choral reef <symphonic...@hotmail.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?