> > some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others

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

> I would nominate myself as about #23 on the auteurist list, at best.
> Like a lukewarm agnostic who can't commit,  I have so many exceptions,
> footnotes, uncertainties and yes-buts to my belief in the theory that
> my status as a card-carrying auteurist has long since been revoked.

> Is there value to studying films grouped by director? Sure, often. Just
> like studying by genre; doesn't mean genre is the overwhelming be-all
> and end-all force driving the making of films, but it makes study
> managable and frequently enlightening. So I have just downgraded the
> theory to wishy-washy nebulousity. OTOH there are clearly Welles films,
> Fords, Capras, Hawks, Boettichers, etc. These men are artists every bit
> as much as the greatest painters who single-handedly produced their art
> (or supervised the brushes of their employees, students or
> apprentices). OTOH, despite immense bodies of exceptional films, are
> there Curtiz or Bacon films? Probably not; there are literally dozens
> of films by each of these guys where I simply can't find them at all.
> But I have a hard time understanding how, working under the same system
> and with the same craftsmen as dozens of other directors, they were so
> successful if they are not the artists primarily responsible for the
> product.  I've got so many other hands on this issue that I've just
> downgraded myself to #42 on the list. No commitment.