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!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2
From: George Peatty <pttyg47-1...@copper.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films,alt.movies,rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:30:41 -0500
Organization: http://newsguy.com
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <7uekc016dl1kh6vh96jjm90fg8h6hj3588@4ax.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <110620040003092894%nospam@noway.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-466.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:03:09 -0400, Heynony <nos...@noway.com> wrote:

>Why not ask who are the top ten auteurists and anti-auteurists in this
>newsgroup?

This whole discussion reminds me of how some look at pro football.  If the team loses,
it's the quarterback's fault; if the team wins, the quarterback gets the praise, the
publicity and the money.  It's not true for football, and it's not true for movies.  I
guess I'm not an auteur.