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

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

dober...@dropsocal.rr.com

View profile

More options Jun 11 2004, 1:31 pm

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films

From: dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:31:01 GMT

Local: Fri, Jun 11 2004 1:31 pm

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
  

symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef) wrote:
>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.

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

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

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

Reply to author Forward