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

Message from discussion how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: odno...@hotmail.com (Emperor Gondo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Date: 11 Jun 2004 17:07:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <1b7c4400.0406111607.22743a69@posting.google.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <nlgic0dnmn8au4a76fvg0sdcoh18kleqrf@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.131.2.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1086998842 17571 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2004 00:07:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:07:22 +0000 (UTC)

dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com wrote in message news:<nlgic0dnmn8au4a76fvg0sdcoh18kleqrf@4ax.com>...
> 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 you mus surly know on barry lyndon the gaffer and sound guy was
maybe replaceable but not kuby.

> 
> >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!