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

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!cyclone.southeast.rr.com!news-post.tampabay.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Message-ID: <nlgic0dnmn8au4a76fvg0sdcoh18kleqrf@4ax.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 29
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:31:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.30.170.48
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1086931861 24.30.170.48 (Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:31:01 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:31:01 PDT
Organization: RoadRunner - West

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