how come we still talk primarily about directors? - rec.arts.movies.past-films

Message from discussion how come we still talk primarily about directors?

Chris Collins

View profile

More options Jun 13 2004, 2:04 am

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films

From: Chris Collins <raisinja...@earthlink.net>

Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:04:55 GMT

Local: Sun, Jun 13 2004 2:04 am

Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

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

> Chris Collins <raisinja...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> The Cahiers crew succeeded in imprinting it on the popular imagination.

> 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.

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.

Reply to author Forward