 9 years before "Damnation"

Is this all a coincidence? Or maybe there is some worth in hard work, even in the artistic field..