>
>
> What I've been trying to bring to this discussion is
> some semblance of concern for those elements of
> filmmaking can't be knee-jerkingly attributed to the
> director.

The concern has not been lacking among authentic auteurists. That's my
point. Your either/or situation that simply does not exist.

Most good director studies try as much as possible to trace the genesis
of a film through its writers. It is very difficult to determine what
Lamar Trotti contributed to films -- all the more so when people like
Will Rogers, Irwin Cobb and Ford were also on board. If documents and
memos and transcripts of discussions existed, this would be fabulous.
But I don't know of such materials. It was far easier to trace the
writing and scripts and treatments of Paisan or Roma cittą aperta with
their dozens of writers than with any Ford film: but I haven't had
access to recently available documents.

The attention to "auteur" directors has served to bring a lot of
attention to various films that would otherwise have been neglected, and
along with that attention, attention to the writers. Would Hermann
Mankiewicz be so well known if Hathaway had directed Kane? This is not
to denigrate writers, only to point out that, as I said, screenwriters
have profitted from the sun of auteurism. Screenwriters are also
auteurs. No one ever denied this, least of all Truffaut, Ford or me.

>
>
> In my opinion there are very few real auteurs. Fellini
> and Hitchcock certainly qualify, but I wouldn't call
> my favorite director of all time, Patrice Chereau, an
> autuer.

You can define "auteur" anyway you like; everybody else does. But when
you start accusing "auteurists" of these terrible crimes, I take it
personally. Besides, it's not true, just not true.

Myself, I think that if a hundred people contributed to a film in ways
that leave trace of their personality, then each of those hundred people
is an auteur. Ford said it was wrong to compare directors to writers,
that it is more appropriate to compare them to architects. But others
directors do it all themselves...

The question isn't if someone is an "auteur." It's whether their
artists and what the peculiar nature of their art is. For me, any great
artist entirely redefines "cinema."

>
>
> There ae a host of really good and really better than
> just good directors who aren't auteurs.
>
> And there are more ways of looking at a film that
> "through" it's director.

Again, you're shadow boxing with non-existent demons. Nobody worth
listening to ever made any statements stating otherwise. Least of all
any authentic auteurist.