Good films are not merely the usage of techniques; or art. It should not merely be an instrument of storytelling. On the contrary, both the elements are complementary. You cannot simply rely on a wonderful film technique or pick up a genre randomly from the territory of art(either that be, from literature, painting, or the like) and necessitate the usage without even its genuine necessity. That will turn into a menace of creating a deformed beauty, by a person who is scholar but at the same time, not intelligent. As long as it fits the demand of the story, the accumulation of the arts and techniques are a rather coerced juxtaposition to the audiences. Film techniques and arts are the power mediums, that strengthen the film to reach its essence , or take it to some levels of eternal achievements. It should not be the filmmaker’s futile urge, that leaves it void. In one word, film techniques or art forms must be exploited, not used. It must fill the film, not seize it's solidity and harmony of shots, scenes, and the sequences. Coming to storytelling. The story you are telling the audience must be told in the most artistic form, I mean to say, you must be clear of the tone. It must run as a poetry or a music unto the masses, rather than a mere narration. This calls for the right techniques and adequate art forms. That asks you as a filmmaker to be intelligent enough regarding the placement. Moreover the story that you are presenting should be completely believed by you first. That should not be an impact or influence of some other wonderful piece you have enjoyed watching. That would be a constructed disaster then. And it's better if you can foresee your presentation before it's even shot on camera, i.e. you can animate the whole story within your imagination. You can speculate the coming after the final output. It takes you a step ahead in choosing your crew, who can bring into effect what your story desiderates. Telling about stories ,I must bring it here that the people or the land you are speaking about must be brought to the audiences in their truest form. Now it isn't merely what the conscious eyes see(the lifestyle, the places, etc.), it's more about the unconscious thing. You have to sense it down. It's subtle, as often found in some wonderful poetry or music. The meaning that's beyond the terrestrial understanding. It depends on how you have felt the society. You are not to choose the subject, the subject needs to choose you. It comes from the undaunted urge that burns within you, to bring the pictures into some living forms. That will unknowingly place the dialogues in the right place, with exact timing(neither a moment late, nor a moment ahead, opposing which transforms the whole work to be mechanical). Another thing, it will continuously express unto you is it's tone, when the camera exploits the stuff. You are not going to be convinced if the cinematographer is unable to bring it's real nature. The shots ,the cuts are already presented in the screenplay running within you. You do not have to toil for the efficient dialogues in a scene or context. You have already lived the story many times and the audience is just going to watch the POV shots of your imagination that's really true. The subtle things doesn't come up with your knowledge of films, or the scholarly reading that you have carried on throughout years. It rises from the inner experience that you have earned and stored into your sub-conscious treasury; many times shaking your conscious personality to come out. Films are therefore, nor simply storytelling, neither the knowledge of technique or art. It requires your alert senses to experience to the core, the context, the pathos, along with the exact understanding and usage of techniques, genres and arts, when and why they are to be used.