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!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!cyclone.socal.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: <4ibmc0d408edcpk8vjan8gne60q48bhjrm@4ax.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <BCF04EA6.8241%raisinjack9@earthlink.net>
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: 8
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:27:25 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.30.170.48
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1087057645 24.30.170.48 (Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:27:25 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:27:25 PDT
Organization: RoadRunner - West

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.