some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others.  some
reject it passionately.
yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary
artistic force behind movies.

for instance, like LOR or not, we generally discuss it as the
visionary creation of peter jackson.  few, if any, have mentioned the
writers, editor, cameraman, CGI geeks, etc by name.

when we like or dislike a ron howard film, we discuss it in terms of
howard and not the writer, the editor, cinematographer.

whether we like or dislike titanic or attack of the clones all comes
down to how we think of lucas or cameron.

i guess 'auteurists' are specifically crediting or blaming the
director but how about anti-auteurists?  do you guys mention the
director in a comprehensive sense, as an embodiment of the entire
creative process behind the movie?

but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a
prodiractortographeditorgaffer?

<7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268...@posting.google.com>...

I agree it's a combination of all these ares that make a film. People tend
to focus on what they see or hear the most about. Hence the reason the
actors are often perceived as the talent behind the movies when they only
offer a piece to the puzzle. The directors names are so widely used as a
marketing tool along side the actors that if a movie performs poorly the
average person regards the director or actor as being the reason. I am
constantly amazed at the diffrence sound and music can make to a film.
mike

choral reef [yeah, right] wrote:

Why not ask who are the top ten auteurists and anti-auteurists in this
newsgroup?

I would nominate myself as about #23 on the auteurist list, at best.
Like a lukewarm agnostic who can't commit,  I have so many exceptions,
footnotes, uncertainties and yes-buts to my belief in the theory that
my status as a card-carrying auteurist has long since been revoked.

Is there value to studying films grouped by director? Sure, often. Just
like studying by genre; doesn't mean genre is the overwhelming be-all
and end-all force driving the making of films, but it makes study
managable and frequently enlightening. So I have just downgraded the
theory to wishy-washy nebulousity. OTOH there are clearly Welles films,
Fords, Capras, Hawks, Boettichers, etc. These men are artists every bit
as much as the greatest painters who single-handedly produced their art
(or supervised the brushes of their employees, students or
apprentices). OTOH, despite immense bodies of exceptional films, are
there Curtiz or Bacon films? Probably not; there are literally dozens
of films by each of these guys where I simply can't find them at all.
But I have a hard time understanding how, working under the same system
and with the same craftsmen as dozens of other directors, they were so
successful if they are not the artists primarily responsible for the
product.  I've got so many other hands on this issue that I've just
downgraded myself to #42 on the list. No commitment.

Most of us probably just refer to the director as a metonymic (or
synecdochic) shortcut; it's for the sake of convenience.

Well, now. . . in a long career of unusual suggestions, you've really
outdone yourself there!

--
Hope, Joy, Youth, Peace, Rest, Life, Dust,
Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness,
Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags,
Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, Gammon, and Spinach

I think it really depends on the director.  For example, a Tarantino, Wes
Anderson or P.T. Anderson is going to have final say on the music used in
their films (especially existing music, as opposed to score).  

It's a shame that writers aren't given the lions share of the credit
that they truly deserve, since without them everybody from the director
on down to the janitor wouldn't have a job.

IMO Peter Jackson & Co. did a pretty good job with Tolkien's "Lord
of the Rings" but like every movie ever made, he and everybody else
involved were simply technicians who ultimately could have been
replaced by anybody and the movie still could have been made.

Remove the writer thou, and you have nothing.

Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water.

Yes, it's true that the director and all of the other
technicians "could have been replaced by anybody and
the movie still could have been made". But the key point
is that they are *replaced*.

But when you say "remove the writer though, and you have
nothing" suggests that the writer cannot be replaced as
anyone else involved in making the film can be. This is
bogus. Writers can replaced just as easily as anyone else.

In fact, I would argue that writers are probably replaced
more often than directors.

-- jayembee

In article <d3aeee5b.0406111337.29ff0...@posting.google.com>,

Film making is a collaborative medium and usually, the directors are
suppose to have the final authority on the artistic side of things.  But
we know producers often overrule directors.

And writers are pretty low on the totem pole, below the directors and
actors who like to infuse their "input" on the script.

Directors are more like a managerial position.  They are chosen based on
their past financial performance (as are actors) and expected to deliver
the film in a way that enhances the economic value of the studio
property.

Particularly in these FX-fests, directors appear to be guiding the
actors how to move in front of a blue screen rather than drawing
emotional responses from them.

Who comes up with the "vision" to do the movie?  Do all directors
story-board how the movie is going to look or are there "visual
consultants" or "designers" who determine the look of a movie?  As well
as the FX people who can say what kinds of effects are or are not
possible?

but you mus surly know on barry lyndon the gaffer and sound guy was
maybe replaceable but not kuby.

cuz there's director as Personal artist--welles, bergy, fellini--and
director as able craftsman--zinnemann, curtiz, siegal, zemeckis.

casablanca is a great genre movie, not personal filmmaking.

there are directors who fall somewhere in between: ford, hawks, such.

This whole discussion reminds me of how some look at pro football.  If the team loses,
it's the quarterback's fault; if the team wins, the quarterback gets the praise, the
publicity and the money.  It's not true for football, and it's not true for movies.  I
guess I'm not an auteur.  

yes, it all depends on the contract.  an average hollywood director is
a hired hack craftsman.

largely because most writers are hired by the producer to write a
formulaic script. and, most screenwriters are cynical hacks who just
wanna break into the industry and give us cliche-ridden crap.

with the average hollywood product, director don't count much. i don't
care who directed X-men, terminator 3, pearl harbor, etc.   all same
shit.

however, even with hollywood movies, there are directors with a
personal vision and/or concept. cameron, jackson, wachowski brothers,
etc, like them or not, are not mere hired hacks.

On 10 Jun 2004 18:18:32 -0700, symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef)
wrote:

Directors get talked about most because they are, generally, the final
authority. Certainly, they work for the producers/studio, but they are
the ones whose vision influences things day to day - from script
polishing, to regular dealings with the FX folk to make the shots they
vision, to the actors and coaching them to give the performance they
want. to dealing with the cinematographer to get the look they want.

Like with any CEO, you have differing styles of running things. On one
end, you have the Kubricks, who work to create every painstaking
detail, to Eastwoods, who sorta let people do their own work in their
own way. But even in the later case, it is a specific influence that
creates the final work.

There is a new film by Jorgen Leth that they discussed today on NPR's
All Things Considered (I have not seen it yet). But it was 5 remakes
of the director's early short film, The Perfect Human, each one with
an "obstruction", or requirement (i.e. one had to be all in quick
shots (the antithesis of the first film), another animated, etc...). I
bring it up, and plan on seeing it myself, because it sounds like an
excellent chance to see how a director works - they all have their
personal "obstructions", or things they prefer to do, so this is a
chance to see the same script made 5 different ways.

Certainly, none of this is to disparage the hundreds of other people
who work on a film. But when discussing the overall piece, which is
what most discussion is about, talking about the director primarily is
important.

In article 7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268...@posting.google.com, choral reef at
symphonic...@hotmail.com stated:

The Cahiers crew succeeded in imprinting it on the popular imagination. Or
rather the media that has replaced it.

What the auteur theory came out of was the sense that film was a processed,
impersonal medium with a contrived, stagey air of unreality about it.
Imagine the studio system as a conveyor belt, each movie emerging with
'product' stamped on it. What it had in glamour and accessibility and
shorthand realism, it lacked in psychological purity. So, they sniffed out
what struck them as psychologically pure and canonized it.

The dream of Truffaut especially was to create a cinema as intensely
personal, as pure, as the novel. As a form, at its best, the novel gives you
a sense of the internal life of the writer to the point of becoming a
controlled psychic exorcism with all of his experiences, fears, and desires
gushing out, usually between the words. It can feel like the writer is
sitting in a room and directly addressing you, offering universal truths
without being didactic, and we revere writers who can reach that level. Why
can't a movie be the same? Must film be an irreparably schizo medium?
What's between the words in Hitchcock?

At least that's the impression that I get from 'The 400 Blows.' I think
Truffaut may have said as much somewhere.

And you know how those Frenchies love their 'theories.'

The problem is that film is made with a dark room full of people in mind
(you all). Novels are conceived in terms of the reader, an individual (you).
Film is experienced collectively, the novel personally. It's public rather
than private speech, with about a dozen authors at that! And public speech,
for better and worse, can never be as nakedly honest as private speech.
People are always more guarded and self-conscious -- rhetorical -- speaking
to a crowd, and a crowd has a psychology and set of responses all its own.

The power of film is its mass hypnotic effect, somewhat like Hitler's
speeches. It makes us feel part of something larger, and closer to the other
people viewing. You're an emotional hostage. Because of that it's probably
the most politically powerful medium: think of how much 20th century
totalitarianism invested in it.

(Television has the same hypnotic power, but stripped of cinema's positive
attributes [mythological resonance, connectedness]. It has the same powers
of persuasion, but numbs and isolates people beyond the possibility of
trying to do anything about it.)

If you remove Tolkien then "Lord of the Rings" is never written,
eliminate Mario Puzo and there is no "Godfather", no Stephen King
means "The Shining" never happens, ect ect ect.

In any movie ever made one could replace the director, lead actor,
hair dresser, caterer, ect on down the line and the movie can still
happen and thou I'm not suggesting that if Steven Segal had been
cast as Frodo, a "LotR" movie would still have been a success, with
_no story_ there simply is _no movie_.

Everything starts with the story, thus making the writer the most
important element in a movie.

I think the privileging of directors predates Cahiers. When I watch a
movie from the 1940s, the director's name is typically the final
credit, which has pertinent implications in any discussion of the
public's view of a director's importance.

But others would say that the blueprint for an aircraft design won't
get you to Paris.

Reminds me of a joke....

There' this hot chick, she really wants to be in a movie, she'll
do anything to get into the film but she's really really stupid.

How stupid is she?  She's so stupid...she sleeps with the
writer!

George

Plus certain directors were commodities long before Cahiers -- Capra,
Hitchock, John Ford, William Wyler, Huston

John Harkness

In article 4ibmc0d408edcpk8vjan8gne60q48bh...@4ax.com,
dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com at dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com stated:

I think the public would afford the writer more consideration before
Cahiers, which more or less set the ground rules for discussing film-as-art.
Because before then, unless I'm mistaken, there was little talk of the
"vision" of a movie. It was what it was, a product of many craftsmen. The
director was sort of the foreman on a construction project as the studios
understood it, and who had the ultimate say (and to what degree) varied
according to circumstance.

The most important thing Cahiers did was give the director
celebrity-capital, which goes a helluva long way, especially if you're a fat
bearded guy in a t-shirt and cap.

John R Rybock <ryb...@comcast.net> wrote in message <news:ho2lc0l4ibq5u7tr03rk73615d34g1uudf@4ax.com>...

i agree in cases of art or personal films.

1. think of woody allen and bergman. both have used sven nykvist, but
hannah and her sisters is ultimately a woody allen movie despite its
bergmanesque touches because its overall tone and spirit is
unmistakably allenian.  godard has worked with different cameramen but
all his films are, above all, godardian. godard wanted belmondo for a
certain movie and didn't get him. it's still a godard movie, with or
without belmondo.

2. jack nicholson has worked with milos forman, john huston, dennis
hopper, but under antonioni's wing, he was an antonionian
character--in the passenger.
of course, some directors are less demanding and perfectionist, and
are willing to let others work autonomously or interpret things their
own way.  but directors with strong personalities or total visions
want complete control and they get it.  and, it usually helps to have
a director with a strong vision and personality because
cinematographer, editor, sound guy, actors, etc. need instructions;
they may offer advice to the director but as a reponse. if  everyone
on the set does as he pleases, it's gonna be chaos. they need a man
with a comprehensive, unified and unifying vision. unlike sports,
there is nothing left to chance in art.  a coach tells a running back
to do whatever but it's stop-and-go and much is a matter of chance and
the other team. but art is worked on and on until you come up with a
fully realized product. if a shooting goes wrong, you reshoot it. if
an actor bumbles his lines, you make him read it again. and, in order
to bring it altogether, you need a guiding hand and vision.  if there
was no director, he would have to be invented. the writer would have
to take the director's job or the producer. or the actor. or the
cinematographer.  all these areas of filmmaking are specialized. it's
the director who's the comprehensive author behind the film.

3. a movie--even a great movie--need not be personal. of course, most
movies are not, for which the main author is the box office or
catering to public taste/demand.  but, midnight run is a great
nonpersonal movie with a formulaic script which was intelligently
written, wonderfully acted, ably directed.  a great car may not be a
work of art but it's a great piece of engineering and it's better than
shit pretending to be art.

4. however, i can't imagine a personal film without an overriding
author, and in most cases this author is the director or the director
in tandem with the writer, or on occasion with cinematopher or
composer.  last year at marienbad is a sterile writer's exercise but
resnais and his cinematographer's visual expression is breathtaking
and has to count for something. and, once upon a time in the west is
basically leone and morricone. leone furnished the visual language but
it'd lose half its power without morricone's outstanding score. it's
like jagger/richards or holland-dozier-holland. cooperative alchemy.
still, leone is the more important author since even without
morricone's score you'd have the movie but no leone, no movie; indeed,
no reason for the music to even exist.
the writer/director partnership is usually much more important. among
personal filmmakers, the director is often the writer--mamet,
antonioni, kurosawa(co-writer), bergman, lynch, peckinpah(co-writer),
coppola(co-writer).
still, usually in a movie partnership, the writer concedes that his
role is subservient to the director. he accepts that it's up to the
director to execute the final product.  he accepts that the director
is the boss and has the final say. otherwise, if the writer overrides
the director's decisions, then the writer is the defacto director,
just as demi moore who overrode joffe for scarlet letter was actress
as defactor director, a horrendous one from what i hear.
this is probably why the best writers work on novels or plays since
they know not to expect full autonomy working on a film where producer
or director is the ultimate boss.  no wonder that so many movies are
based on novels completed by  writers working on their own.  they
could not have produced those novels with a producer or director
breathing down their necks. indeed, when writers agree to work for
film, it's usually as a hired hack and don't get to do what they
really wanna do.  faulkner, gatsby, huxley, hemingway all worked for
hollywood, writing thirdrate scripts or doctoring them, but they were
always on the sideline.

the director is really a misnomer. a film director does more than
direct or interpret. he creates. a stage director is ultimately
limited by the stage. he may guide actors in a manner or call for
certain set designs but the stage remains static. ultimately, it's
actors and the script.  besides, the stage can never convince the
audience as a completely autonomous reality.  this is not so with
movies where the director--with all the technological power in his
hands--can do so much more to interpret, reshape, expand, explore,
warp the original material. rather than just a guide, he becomes the
shaper. not merely a presenter, he takes us on a journey. in music, we
think of composer and the conductor.  the movie director's conduction
is composition.
a director cannot NOT create. the medium becomes the art. our senses
becomes digested thru his vision.

5. there are certain movies where the director is replaceable, like in
the average hollywood genre movie where the formula is
well-established and the director merely goes thru set motions. in
these movies, the director is as replaceable as the editor or sound
guy or cinematographer... unless the director is a man of supreme
talent and vituosity, capable of doing stuff others can only dream of.
 think of john ford, steven spielberg.  ford westerns are genre pieces
and so are spielberg's action spectacles but only they knew how to
realize their full potential.
however, this is certainly not the case with personal films. replace
kurosawa with mizoguchi on seven samurai and it's a totally different
movie. have sydney pollock do the wild bunch and it'll be something
else. peckinpah's persona would have been somewhat different, i think.
i can't imagine masculin-feminin by anyone other than godard.
mulholland drive and eraserhead are lynch all the way. 2001 is kubrick
though dr. strangelove is a great alchemic product of the genius of
kubrick, sellars, and terry southern though kubrick still deserves the
lion's share for its greatness.

6. there are probably cases where film language is less important than
the dialogue, music etc.  in a wordy script, the dialoguist may be
deemed the personal artist. think of glengarry glenross where mamet is
the true author.
and, singing in the rain can't just be credited to stanley donen. gene
kelly and musical folks deserve as much credit. now, singing is not a
personal film, and glengarry glenross is a personal play but not a
personal piece of filmmaking which is all very fine.  still, the point
is in any personal work of art, there has to be a strong authorial
personality at the center. in film, it's usually the director but it
can the writer on occasion, as in glengarry glenross.
perhaps, nondirectors could be even more often the auteur in art or ...

read more »

you is partly right but not entirely.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

5. i think citizen kane is the crucial film in the 'auteurist' debate.
at the time, no director had complete control over subject matter,
technique, artistic freedom, at least not since the silent era.
citizen kane is a masterpiece of directorial vision though it would be
wrong to claim welles as the sole author. but he was the overriding
genius who brought and fused it altogether. it was auteurism in action
even before anyone coined the term auteurism.  what can a film be with
a strong director with vision, freedom, and personality?  it can be
citizen kane.  of course, it can also be heaven's gate or one from the
heart.  but, i'll take the highs and lows over humdrum middle. in
politics we can do with middle of the roaders but not in art.  we need
mavericks, tyrants, loons, rebels, and visionaries. i wouldn't want
peckinpah or godard as a politician but i wouldn't want kerry or dubya
as filmmaker.

you is partly right but not entirely.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

5. i think citizen kane is the crucial film in the 'auteurist' debate.
at the time, no director had complete control over subject matter,
technique, artistic freedom, at least not since the silent era.
citizen kane is a masterpiece of directorial vision though it would be
wrong to claim welles as the sole author. but he was the overriding
genius who brought and fused it altogether. it was auteurism in action
even before anyone coined the term auteurism.  what can a film be with
a strong director with vision, freedom, and personality?  it can be
citizen kane.  of course, it can also be heaven's gate or one from the
heart.  but, i'll take the highs and lows over humdrum middle. in
politics we can do with middle of the roaders but not in art.  we need
mavericks, tyrants, loons, rebels, and visionaries. i wouldn't want
peckinpah or godard as a politician but i wouldn't want kerry or dubya
as filmmaker.

you is partly right but not entirely.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

5. i think citizen kane is the crucial film in the 'auteurist' debate.
at the time, no director had complete control over subject matter,
technique, artistic freedom, at least not since the silent era.
citizen kane is a masterpiece of directorial vision though it would be
wrong to claim welles as the sole author. but he was the overriding
genius who brought and fused it altogether. it was auteurism in action
even before anyone coined the term auteurism.  what can a film be with
a strong director with vision, freedom, and personality?  it can be
citizen kane.  of course, it can also be heaven's gate or one from the
heart.  but, i'll take the highs and lows over humdrum middle. in
politics we can do with middle of the roaders but not in art.  we need
mavericks, tyrants, loons, rebels, and visionaries. i wouldn't want
peckinpah or godard as a politician but i wouldn't want kerry or dubya
as filmmaker.

you is partly right but not entirely.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

5. i think citizen kane is the crucial film in the 'auteurist' debate.
at the time, no director had complete control over subject matter,
technique, artistic freedom, at least not since the silent era.
citizen kane is a masterpiece of directorial vision though it would be
wrong to claim welles as the sole author. but he was the overriding
genius who brought and fused it altogether. it was auteurism in action
even before anyone coined the term auteurism.  what can a film be with
a strong director with vision, freedom, and personality?  it can be
citizen kane.  of course, it can also be heaven's gate or one from the
heart.  but, i'll take the highs and lows over humdrum middle. in
politics we can do with middle of the roaders but not in art.  we need
mavericks, tyrants, loons, rebels, and visionaries. i wouldn't want
peckinpah or godard as a politician but i wouldn't want kerry or dubya
as filmmaker.