Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
mike <m...@mike.com>
choral reef wrote in message
<7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268
...@posting.google.com>...
>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.
>when we like or dislike a ron howard film, we discuss it in terms of
>howard and not the writer, the editor, cinematographer.
>whether we like or dislike titanic or attack of the clones all comes
>down to how we think of lucas or cameron.
>i guess 'auteurists' are specifically crediting or blaming the
>director but how about anti-auteurists? do you guys mention the
>director in a comprehensive sense, as an embodiment of the entire
>creative process behind the movie?
>but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a
>prodiractortographeditorgaffer?
I agree it's a combination of all these ares that make a film. People tend
to focus on what they see or hear the most about. Hence the reason the
actors are often perceived as the talent behind the movies when they only
offer a piece to the puzzle. The directors names are so widely used as a
marketing tool along side the actors that if a movie performs poorly the
average person regards the director or actor as being the reason. I am
constantly amazed at the diffrence sound and music can make to a film.
mike
