|
|
rec.arts.movies.past-films |
In article 4ibmc0d408edcpk8vjan8gne60q48bh...@4ax.com, >> The Cahiers crew succeeded in imprinting it on the popular imagination. > I think the privileging of directors predates Cahiers. When I watch a The most important thing Cahiers did was give the director
dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com at dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com stated:
> Chris Collins <raisinja...@earthlink.net> wrote: I think the public would afford the writer more consideration before
> 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.
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.
celebrity-capital, which goes a helluva long way, especially if you're a fat
bearded guy in a t-shirt and cap.