Mckee vs. Weston

I believe that using Mckee's approach you are limited to thinking in terms of methods, whereas with Weston's approach you have much more freedom to look in all different aspects of the characters, and delve into what you believe is the underlying ideal behind them. With McKee, it almost seems as though it's a paved route to finding your intuitive basis. In this approach I find that John is driving the script, because he is the one doing the question and urging the battle of wits between him and Graham. If you look at the scene from the beginning you see that it is John who makes the first conflicting comment, and John who ends the scene with a suggestion which will later drive the story. Using Weston's approach you can almost go completely off track with your notions, and end up with a completely different result. Such as the fact that you could say John is not the one driving the scene, but it is Graham instead with his interest in Ann and his annoyance with his friend. Whether one method is better or worse than the other?  I think perhaps both methods should be applied to every script in some way, and a unique balance of the two will prove to be even more resourceful. 

Question 1: Is it logical to assume that with every script that will be a systematic approach to the analyzation? 

 

Question 2: If you prefer Weston's tactics of analyzing the scene, do you believe that you think more logically, or more with your feelings?