>choral reef wrote in message
><7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268...@posting.google.com>...
>>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?

>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